3.9 Article

Trends in Medical Oncology Outreach Clinics in Rural Areas

Journal

JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY PRACTICE
Volume 10, Issue 5, Pages E313-E320

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JOP.2013.001350

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To examine the long-term trends in medical oncology outreach in Iowa, a state with a high proportion of rural residents, and to assess the involvement of the 2011 Iowa oncology workforce in visiting consultant clinics using a unique data source. Methods: Outreach locations and clinic frequencies are tracked annually in the Visiting Medical Consultant Database (Carver College of Medicine) along with the physicians' primary practice locations. Growth in the number of cities served and number of clinic days from 1989 to 2011 was analyzed using joinpoint analysis. Data from 2011 were used to estimate the trip length for participating oncologists. Results: The number of rural cities served by medical oncology outreach increased significantly between 1989 and 1996. Clinic days grew significantly in two periods: 1989 to 1998 and 2003 to 2005. In 2011, more than 2,100 clinic days were provided in 66 sites (95% of clinic days in rural areas). Almost half of all Iowa-based oncologists regularly participate in outreach. Oncologists staffing visiting consultant clinics in Iowa drive an estimated 21,000 miles per month. Conclusions: For more than 20 years, visiting medical oncologists have brought cancer care to rural patients in Iowa. Access to cancer care in rural Iowa (ie, clinic days) increased significantly in the post-Medicare Modernization Act period (after 2005). High participation rates and travel burdens may influence oncologist training and retention strategies. Because the Affordable Care Act seeks to expand access for vulnerable populations (eg, rural elderly), it is critical to better understand the existing system of rural cancer care delivery.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available