Forecast warns of urologist shortage

SAN DIEGO – The number of urologists practicing in the United States is expected to decrease by 29% between 2009 and 2025, according to a new analysis.

"It’s one thing if the demand for urologists is going up and the supply is stable, but to have the demand go up and the supply almost falling off of a cliff is worrisome," Dr. Raj S. Pruthi said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association. "The people who will be hardest hit by this are ones who already struggle with access: those who live in rural communities."

Dr. Pruthi and his colleagues used stock and flow models, starting with the supply of urologists in 2009. They added new entrants from the graduate medical education (GME) pipeline and subtracted attrition from training and from the workforce due to retirement or breaks from practice. The forecast model estimates a 29% head count reduction and a 25% decrease in the full-time equivalent (FTE) supply of urologists between 2009 and 2025. The projected decrease is more than four times greater than the Health Resources and Services Administration’s Physician Supply Model, which estimated a 7% decrease over the same time period.

Dr. Pruthi warned that none of the proposed changes to GME (recommendations from the Council of Graduate Medical Education’s 16th report or a recent proposal to Congress) will increase GME enough to offset the projected decline in head count. "GME funding has been capped since 1996," he said. "We’re setting forth a recipe for a very big problem that we’re going to have for future generations in terms of who’s going to take care of" a rapidly aging population.

As the Affordable Health Care Act takes shape, "one thing that’s not been considered adequately is physician supply," added Dr. Pruthi, chief of urologic surgery at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "Are there enough of us to help care for the population? That needs to be part of the calculus. We need to do efficient, appropriate care. We need to cut health care costs, but we have to remember our physician supply."

The shrinking number of urologists could affect mortality rates, as research has demonstrated an association between a higher density of urologists in a defined area and lower mortality from prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer. "As supply contracts, rural areas are likely to have an even greater loss of urologic surgeons since these areas have a higher percentage of surgeons closer to retirement age than urban areas," the researchers noted in their abstract. "The result may decrease access to screening, medical and surgical treatment for urologic conditions."

Dr. Pruthi acknowledged that the ability to predict physician demand is an imprecise science. However, "there is indirect data to suggest that our demand isn’t going to go away. It’s only going to go up with that rising incidence and with the rising number of aging baby boomers. Second, we don’t know the appropriate ratio of supply and demand. If you have limited supply, you have limited access. Is our culture accepting of that? Some of these limitations to access may have health consequences."

He and his associates plan to conduct more detailed work on the projection model, including the impact of increasing numbers of women entering the urology field. "About 5% of urologists are female, but in current residency matching the numbers are about 25% female," he said. "What impact will that have? We don’t know yet."

Dr. Pruthi said that he had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – The number of urologists practicing in the United States is expected to decrease by 29% between 2009 and 2025, according to a new analysis.

"It’s one thing if the demand for urologists is going up and the supply is stable, but to have the demand go up and the supply almost falling off of a cliff is worrisome," Dr. Raj S. Pruthi said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association. "The people who will be hardest hit by this are ones who already struggle with access: those who live in rural communities."

Dr. Pruthi and his colleagues used stock and flow models, starting with the supply of urologists in 2009. They added new entrants from the graduate medical education (GME) pipeline and subtracted attrition from training and from the workforce due to retirement or breaks from practice. The forecast model estimates a 29% head count reduction and a 25% decrease in the full-time equivalent (FTE) supply of urologists between 2009 and 2025. The projected decrease is more than four times greater than the Health Resources and Services Administration’s Physician Supply Model, which estimated a 7% decrease over the same time period.

Dr. Pruthi warned that none of the proposed changes to GME (recommendations from the Council of Graduate Medical Education’s 16th report or a recent proposal to Congress) will increase GME enough to offset the projected decline in head count. "GME funding has been capped since 1996," he said. "We’re setting forth a recipe for a very big problem that we’re going to have for future generations in terms of who’s going to take care of" a rapidly aging population.

As the Affordable Health Care Act takes shape, "one thing that’s not been considered adequately is physician supply," added Dr. Pruthi, chief of urologic surgery at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "Are there enough of us to help care for the population? That needs to be part of the calculus. We need to do efficient, appropriate care. We need to cut health care costs, but we have to remember our physician supply."

The shrinking number of urologists could affect mortality rates, as research has demonstrated an association between a higher density of urologists in a defined area and lower mortality from prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer. "As supply contracts, rural areas are likely to have an even greater loss of urologic surgeons since these areas have a higher percentage of surgeons closer to retirement age than urban areas," the researchers noted in their abstract. "The result may decrease access to screening, medical and surgical treatment for urologic conditions."

Dr. Pruthi acknowledged that the ability to predict physician demand is an imprecise science. However, "there is indirect data to suggest that our demand isn’t going to go away. It’s only going to go up with that rising incidence and with the rising number of aging baby boomers. Second, we don’t know the appropriate ratio of supply and demand. If you have limited supply, you have limited access. Is our culture accepting of that? Some of these limitations to access may have health consequences."

He and his associates plan to conduct more detailed work on the projection model, including the impact of increasing numbers of women entering the urology field. "About 5% of urologists are female, but in current residency matching the numbers are about 25% female," he said. "What impact will that have? We don’t know yet."

Dr. Pruthi said that he had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – The number of urologists practicing in the United States is expected to decrease by 29% between 2009 and 2025, according to a new analysis.

"It’s one thing if the demand for urologists is going up and the supply is stable, but to have the demand go up and the supply almost falling off of a cliff is worrisome," Dr. Raj S. Pruthi said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association. "The people who will be hardest hit by this are ones who already struggle with access: those who live in rural communities."

Dr. Pruthi and his colleagues used stock and flow models, starting with the supply of urologists in 2009. They added new entrants from the graduate medical education (GME) pipeline and subtracted attrition from training and from the workforce due to retirement or breaks from practice. The forecast model estimates a 29% head count reduction and a 25% decrease in the full-time equivalent (FTE) supply of urologists between 2009 and 2025. The projected decrease is more than four times greater than the Health Resources and Services Administration’s Physician Supply Model, which estimated a 7% decrease over the same time period.

Dr. Pruthi warned that none of the proposed changes to GME (recommendations from the Council of Graduate Medical Education’s 16th report or a recent proposal to Congress) will increase GME enough to offset the projected decline in head count. "GME funding has been capped since 1996," he said. "We’re setting forth a recipe for a very big problem that we’re going to have for future generations in terms of who’s going to take care of" a rapidly aging population.

As the Affordable Health Care Act takes shape, "one thing that’s not been considered adequately is physician supply," added Dr. Pruthi, chief of urologic surgery at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "Are there enough of us to help care for the population? That needs to be part of the calculus. We need to do efficient, appropriate care. We need to cut health care costs, but we have to remember our physician supply."

The shrinking number of urologists could affect mortality rates, as research has demonstrated an association between a higher density of urologists in a defined area and lower mortality from prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer. "As supply contracts, rural areas are likely to have an even greater loss of urologic surgeons since these areas have a higher percentage of surgeons closer to retirement age than urban areas," the researchers noted in their abstract. "The result may decrease access to screening, medical and surgical treatment for urologic conditions."

Dr. Pruthi acknowledged that the ability to predict physician demand is an imprecise science. However, "there is indirect data to suggest that our demand isn’t going to go away. It’s only going to go up with that rising incidence and with the rising number of aging baby boomers. Second, we don’t know the appropriate ratio of supply and demand. If you have limited supply, you have limited access. Is our culture accepting of that? Some of these limitations to access may have health consequences."

He and his associates plan to conduct more detailed work on the projection model, including the impact of increasing numbers of women entering the urology field. "About 5% of urologists are female, but in current residency matching the numbers are about 25% female," he said. "What impact will that have? We don’t know yet."

Dr. Pruthi said that he had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

[email protected]