HRSA - U.S Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Service Administration U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Home
Questions
Order Publications
 
Grants Find Help Service Delivery Data Health Care Concerns About HRSA
The Pediatric Rheumatology Workforce:  A Study of the Supply and Demand for Pediatric Rheumatologists
 

VII.  Conclusions

Given the potential for severe illness and disability associated with pediatric rheumatic diseases and the potential for a markedly improved outcome with optimal treatment, an adequate supply of pediatric rheumatologists is essential to provide access to expert care for children with these diseases.  An increase in the supply of the pediatric rheumatology workforce is appropriate at this time.  Given the analyses presented in this report, at least a 75 percent increase in the number of pediatric rheumatologists is needed.  To reach the goal of 400 pediatric rheumatologists recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Pediatric Rheumatology, the number of pediatric rheumatologists in the United States needs to double.  Additional providers should be encouraged to practice in those areas where they are most needed, i.e., States with no or a relatively low pediatric rheumatologist supply.  At a minimum the 45 medical schools 18 that currently lack a pediatric rheumatologist on faculty would benefit from the presence of a pediatric rheumatologist for resident and fellowship training programs in pediatrics, internal medicine rheumatology and orthopedics in addition to providing subspecialty care for affected patients.  Increases in the supply may be accomplished through institutional support for fellowship training, designated salary and research funding for pediatric rheumatologists, and/or improved reimbursement rates. 

In addition to increasing the number of pediatric rheumatologists, efforts to increase the ability and willingness of internist rheumatologists to manage or co-manage the care of these children could be pursued and evaluated.  Efforts to increase their involvement may provide a short-term solution while pursuing “pipeline” approaches as well as provide a long-term solution in areas that lack sufficient patient demand to support a pediatric rheumatologist.  Some possible approaches already in use include continuing medical education for internist rheumatologists at the annual ACR meeting and for general pediatricians at the AAP annual meeting.  The role of telemedicine in extending the catchment area of pediatric rheumatologists, as well as the ability of these providers to co-manage care with distant physicians, should be explored.  The creation of pediatric rheumatology care networks that formally establish relationships between centers without such providers and distant pediatric rheumatologists may facilitate shared management of patients using telemedicine and other technologies.  Long term approaches to increasing the role of internist rheumatologists and primary care providers include revising ACGME program requirements to include exposure to the care of adolescents and/or younger children in internist rheumatology fellowship training and to increase exposure to pediatric rheumatology in general pediatrics residencies.  Efforts to study the relative quality of care associated with different management approaches should coincide with efforts to enhance access to care among children with rheumatic diseases.  More research is needed to determine the relative quality of care of these various providers and the implications for patient outcomes.