Geographic Access to Pediatric Cancer Care in the US

IMPORTANCE: Although access to pediatric cancer care has implications for use of such care and patient outcomes, little is known about the geographic accessibility of pediatric cancer care and how it may vary by population characteristics across the continental US. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the travel time to pediatric cancer care settings in the continental US, identify potential disparities among subgroups of children and adolescents and young adults (AYAs), and identify areas needing improved access to pediatric cancer care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study collected data from August 1 to December 1, 2021. Pediatric oncologists’ service locations in 2021 served as the pediatric cancer care settings, data for which were scraped from 2 websites containing information about health professionals. Demographic characteristics for younger children and AYAs aged 0 to 21 years were obtained from the 2015 to 2019 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Data were analyzed from January 1 to April 31, 2022. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The main outcome was the travel time from geographic centroids of zip code tabulation areas to the nearest pediatric oncologist. The median (IQR) travel times for each demographic subgroup were estimated. Per capita pediatric oncologist supply was calculated by dividing the total number of pediatric oncologists for each state or US Census division by its population. RESULTS: Of the 90 498 890 children and AYAs included in the study, 63.6% were estimated to travel less than 30 minutes and 19.7% to travel between 30 and 60 minutes (for a total of 83.3%) to the nearest pediatric oncologist. Median (IQR) travel times were longest for the American Indian or Alaska Native pediatric population (46 [16-104] minutes) and residents of rural areas (95 [68-135] minutes), areas with high deprivation levels (36 [13-72] minutes), and the South (24 [13-47] minutes) and Midwest (22 [11-51] minutes) compared with the general population of children and AYAs. The pediatric oncologist supply was lowest in Wyoming (0 oncologists per 100 000 pediatric population) and highest in Washington, DC (53.3 oncologists per 100 000 pediatric population). Pediatric oncologist supply across Census divisions was lowest in the Mountain division (3.3 oncologists per 100 000 pediatric population) and highest in the New England division (8.1 oncologists per 100 000 pediatric population). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Results of this study showed that most children and AYAs in the continental US had adequate access to pediatric cancer care, although disparities existed among racial and ethnic groups and residents in rural areas, areas with high deprivation levels, and some Southern and Midwestern states. Reducing these disparities may require innovative approaches, such as expanding the capabilities of local facilities and creating partnerships with adult oncology centers and primary care physicians.