Use of a Novel Network-Based Linchpin Score to Characterize Accessibility to the Oncology Physician Workforce in the United States

IMPORTANCE: Physician headcounts provide useful information about the cancer care delivery workforce; however, efforts to track the oncology workforce would benefit from new measures that capture how essential a physician is for meeting the multidisciplinary cancer care needs of the region. Physicians are considered linchpins when fewer of their peers are connected to other physicians of the same specialty as the focal physician. Because they are locally unique for their specialty, these physicians’ networks may be particularly vulnerable to their removal from the network (eg, through relocation or retirement). OBJECTIVE: To examine a novel network-based physician linchpin score within nationwide cancer patient-sharing networks and explore variation in network vulnerability across hospital referral regions (HRRs). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study analyzed fee-for-service Medicare claims and included Medicare beneficiaries with an incident diagnosis of breast, colorectal, or lung cancer from 2016 to 2018 and their treating physicians. Data were analyzed from March 2022 to October 2022. EXPOSURES: Physician characteristics assessed were specialty, rurality, and Census region. HRR variables assessed include sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics and use of cancer services. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Oncologist linchpin score, which examined the extent to which a physician’s peers were connected to other physicians of the same specialty as the focal physician. Network vulnerability, which distinguished HRRs with more linchpin oncologists than expected based on oncologist density. χ(2) and Fisher exact tests were used to examine relationships between oncologist characteristics and linchpin score. Spearman rank correlation coefficient (ρ) was used to measure the strength and direction of relationships between HRR network vulnerability, oncologist density, population sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics, and cancer service use. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 308 714 patients with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer. The study cohort of 308 714 patients included 161 206 (52.2%) patients with breast cancer, 76 604 (24.8%) patients with colorectal cancer, and 70 904 (23.0%) patients with lung cancer. In our sample, 272 425 patients (88%) were White, and 238 603 patients (77%) lived in metropolitan areas. The cancer patient-sharing network included 7221 medical oncologists and 3573 radiation oncologists. HRRs with more vulnerable networks for medical oncology had a higher percentage of beneficiaries eligible for Medicaid (ρ, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.29). HRRs with more vulnerable networks for radiation oncology had a higher percentage of beneficiaries living in poverty (ρ, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.27), and a higher percentage of beneficiaries eligible for Medicaid (ρ, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.31), and lower rates of cohort patients receiving radiation therapy (ρ, –0.18; 95% CI, –0.28 to –0.06; P = .003). The was no association between network vulnerability for medical oncology and percent of cohort patients receiving chemotherapy (ρ, –0.03; 95% CI, –0.15 to 0.08). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study found that patient-sharing network vulnerability was associated with poverty and lower rates of radiation therapy. Health policy strategies for addressing network vulnerability may improve access to interdisciplinary care and reduce treatment disparities.