Dataset Information

Differences in Access to Outpatient Care in the State of Ohio for an Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Patient.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To evaluate the impact of either Medicaid or private insurance on securing an appointment in an outpatient orthopaedic clinic and to determine waiting periods until an appointment as well as the relationship between population metrics and access to care.

Methods

A total of 88 clinics were called. There were 2 fictitious patients, one with an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and the other with a medial meniscus injury, with each calling as having Medicaid or private insurance. Clinic responses were recorded for whether an appointment could be made, when it was scheduled, and with what provider.

Results

A total of 32 of 88 (36.4%) of the clinics scheduled an appointment for the Medicaid patient reporting an ACL injury versus 71 of 88 (80.6%) of the clinics that scheduled an appointment for the same patient with private insurance. A total of 34 of 88 (38.6%) of the clinics scheduled an appointment for the Medicaid patient reporting a medial meniscus injury versus 71 of 88 (80.6%) of the clinics that scheduled an appointment for the same patient with private insurance. Mean waiting period for ACL patients with Medicaid was 8.6 days and 4.5 days for patients with private insurance, whereas medial meniscus patients with Medicaid was 7.7 days and 5.4 days for patients with private insurance. In total, 60 of the 66 (90.9%) patients with Medicaid who received an appointment were scheduled to see the orthopaedic surgeon (30 in both ACL and medial meniscus groups). In total, 126 (71.6%) patients with Medicaid and 34 (19.3%) patients with private insurance of the 176 encounters faced barriers to scheduling an appointment. Rural communities were associated with appointment acceptance for patients with Medicaid (P < .05), and patients with private insurance had successful appointment scheduling in all community types (P < .05).

Conclusions

This study suggests that patients with Medicaid are less likely to receive orthopaedic care for multiple sports medicine injuries, are more likely to encounter barriers, and endure longer waiting periods. There are different patterns of insurance acceptance according to population metrics.

Clinical relevance

Serves as a baseline evaluation of the difference in access to health care that may be impacted by increases in Medicaid coverage and/or changes in government policies.

SUBMITTER: Matar RN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7879190 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Differences in Access to Outpatient Care in the State of Ohio for an Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Patient.

Matar Robert N RN Cotton Colin D F CDF Schramm Violet T VT Shah Nihar S NS Grawe Brian M BM

Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation 20201225 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>To evaluate the impact of either Medicaid or private insurance on securing an appointment in an outpatient orthopaedic clinic and to determine waiting periods until an appointment as well as the relationship between population metrics and access to care.<h4>Methods</h4>A total of 88 clinics were called. There were 2 fictitious patients, one with an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and the other with a medial meniscus injury, with each calling as having Medicaid or private ...[more]

PMID: 33615241

Similar Datasets

Project description:The goal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was to expand patient access to health care. Since the rollout of the PPACA, Medicaid patients have demonstrated difficulty obtaining appointments in some specialty care settings.To assess the effect of insurance type (Medicaid and private) on patient access to orthopaedic surgery sports medicine specialists for a semiurgent evaluation of a likely operative bucket-handle meniscus tear. The study was designed to determine whether disparities in access exist since the PPACA rollout.Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.The design was to call 180 orthopaedic surgery sports medicine specialists in 6 representative states (California, Ohio, New York, Florida, Texas, and North Carolina) between June 2015 and December 2015. An appointment was requested for the caller's fictitious 25-year-old-brother who had suffered a bucket-handle meniscus tear. Each office was called twice to assess the ease of obtaining an appointment: once for patients with Medicaid and once for patients with private insurance. For each call, data pertaining to whether an appointment was given, wait times, and barriers to receiving an appointment were recorded.A total of 177 surgeons were called within the study period. Overall, 27.1% of offices scheduled an appointment for a patient with Medicaid, compared with 91.2% (P < .0001) for a patient with private insurance. Medicaid patients were significantly more likely to be denied an appointment due to lack of referral compared with private patients (40.2% vs 3.7%, P < .0001), and Medicaid patients were more likely to experience longer wait times for an appointment (15 vs 12 days, P < .029). No significant differences were found in patients' access to orthopaedic surgery sports medicine specialists between Medicaid-expanded and -nonexpanded states. Medicaid reimbursement for knee arthroscopy with meniscus repair was not significantly correlated with appointment success rate or patient waiting periods.Despite the passage of the PPACA, patients with Medicaid have reduced access to care. In addition, patients with Medicaid confront more barriers to receiving appointments than patients with private insurance and wait longer for an appointment.

Project description:IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to determine which components of sports medicine fellowships are most important to applicants when reviewing fellowship websites during the application process.MethodsAn anonymous survey was distributed to 492 fellowship applicants from the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 cycles. The survey included questions about the importance of including components of fellow education, recruitment, and experience on program websites. The weighted average of responses determined each component's rank, with 5 being "very important" and 1 being "not at all important." Responses were analyzed by application cycle, current position, and sex using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.ResultsSixty-five applicants participated in the survey and completed the demographics section, resulting in a 13.2% response rate. According to participants, the most important components to include on fellowship websites were exposure to advanced operative sports medicine techniques (weighted average, 4.62), complexity of cases performed (4.52), and number of cases performed (4.50). Analysis demonstrated statistically significant differences in opinion between application cycles for flexibility for conducting a remote interview (P = .0074), jobs obtained by previous fellows (P = .019), national rank of department (P = .021), program's geographic location (P = .026), protected academic time (P = .038), current positions for criteria for fellows' performance evaluations (P = .028), program's geographic location (P = .0097), and protected academic time (P = .0079). There were statistically significant differences in opinion between current positions regarding flexibility for conducting a remote interview (P = .0026), jobs obtained by previous fellows (P = .012), and national rank of department (P = .0013).ConclusionsOrthopaedic sports medicine fellowship applicants believe that it is most important to include information about the volume and complexity of fellows' cases and their day-to-day commitments on program websites.Clinical relevanceThis information would enable applicants to identify programs that will support professional development and allow program directors to communicate expectations.

Project description:PurposeTo survey orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship program directors to determine the current research productivity of both fellows and faculty in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs in the United States.MethodsAn anonymous 18-question survey was distributed via e-mail to all 95 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship program directors in the United States. Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis. Questions included whether fellows are required to complete a certain number of projects during their fellowship year and whether fellows have protected research time.ResultsOf the programs, 31 (33%) responded to the survey. Twenty-four programs (80%) require fellows to complete 1 to 4 projects. Twenty-one programs (71%) provide 4 to 8 hours of weekly protected research time. Twenty-four programs (77%) publish 1 to 2 manuscripts per fellow during the fellowship. Twenty-two programs (71%) have fellows work on 1 to 2 projects at a time. Annually, 26 programs (84%) give 0 to 5 podium presentations, 24 (80%) present 0 to 5 posters, and 15 (48%) report 0 to 5 publications. Twenty-four programs (77%) have research fellows and/or assistants to help with research. The presence of dedicated research assistants and more than 25 annual fellowship program publications were found to be useful screening data for more than 2 and more than 4 average publications per fellow, respectively.ConclusionsThe research productivity of orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs may be an important consideration for applicants. Applicants who desire to be productive in research during their fellowship year should consider programs with dedicated research assistants and/or programs that publish more than 25 times annually.Clinical relevanceThis is a descriptive epidemiologic study that helps define the research productivity landscape in orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships. A more accurate understanding of sports medicine fellowship research experience may facilitate a better match between a program's research expectations and an applicant's research interests.

Project description:Over the last year, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread across the world as a global pandemic, bringing unprecedented changes to the healthcare landscape for patients and physicians. Medical trainees have been similarly affected, as medical schools throughout the United States have implemented remote learning-based curriculums and withdrawn third- and fourth-year students from in-hospital clerkships. Of particular importance is the impact of COVID-19 on current orthopaedic surgery residents applying to subspecialty fellowship programs. Because of the highly transmissible nature of the virus and current social distancing restrictions, orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship interviews are being held virtually during the 2020-2021 application cycle. This transition to videoconference interviewing may de-emphasize an applicant's unique personality or interpersonal interactions that are traditionally captured in a variety of settings during the interview day. In turn, this may lead to increased prioritization of various aspects of the application, such as the applicant's residency program, letters of recommendation, and research productivity. Matching to a sports medicine fellowship program is an inherently competitive process and the COVID-19 pandemic presents novel challenges to orthopaedic residents in their efforts to successfully match. The purpose of this review is to describe the changes made to the orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship interview process resulting from COVID-19 during the 2020-2021 application cycle and discuss how these changes may impact the future fellowship application process. This review discusses the changes made to the orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship interview process caused by COVID-19 during the 2020-2021 application cycle. This review also assesses how such changes may impact the future application process and proposes potential adaptations to the current virtual interview format if it should become the new standard moving forward.

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the process of applying to orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships from the applicant's perspective, with a focus on number of program applications, interviews, interview day importance, and financial burden.MethodsAn anonymous electronic survey was distributed to all orthopaedic surgery residents who applied to orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships in the United States in 2016 and 2017. The survey contained 26 questions, with 10 pertaining to applicant demographics, accolades, and examination scores. A follow up e-mail was distributed at 2 and 4 weeks to increase participation.ResultsThe survey was distributed to 453 sports medicine fellowship applicants; 148 (34.1%) completed the survey. Of the respondents, 130 (87.8%) were male and 18 (12.2%) were female. When analyzing United States Medical Licensing Examination scores, respondents who scored above a 251 on Step 2 CK were more likely to receive more than 20 interviews compared with those who scored lower (P = .013). Previous collegiate or professional athlete status did not influence the number of interviews received. In total, 94 of 147 (64.0%) respondents applied to more than 20 programs, and 73 respondents (49.7%) attended between 11 and 15 interviews. The majority of respondents spent between $4001 and $6000 (49; 33.1%) throughout the application process. Interaction with faculty and case volume/complexity were the most important factors in ranking programs.ConclusionsThe majority of orthopaedic surgery residents pursue at least 1 year of fellowship training following residency, with sports medicine being one of the most popular specialties. The application process for sports medicine fellowships is complex, competitive, and a financial burden for applicants. Most applicants apply to more than 20 programs, spend between $4000 and $6,000 over the course of the application process, and value faculty interaction and case volume/complexity over other factors associated with a program.Clinical relevanceAs other surgical fellowships have detailed their application process from the applicant's perspective, there remains a need for increased transparency of the sports medicine fellowship application in order to offer additional insight and guidance for future applicants.

Project description:PurposeTo determine how well the orthopaedic sports medicine literature reported sex-specific analysis (SSA) in 2011 and 2016.MethodsThe 3 highest-impact orthopaedic sports medicine subspecialty journals (American Journal of Sports Medicine; Arthroscopy; and Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy) were selected for review. Two independent investigators reviewed all journal issues published during 2 different calendar years (2011 and 2016). All randomized controlled, prospective and retrospective group, and case-control studies were included. Studies were stratified into those that involved SSA, where sex was a variable in a multifactorial statistical model, and those that only reported sex as a demographic characteristic or used sex-matched groups without further analysis.ResultsA total of 960 studies evaluating 3,400,569 patients met criteria and were included in this review. Although 44.4% of the overall study population was female, only 293 (30.5%) studies included patient sex as variable in a multifactorial statistical model. The proportion of studies that performed SSA did not differ between 2011 (29.6%) and 2016 (31.1%; P = .607), although publications from American Journal of Sports Medicine were likely to report SSA (P < .05). Of the 293 studies that reported SSA, 91 (31%) demonstrated a significant difference in outcomes. The most commonly reported differences were in outcomes following anterior cruciate ligament, medial patellofemoral ligament, and posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; autograft preparation; postoperative use of opiates following arthroscopy; and recovery after sports-related concussions.ConclusionsAlthough most sports medicine studies include approximately 50% female and 50% male patients, statistical analysis differentiating the 2 subsets is not routinely performed. Only 30.5% of all studies performed SSA, 31% of which reported a statistically significant difference in the data when comparing outcomes between male and female patients with the same treatment modalities.Clinical relevanceThe current study demonstrates that the orthopaedic sports medicine subspecialty literature is lacking in reporting SSA, and that there has been minimal improvement over a 5-year time period. In addition, this study highlights the high percentage of significant findings within the studies that performed SSA and underscores the differences in sex-specific injury patterns and treatment outcomes.

Project description:PurposeTo determine the objective characteristics of fellowship directors (FDs) in orthopaedic sports medicine by focusing on the demographics, academic background, institutional history, research experience, and professional affiliations of FDs in this field.MethodsData was collected for each FD via institutional biographies or publicly available curriculum vitae (CV). The data collected for each FD included age, gender, race/ethnicity, previous training institutions, residency and fellowship graduation years, additional advanced degrees, military affiliation, institutional loyalty, year hired by current institution, career timeline, Scopus H-index, number of publications, and total number of citations.ResultsOf the 88 FDs, 87 (98.9%) were male and 1 (1.1%) was female. The mean age for all FDs was 54.7 years (± 9.1 standard deviation). The majority of FDs were White (n = 80; 90.9%). The mean Scopus H-index, total number of publications, and total number of citations were 22.5 ± 16.6, 90.0 ± 91.6, and 2773.9 ± 3962.9, respectively. On average, it took 9.5 ± 7.3 years from fellowship graduation until FD appointment. Additionally, the mean number of years of employment or affiliation with the current institution was 17.2 ± 9.4, and the mean number of years in an FD role was 10.9 ± 9.3.ConclusionOrthopaedic sports medicine fellowship directors are largely distinguished by their high level of research productivity and accomplishment. Additionally, orthopaedic training pedigree seems to play a role in FD role attainment, with a handful of orthopaedic residency and sports medicine fellowship programs producing a large percentage of current FDs. Finally, FDs are overwhelmingly white males with little female or minority representation.Clinical relevanceThis study outlines some of the most important characteristics among orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship directors and identifies racial and gender disparities within this population of leaders that may have detrimental effects on the field as a whole.

Dataset Information

Differences in Access to Outpatient Care in the State of Ohio for an Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Patient.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Publications

Differences in Access to Outpatient Care in the State of Ohio for an Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Patient.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure