Effects of Advanced Practice Providers on Single-specialty Surgical Practice

Utilization and Timing of Cystoscopy for Hematuria Evaluation by Advanced Practice Providers and Urologists

OBJECTIVE

To characterize differences between urologists and advanced practice providers (APPs) in the utilization of cystoscopy for hematuria.

METHODS

We identified patients initially evaluated for hematuria by a urologist or urology APP between 2015 and 2020 in the MarketScan Research Databases. We determined whether they received a cystoscopy within 6 months of their urology visit and the number of days until cystoscopy. We used multivariable regression to analyze the association between these outcomes and whether the urology clinician was an advanced practice registered nurse (APRN), physician assistant (PA), or urologist.

RESULTS

We identified 34,470 patients with microscopic hematuria and 17,328 patients with gross hematuria. Patients evaluated by urologists more often received a same-day cystoscopy than those evaluated by APPs (13% vs 5.8%). The odds that patients evaluated for microscopic and gross hematuria received a cystoscopy were 46.2% and 26.2% lower, respectively, if they were evaluated by an APRN vs a urologist. Patients seeing an APRN for microscopic and gross hematuria also waited approximately 7 and 14 days longer for their cystoscopy, respectively. No differences were observed for patients evaluated by PAs vs urologists.

CONCLUSION

Patients evaluated for hematuria by an APRN were less likely to receive a cystoscopy and had a longer wait until the procedure compared to those evaluated by a urologist; however, no differences were observed between PAs and urologists. Better understanding APP integration into urology clinics is warranted.

Industry Payments to Urologists and Urologic Advanced Practice Providers in 2021

OBJECTIVE

To compare industry payments from drug and medical device companies to urologists and urologic advanced practice providers (APPs) in 2021.

METHODS

We used the 2020 Medicare Data on Provider Practice and Specialty file to identify single-specialty urology practices, defined as those where the majority of physicians were urologists. We then used the Open Payments Program Year 2021 data to summarize the value and number of industry payments to urologists and APPs, including nurse practitioners and physician assistants, in these practices. We calculated the total value and number of payments and median total value and number of payments per provider for urologists and urologic APPs.

RESULTS

We identified 4418 urologists and 1099 APPs working in single-specialty urology practices in 2021 (Table 1). Of these, 3646 (87%) urologists received at least one industry payment, totaling $14,755,003 from 116,039 payments, and 954 urologic APPs (87%) received at least one industry payment, including 463 nurse practitioners (85%), totaling $401,283 from 13,035 payments, and 491 physician assistants (89%), totaling $543,429 from 14,626 payments. We observed significantly greater median total value and number of payments per provider for urologists ($620 and 24 payments) compared to urologic APPs ($473 and 21 payments; P < .001 and P = .017, respectively).

CONCLUSION

A similar percentage of urologists and urologic APPs received industry payments in 2021. While urologists received a higher total number and total value of payments in 2021, urologic APPs were a common target of industry marketing payments.

Projected US Urology Workforce per Capita, 2020-2060

Importance

Projections to 2035 have demonstrated concern regarding a worsening urology workforce shortage.

Objective

To project the size and demographic characteristics of the urology workforce per capita into 2060 and to anticipate the timing and degree of the impending urology workforce shortage.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This population-based cross-sectional study used the 2019 American Urological Association Annual Census data and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's Data Resource Book from 2007 to 2018. The cohort included practicing urologists in 2019. US Census data were used to approximate the projected US population. Data analysis was performed from June 2020 to March 2021.

Exposures

Continued growth stock and flow model of 13.8% and stagnant growth model of 0% increase of the incoming urology workforce with cohort projection per projected US population.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was urology workforce projection per the population aged 65 years and older. Urology workforce projections per capita and demographic characteristics of the urology workforce up to 2060 were calculated under guided assumptions with 2 stock and flow models.

Results

In 2019, there were 13 044 urologists (11 758 men [90.1.%]; 1286 women [9.9%]; median age range, 55-59 years), with 3.99 urologists per 100 000 persons and 311 new urologists entering the workforce. In a continued growth model, 2030 will have the lowest number of urologists per capita of 3.3 urologists per 100 000 persons, and recovery to baseline will occur by 2050. There are 23.8 urologists per 100 000 persons aged 65 years and older in 2020, which decreases to 15.8 urologists per 100 000 persons aged 65 years and older in 2035 and never recovers to its baseline level by 2060. In a stagnant growth model, there will be a continued decrease of urologists per capita to 3.1 urologists per 100 000 persons by 2060. There is a continued decrease in per capita urologists at each time point, with 13.1 urologists per 100 000 persons aged 65 years and older by 2060.

Conclusions and Relevance

With the impending urology workforce shortage, there will be an exaggerated shortage of total urologists per persons aged 65 years and older in both models. This projection highlights the need for structural changes and advocacy to maximize the available urology workforce.