Access to Urogynecologic Care in Federally Qualified Health Centers: A Mystery Caller Study

Micah G Pascual; Atieh Novin; Michaele Francesco Corbisiero; Sydney Unciano; Yasmine Hachicha; Natalie Shelden; Wyanet Bresnitz; Tanaz Ferzandi; Tyler M Muffly

doi:10.1097/SPV.0000000000001514

Access to Urogynecologic Care in Federally Qualified Health Centers: A Mystery Caller Study

Urogynecology (Phila). 2024 Apr 25. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000001514. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Micah G Pascual¹, Atieh Novin², Michaele Francesco Corbisiero¹, Sydney Unciano³, Yasmine Hachicha⁴, Natalie Shelden⁵, Wyanet Bresnitz¹, Tanaz Ferzandi², Tyler M Muffly⁶

Affiliations

¹ From the University of Colorado, School of Medicine, Aurora, CO.
² University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
³ University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI.
⁴ American University, Washington, DC.
⁵ University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
⁶ Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Denver Health and Hospital Authority, Denver, CO.

PMID: 38659101
DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000001514

Abstract

Importance: Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) play an important role in providing care to underserved populations. However, little is known about the availability of urogynecology services at FQHCs.

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the availability of appointments for urogynecology care and to determine the prevalence of FQHCs offering urogynecologic services.

Study design: A total of 362 FQHCs across the United States were randomly selected from the Health Resources and Services Administration website, based on specific inclusion criteria. Researchers called the FQHCs and requested the earliest available appointment for pelvic organ prolapse. The availability of urogynecologic services such as pessary fittings, pelvic floor physical therapy, and urodynamic studies was also inquired.

Results: A total of 362 FQHCs located in 46 states and the District of Columbia were called. On average, the 362 FQHCs had been established for 19.9 (SD ±15) years, were located in urban areas, and served a median county population of 24,573. Of the 220 FQHCs successfully contacted, 81% (180/220) reported that they could provide care for a patient with pelvic organ prolapse at an appointment 29.1 business days (SD ±30 days) from the date of the call, on average. However, only a small percentage of these FQHCs offered in-office pessary fittings (11%), complex multichannel urodynamics testing (8.6%), or pelvic floor physical therapy (5%).

Conclusion: The availability of treatments for pelvic floor disorders at FQHCs is limited. These findings highlight a potential disparity in access to urogynecology services for individuals with public insurance.