Objective The aim of this study was to assess the current and future adequacy of physiatrist supply in the United States. Design A 2019 online survey of board-certified physiatrists (n = 616 completed, 30.1% response) collected information about demographics, practice characteristics, hours worked, and retirement intentions. Microsimulation models projected future physiatrist supply and demand using data from the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, national and state population projections, American Community Survey, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, and other sources. Results Approximately 37% of 8853 active physiatrists indicate that their workload exceeds capacity, 59% indicate that workload is at capacity, and 4% indicate under capacity. These findings suggest a national shortfall of 940 (10.6%) physiatrists in 2017, with substantial geographic variation in supply adequacy. Projected growth in physiatrist supply from 2017 to 2030 approximately equals demand growth (2250 vs. 2390), suggesting that without changes in care delivery, the shortfall of physiatrists will persist, with a 1080 (9.7%) physiatrist shortfall in 2030. Conclusion Without an increase in physiatry residency positions, the current national shortfall of physiatrists is projected to persist. Although a projected increase in physiatrists’ use of advanced practice providers may help preserve access to comprehensive physiatry care, it is not expected to eliminate the shortfall.

No abstract

Objective The aim of the study was to describe the current physiatrist workforce in the United States. Design An online, cross-sectional survey of board-certified physiatrists in 2019 (N = 616 completed, 30.1% response) collected information about demographic and practice characteristics, including age, sex, practice area, practice setting, hours worked, patient characteristics, staffing, and work responsibilities. Physiatrists were stratified by substantive practice patterns using a cluster analysis approach. Survey responses were arrayed across the practice patterns and differences noted. Results The practice patterns identified included musculoskeletal/pain medicine, general/neurological rehabilitation, academic practice, pediatric rehabilitation, orthopedic/complex conditions rehabilitation, and disability/occupational rehabilitation. Many differences were observed across these practice patterns. Notably, primary practice setting and the extent and ways in which other healthcare staff are used in physiatry practices differed across practice patterns. Physiatrists working in musculoskeletal/pain medicine and disability/occupational rehabilitation were least likely to work with nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Physiatrists working in academic practice, general/neurological rehabilitation, and pediatric rehabilitation were most likely to have primary practice settings in hospitals. Conclusions Physiatry is an evolving medical specialty affected by many of the same trends as other medical specialties. The results of this survey can inform policy discussions and further research on the effects of these trends on physiatrists and physiatry practice in the future.