Access to general obstetrics and gynecology care among Medicaid beneficiaries and the privately insured: a nationwide mystery caller study in the USA.

BACKGROUND: The mean wait time for new patient appointments has been growing across specialties, including obstetrics and gynecology, in recent years. This study aimed to assess the impact of insurance type (Medicaid versus commercial insurance) on new patient appointment wait times in general obstetrics and gynecology practices. METHODS: A cross-sectional study used covert mystery calls to general obstetrician gynecologists. Physicians were selected from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists directory and stratified by districts to ensure nationwide representation. Wait times for new patient appointments were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Regardless of insurance type, the mean wait time for all obstetrician gynecologists was 29.9 business days. Medicaid patients experienced a marginally longer wait time of 4.8% (Ratio: 1.048). While no statistically significant difference in wait times based on insurance type was observed (P=0.39), the data revealed other impactful factors. Younger physicians and those in university-based practices had longer wait times. The gender of the physician also influenced wait times, with female physicians having a mean wait time of 34.7 days compared to 22.7 days for male physicians (P=0.03). Additionally, geographical variations were noted, with physicians in American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists District I (Atlantic Provinces, CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) having the longest mean wait times and those in District III (DE, NJ, PA) the shortest. CONCLUSIONS: While the type of insurance did not significantly influence the wait times for general obstetrics and gynecology appointments, physician demographic and geographic factors did.

Medicaid coverage and access to obstetrics and gynecology subspecialists: findings from a national mystery caller study in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Previous research suggests that access to healthcare may influence the diagnosis and treatment of obstetrical and gynecologic pathologies. Audit studies, a single-blinded and patient-centered design, have been employed to measure access to care for health services. To date, no study has assessed the dimensions of access to obstetrics and gynecologic subspecialty care based on insurance type (Medicaid vs commercial). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the mean appointment wait time for a new patient visit to female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, gynecologic oncology, maternal-fetal medicine, and reproductive endocrinology and infertility when presenting with Medicaid vs commercial insurance. STUDY DESIGN: Each subspecialty medical society has a patient-facing physician directory of physicians across the United States. Of note, 800 unique physicians were randomly selected from the directories (200 per subspecialty). Of the 800 physicians, each physician was called twice. The caller presented with Medicaid or, in a separate call, with Blue Cross Blue Shield. The order in which the calls were placed was randomized. The caller asked for the soonest appointment available for respective medical conditions based on subspecialty: stress urinary incontinence, new-onset pelvic mass, preconceptual counseling after an autologous kidney transplant, and primary infertility. RESULTS: From 800 physicians initially contacted, 477 responded to at least 1 call in 49 states plus the District of Columbia. The mean appointment wait time was 20.3 business days (standard deviation, ±18.6). A significant difference was found in new patient appointment wait times by type of insurance, with 44% longer wait time for Medicaid (ratio, 1.44; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-1.54; P<.001). When the interaction between insurance type and subspecialty was added to the model, it was also highly significant (P<.01). More specifically, Medicaid patients in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery had a longer wait time than commercially insured patients. Patients seeking care in maternal-fetal medicine had the least difference, but Medicaid-insured patient wait times were still longer than commercial-insured patient wait times. CONCLUSION: Typically, a patient can expect to wait 20.3 days for a new patient appointment with a board-certified obstetrics and gynecology subspecialist. Callers presenting with Medicaid insurance experienced significantly longer new patient appointment wait times than callers with commercial insurance.

Impact of aspirin on fetal growth in diabetic pregnancies according to White classification.

BACKGROUND: Current US Preventive Services Task Force and other guidelines recommend low-dose aspirin for all pregnant women with pregestational diabetes mellitus to prevent preeclampsia and small-for-gestational-age birth. The Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units High-Risk Aspirin trial did not show a reduction in either preeclampsia or small-for-gestational-age birth in diabetic women. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to reassess the impact of aspirin on fetal growth in diabetic pregnancies overall and according to White classification. We hypothesized that aspirin improves fetal growth in pregnancies with vascular complications of diabetes at highest risk for poor fetal growth. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted secondary analysis of the cohort of diabetic women enrolled in the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units High-Risk Aspirin trial. The impact of aspirin prophylaxis on birthweight was assessed in the overall cohort and in 2 groups categorized according to White classification as nonvascular (White class B, C, D) or vascular (White class R, F, RF). Birthweight was converted to Z-score normalized for gestational age at delivery and neonatal sex. Difference in birthweight Z-score between aspirin and placebo was tested with a 2-sample t test. The effect of vascular group, aspirin vs placebo randomization, and the interaction of the 2 on normalized birthweight percentile was estimated with linear regression with a multivariable model including covariates body mass index, tobacco use, race, and parity. The percentage of small and large-for-gestational-age newborns born to aspirin- vs placebo-treated women was compared between groups using Pearson exact χ2 analysis, and an adjusted model was estimated by logistic regression. RESULTS: All 444 women with pregestational diabetes and complete outcome data were included (53 vascular, 391 nonvascular). Aspirin was significantly associated with a higher birthweight Z-score (0.283; 95% confidence interval, 0.023-0.544) in the overall cohort (P = .03). In the adjusted model, the association of aspirin with higher birthweight Z-score was confined to neonates of women with nonvascular diabetes (0.341; 95% confidence interval, 0.677-0.006; P = .044). An opposite but nonsignificant effect was observed among neonates from women with vascular diabetes (-0.416; 95% confidence interval, -1.335 to 0.503; P = .6). This difference in the relationship of aspirin and birthweight Z-score by vascular group was significant at P = .046. Aspirin-randomized women with nonvascular diabetes had more large-for-gestational-age births than those treated with placebo (40.2 vs 26.6%; P = .005). Small-for-gestational-age births occurred at the same frequency with aspirin vs placebo randomization in the overall cohort (8% in each group) and in each vascular group. CONCLUSION: Inconsistent with our hypothesis, aspirin did not reduce small-for-gestational-age births in the overall cohort or either group. The increased incidence of large-for-gestational-age infants in aspirin-treated diabetic gestations is of potential concern given the known increased maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with macrosomia.

Perceptions of a reproductive health self-assessment tool (RH-SAT) in an urban community health center.

OBJECTIVE: Physicians face barriers to incorporating recommended contraceptive and preconception health services, including reproductive life plans (RLPs), into primary care. With promising findings from early studies of RLPs, we examined the impact of a novel reproductive health self-assessment tool (RH-SAT) on reproductive health counseling. METHODS: We created the RH-SAT for an urban community health center population and trained providers on preconception and contraceptive guidelines. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to assess perceptions of the tool with 22 patients and with all 15 providers at the clinic. Transcripts were thematically analyzed using a grounded theoretical approach. RESULTS: Patients and providers reported the RH-SAT presented new and thought-provoking material that promoted patient participation and facilitated counseling. CONCLUSION: This RH-SAT is acceptable and useful to patients and providers in an underserved urban health center. In accordance with Medical Communication Alignment Theory (MCAT), increased patient participation in reproductive health discussions may alert providers to patient interest in these topics. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This study provides preliminary evidence that the RH-SAT can help overcome barriers to reproductive health counseling in primary care. Providers may wish to incorporate tools into their practice to improve communication with patients about their reproductive health goals.