US Primary Care vs Specialty Care Trainee Positions and Physician Incomes: Trends From 2001 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Much of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and subsequent US health care policies were designed to address deficiencies in health care access and enhance primary care services. How residency positions and physician incomes have changed in the post-ACA era is not well characterized. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the growth of US trainee positions and physician income, in the pre- vs post-ACA environment by specialty and among primary care vs specialty care. METHODS: Total resident complement by specialty and year was extracted from the National Graduate Medical Education (GME) Census and stratified into primary care vs specialty care. Median incomes were extracted from Medical Group Management Association surveys. Piecewise linear regression with interaction terms (pre-ACA, 2001-2010, vs post-ACA, 2011-2019) assessed growth rate by specialty and growth rate differences between primary care and specialty care. Sensitivity analyses were performed by focusing on family medicine and excluding additional GME positions contributed by the introduction of the 2015 single GME accreditation system. RESULTS: Resident complements increased for primary care (+0.16%/year pre-ACA to +2.06%/year post-ACA, P < .001) and specialty care (+1.49%/year to +2.07%/year, P = .005). Specialty care growth outpaced primary care pre-ACA (P < .001) but not post-ACA (P = .10). Family medicine had the largest increase in the pre- vs post-ACA era (-0.77%/year vs +2.09%/year, P < .001). Excluding positions contributed by the single GME accreditation system transition did not result in any statistically significant changes to the findings. Income growth increased for primary care (+0.84%/year to +1.37%/year, P = .044), but decreased for specialty care (+1.44%/year to +0.49%/year, P = .011). Specialty care income growth outpaced primary care pre-ACA (P < .001), but not post-ACA (P = .22). CONCLUSIONS: We found significant growth differences in resident complement and income among primary care versus specialty care in the pre-/post-ACA eras.

The Geography of Employment Outcomes for Radiation Oncology Graduates in 2019.

PURPOSE: The geographic distribution of practicing radiation oncologists is of concern for multiple stakeholders within the field. Employment outcomes of graduating residents can affect that distribution, and they are of major concern to current residents. Data investigating employment outcomes of recent graduates are sparse. We aimed to analyze the employment outcomes of the radiation oncology residency class of 2019. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using publicly available information, we identified the employment of 179 of 183 graduating residents in the class of 2019. For each, the place of employment, residency program, and medical school were geocoded using Google Maps. We used the rural-urban continuum code (RUCC) published by the United States Department of Agriculture to determine the rurality of each location and compared employment outcomes by RUCC and program size. RESULTS: Two thirds of graduates (66%) took a position in a county within a metropolitan area with a population greater than 1,000,000 people; only 3.4% took a position in a county outside of a metropolitan area. Graduates of smaller programs (≤6 residents) and those in smaller metropolitan areas were more likely to take positions in smaller metropolitan areas or nonmetropolitan areas. The geographic distance between location of employment and residency program did not significantly vary by program size or size of metropolitan area where a residency program was located. CONCLUSIONS: Among the class of 2019, a small proportion took positions in nonmetropolitan areas. Smaller programs and those in smaller metropolitan areas may be more likely to produce graduates that practice in similar settings, but those graduates might not do so locally. We advocate for a centralized, prospective data collection of employment outcomes for graduating residents to refine these analyses and to reduce employment prospect information asymmetry for trainees.