
==== Front
JAMA Netw Open
JAMA Netw Open
JAMA Network Open
2574-3805
American Medical Association

39292456
10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34347
zoi241022
Research
Original Investigation
Online Only
Medical Education
Segregation by Payer in Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency Ambulatory Care Sites
Segregation by Payer in Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency Ambulatory Care Sites
Segregation by Payer in Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency Ambulatory Care Sites
Vinekar Kavita MD MPH 1
Qasba Neena MD MPH 2
Reiser Hannah MD 3
Banks Erika MD 4
Arora Kavita S. MD MS 5
Edmonds Brownsyne Tucker MD MPH 6
George Karen MD MPH 7
1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington
3 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles
4 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University Grossman Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola
5 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill
6 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis
7 Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Science, Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington
Article Information

Accepted for Publication: July 24, 2024.

Published: September 18, 2024. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34347

Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2024 Vinekar K et al. JAMA Network Open.

Corresponding Author: Kavita Vinekar, MD, MPH, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, 833 Chestnut St, Philadelphia, PA 19107 (kavita.vinekar@jefferson.edu).
Author Contributions: Dr Vinekar had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Vinekar, Qasba, Reiser, Banks, Arora, George.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Vinekar, Qasba, Banks, Arora, Tucker Edmonds, George.

Drafting of the manuscript: Vinekar, Banks, Arora.

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Vinekar.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Vinekar, Reiser, Banks, Arora, George.

Supervision: Qasba, Banks, George.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2.

18 9 2024
9 2024
18 9 2024
7 9 e243434722 4 2024
24 7 2024
Copyright 2024 Vinekar K et al. JAMA Network Open.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.
jamanetwopen-e2434347.pdf

This survey study assesses whether residents and program directors at ambulatory sites with payer-based segregation report more disparity in perceived health care quality between resident and faculty practices compared with those from integrated sites.

Key Points

Question

What is the prevalence of payer-based segregation (ie, separation of faculty vs resident-led care based on a patient’s insurance status) in obstetrics and gynecology residency ambulatory settings?

Findings

In this national survey study of 251 obstetrics and gynecology residency program directors and 3471 residents, the prevalence of payer-based segregation was 68% overall and 74% at university-based programs.

Meaning

Payer-based segregation was prevalent in obstetrics and gynecology residency programs, particularly at university programs, revealing an opportunity for a national movement toward integration in medical training.

Importance

Many teaching hospitals in the US segregate patients by insurance status, with resident clinics primarily composed of publicly insured or uninsured patients and faculty practices seeing privately insured patients. The prevalence of this model in obstetrics and gynecology residencies is unknown.

Objectives

To examine the prevalence of payer-based segregation in obstetrics and gynecology residency ambulatory care sites nationally and to compare residents’ and program directors’ perceptions of differences in quality of care between payer-segregated and integrated sites.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This national survey study included all 6060 obstetrics and gynecology residents and 293 obstetrics and gynecology residency program directors in the US as of January 2023. The proportion of program directors reporting payer segregation was calculated to characterize the national prevalence of this model in obstetrics and gynecology. Perceived differences in care quality were compared between residents and program directors at payer-segregated sites.

Main Outcome and Measures

The primary measure was prevalence of payer-based segregation in obstetrics and gynecology residency programs in the US as reported by residency program directors. The secondary measure was resident and program director perceptions of care quality in these ambulatory care settings. Before study initiation, the study hypothesis was that residents and program directors at ambulatory sites with payer-based segregation would report more disparity in perceived health care quality between resident and faculty practices compared with those from integrated sites.

Results

A total of 251 residency program directors (response rate, 85.7%) and 3471 residents (response rate, 57.3%) were included in the study. Resident respondent demographics reflected demographics of obstetrics and gynecology residents nationally in terms of racial and ethnic distribution (6 [0.2%] American Indian or Alaska Native; 425 [13.0%] Asian; 239 [7.3%] Black or African American; 290 [8.9%] Hispanic, Latinx, or Spanish; 7 [0.2%] Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; 2052 [62.7%] non-Hispanic White; 49 [1.5%] multiracial; 56 [1.7%] other [any race not listed]; and 137 [4.2%] preferred not to say) and geographic distribution (regional prevalence of payer-based segregation: 36 of 53 [67.9%] in the Northeast, 35 of 44 [79.5%] in the Midwest, 43 of 67 [64.2%] in the South, and 13 of 22 [59.1%] in the West), with 2837 respondents (86.9%) identifying as female. Among program directors, 127 (68.3%) reported payer-based segregation in ambulatory care. University programs were more likely to report payer-based segregation compared with community, hybrid, and military programs (63 of 85 [74.1%] vs 31 of 46 [67.4%], 32 of 51 [62.7%], and 0, respectively; P = .04). Residents at payer-segregated programs were less likely than their counterparts at integrated programs to report equal or higher care quality from residents compared with faculty (1662 [68.7%] vs 692 [81.6%] at segregated and integrated programs, respectively; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this survey study of residents and residency program directors, payer-based segregation was prevalent in obstetrics and gynecology residency programs, particularly at university programs. These findings reveal an opportunity for structural reform to promote more equitable care in residency training programs.
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

The separation of resident physician and faculty physician ambulatory care in US teaching hospitals is a long-standing tradition, characterized by the disproportionate funneling of publicly insured and uninsured patients to resident clinics and privately insured patients to faculty practices.1 In the US, where more than half of Medicaid enrollees belong to ethnic or racial minority groups,2 this payer-based segregation often translates to racial segregation.3

Structural racism has led to staggering inequities in reproductive health outcomes nationally, with Black pregnant individuals being 3 times more likely to die in childbirth compared with their White counterparts.4 In the context of larger national movements toward antiracism to address these inequities, segregation in health care, and specifically in medical education, is a potential focus area for institutional reform.1,5,6,7,8,9,10 Although previous studies3,11 have investigated the payer and racial separation present in residency programs, the national prevalence of this payer-based segregation of resident and faculty care has not been previously studied. Moreover, the prevalence of this payer-based segregation in obstetrics and gynecology ambulatory care has not previously been described.

We sought to characterize the prevalence of payer-based segregation in obstetrics and gynecology residency programs in the US and to compare resident and program director perceptions of care quality in these ambulatory care settings. We hypothesized that residents and program directors at ambulatory sites with payer-based segregation would report more disparity in perceived health care quality between resident and faculty practices compared with those from integrated sites.

Methods

We conducted a national survey study of all US obstetrics and gynecology residents (N = 6060) and program directors (N = 293) in January 2023 using 2 electronic surveys administered at the time of annual in-service examination by the Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Both groups were informed regarding the survey purpose and provided written informed consent to participate at the time of the survey. Responses were anonymous and not linked to individual residency programs. Respondents who did not consent to the survey or left the entirety of the survey blank were excluded from the analysis. For the resident survey, respondents from international training programs (n = 115) and those who were not resident physicians (n = 17) were excluded. This study was deemed exempt by the institutional review board of Health Media Lab because it carried no more than minimal risk to respondents because the responses were anonymously collected. The study followed the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) reporting guideline.12

The survey contained demographic questions, including self-reported race and ethnicity. This information was included because understanding the experiences of physicians of varied racial and ethnic identities could inform future efforts toward inclusion and equity. In addition to demographic information, each survey included Likert scale questions about ambulatory care sites, perceived demographic differences in patient populations, and perceived differences in care quality (eFigure in Supplement 1). The questions were developed and piloted by several of the authors across institutions and edited for clarity and applicability to a range of program settings. The author group responded to a request for proposals of survey questions and were selected by the Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology executive leadership team for inclusion in the annual resident and program director surveys.

Respondent residence by US geographic region was also reported. The categories were as follows: (1) the Northeast, which included New England (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut) and the Middle Atlantic region (New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania); (2) the Midwest, which included the East North Central (Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin) and West North Central (Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota) regions; (3) the South, which included the West South Central (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas), East South Central (Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee), and South Atlantic (Delaware, Washington, DC, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia) regions; (4) the West, which included the Mountain (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) and Pacific (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington) regions; and (5) Puerto Rico.

Sites were considered to have payer-based ambulatory care segregation if respondents stated that residents were “much more likely” or “more likely” to see publicly insured patients (Medicaid or Medicare) compared with faculty practices. Because 1 program director was surveyed per residency program, the program director survey was used for determining national prevalence of payer-based segregation in ambulatory care at obstetrics and gynecology training programs.

Statistical Analysis

In addition to payer-based segregation, we investigated spatial separation of resident and faculty practices. Respondents were considered to have spatially separated ambulatory care sites if they reported that the primary resident continuity ambulatory site was spatially separated from faculty practices within the same building or in a different building from faculty practices. We performed descriptive analysis using χ2 testing in Stata SE, version 16 (StataCorp LLC), with an a priori determination of a 2-sided P < .05 for statistical significance.

Results

A total of 251 residency program directors (response rate, 85.7%) and 3471 residents (response rate, 57.3%) were studied. Of the respondents, 186 program directors (74.1%) and 3274 residents (94.3%) answered the question about payer-based segregation (Figure 1). Overall, resident respondent demographics aligned with reported demographics of obstetrics and gynecology residents nationally13: 2837 (86.9%) identified as female, 379 (11.6%) as male, 11 (0.3%) as nonbinary, 1 (0.03%) gender not listed, and 38 (1.2%) preferred not to answer; 1386 (42.4%) were from university-based programs, with 847 (25.9%) and 1000 (30.6%) from community and community-university hybrid programs, respectively. Overall, 6 resident respondents (0.2%) identified as American Indian or Alaska Native; 425 (13.0%) as Asian; 239 (7.3%) as Black or African American; 290 (8.9%) as Hispanic, Latinx, or Spanish; 7 (0.2%) as Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; 2052 (62.7%) as non-Hispanic White; 49 (1.5%) as multiracial; 56 (1.7%) as other (any race not listed); and 137 (4.2%) preferred not to say (Table 1). Residents at payer-segregated sites differed from those at integrated sites by program size, program type, geographic region, and race and ethnicity at payer-segregated vs payer-integrated programs.

Figure 1. Obstetrics and Gynecology Program Director and Resident Survey Response Rates, January 2023 National In-Service Examination Survey

Table 1. Resident Respondent Demographics by Payer-Based Ambulatory Site Segregationa

Demographic	Residents	P valueb	
From all programs (N = 3274)	At payer-segregated programs (n = 2423)	At payer-integrated programs (n = 851)	
Postgraduate year					
1	816 (24.9)	565 (23.3)	251 (29.5)	.003	
2	845 (25.8)	631 (26.0)	214 (25.2)	
3	842 (25.7)	633 (26.1)	209 (24.6)	
4	771 (23.6)	594 (24.6)	177 (20.8)	
No. of residents per year					
≤4	950 (29.2)	664 (69.9)	286 (33.7)	<.001	
5-7	1456 (44.7)	1035 (43.0)	421 (49.7)	
8-9	505 (15.5)	426 (17.7)	79 (9.3)	
≥10	344 (10.6)	282 (11.7)	62 (7.3)	
Program type					
University based	1386 (42.4)	1028 (42.6)	358 (42.1)	<.001	
Community based	847 (25.9)	604 (25.0)	243 (28.6)	
Combination community and university based	1000 (30.6)	779 (32.2)	221 (26.0)	
Military based	33 (1.0)	5 (0.2)	28 (3.3)	
Geographic region					
Northeast	926 (28.3)	685 (28.3)	241 (28.3)	<.001	
Midwest	835 (25.5)	673 (27.8)	162 (19.0)	
South	1059 (32.4)	801 (33.1)	258 (30.3)	
West	426 (13.0)	246 (10.2)	180 (21.2)	
Puerto Rico	28 (0.9)	18 (0.7)	10 (1.2)	
Race and ethnicity					
American Indian or Alaska Native	6 (0.2)	4 (0.2)	2 (0.2)	<.001	
Asian	426 (13.0)	302 (12.5)	124 (14.6)	
Black or African American	239 (7.3)	168 (6.9)	71 (8.3)	
Hispanic, Latinx, or Spanish	290 (8.9)	198 (8.2)	92 (10.8)	
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	7 (0.2)	3 (0.1)	4 (0.5)	
Non-Hispanic White	2052 (62.7)	1583 (65.3)	469 (55.1)	
Multiracial	49 (1.5)	31 (1.3)	18 (2.1)	
Other race not listed	56 (1.7)	38 (1.6)	18 (2.1)	
Prefer not to say	137 (4.2)	90 (3.7)	47 (5.5)	
Gender identity					
Female	2837 (86.9)	2111 (87.3)	726 (85.5)	.22	
Male	379 (11.6)	268 (11.1)	111 (13.1)	
Nonbinary	11 (0.3)	8 (0.3)	3 (0.9)	
Not listed	1 (0.03)	0	1 (0.1)	
Prefer not to answer	38 (1.2)	30 (1.2)	3 (0.4)	
Resident and faculty ambulatory sites					
Shared space with faculty	1764 (54.1)	1097 (45.4)	667 (78.9)	<.001	
Spatially separated, same building as faculty	548 (16.8)	457 (18.9)	91 (10.8)	
Different building from faculty	839 (25.7)	792 (32.8)	47 (5.6)	
Another type of building	25 (0.8)	21 (0.9)	4 (0.5)	
Unsure	70 (2.2)	45 (1.9)	25 (3.0)	
Prefer not to answer	15 (0.5)	4 (0.2)	11 (1.3)	
Perceived resident care quality compared with faculty care					
Higher quality	303 (9.3)	250 (10.3)	53 (6.3)	<.001	
Equal quality	2051 (62.8)	1412 (58.4)	639 (75.4)	
Lesser quality	446 (13.7)	421 (17.4)	25 (3.0)	
Do not know	424 (13.0)	315 (13.0)	109 (12.9)	
Prefer not to answer	43 (1.3)	21 (0.9)	22 (2.6)	
Perceived difference in race and ethnicity of patients in resident vs attending practices	1249 (38.2)	1176 (48.7)	73 (8.6)	<.001	
a Data are presented as No. (%).

b A χ2 test was used to compare resident responses at payer-segregated vs payer-integrated programs. A 2-sided P < .05 was considered significant.

We found that 127 program directors (68.3%) reported payer-based segregation. University programs were more likely to report payer-based segregation compared with community, hybrid, and military programs (63 of 85 [74.1%] vs 31 of 46 [67.4%], 32 of 51 [62.7%], and 0, respectively; P = .04). A total of 82 program directors (44.1%) reported spatial segregation between resident and faculty practices, with 61 (32.8%) reporting resident ambulatory care in a different building from faculty practices (Table 2). The geographic composition of payer-segregated vs payer-integrated sites differed. The regional prevalence of payer-based segregation was 36 of 53 (67.9%) in the Northeast, 35 of 44 (79.5%) in the Midwest, 43 of 67 (64.2%) in the South, and 13 of 22 (59.1%) in the West.

Table 2. Program Director Report of Program Demographics by Payer-Based Ambulatory Site Segregation Statusa

Demographic	Programs	P valueb	
All programs (N = 186)	Payer segregated (n = 127)	Payer integrated (n = 59)	
No. of residents per year					
≤4	63 (34.2)	38 (30.2)	25 (43.1)	.19	
5-7	82 (44.6)	60 (47.6)	22 (37.9)	
8-9	21 (11.4)	17 (13.5)	4 (6.9)	
≥10	18 (9.8)	11 (8.7)	7 (12.1)	
Program type					
University based	85 (45.6)	63 (50.0)	22 (37.3)	.04	
Community based	46 (24.9)	31 (24.6)	15 (25.4)	
Combination community and university based	51 (27.6)	32 (25.4)	19 (32.2)	
Military based	3 (1.6)	0 (0)	3 (5.1)	
Geographic region					
Northeast	53 (28.5)	36 (28.4)	17 (28.8)	.27	
Midwest	44 (23.7)	35 (27.6)	9 (15.3)	
South	67 (36.0)	43 (33.9)	24 (40.7)	
West	22 (11.8)	13 (10.2)	9 (15.3)	
Resident ambulatory clinic location					
Main hospital	71 (38.2)	48 (37.8)	23 (39.0)	.65	
Offsite hospital-owned clinic	75 (40.3)	53 (41.7)	22 (37.3)	
Physician-owned group practice	23 (12.4)	17 (13.4)	6 (10.2)	
Federally qualified health center	10 (5.4)	5 (3.9)	5 (8.5)	
Other	7 (3.8)	4 (3.2)	3 (5.1)	
Resident and faculty ambulatory sites					
Shared space with faculty	100 (53.8)	49 (38.6)	51 (86.4)	<.001	
Spatially separated, same building as faculty	21 (11.3)	19 (15.0)	2 (3.4)	
Different building from faculty	61 (32.8)	56 (44.1)	5 (8.5)	
Other	4 (2.2)	3 (2.4)	1 (1.7)	
Perceived resident care quality compared to faculty care					
Higher quality	24 (12.9)	19 (15.0)	5 (8.5)	.10	
Equal quality	137 (73.7)	88 (69.3)	49 (83.1)	
Lesser quality	18 (9.7)	16 (12.6)	2 (3.4)	
Do not know	7 (3.8)	4 (3.2)	3 (5.1)	
Equal quality of care (resident vs faculty)	137 (73.7)	88 (69.3)	49 (83.1)	.047	
Lesser quality of care (resident vs faculty)	18 (9.7)	16 (12.6)	2 (3.4)	.048	
Higher quality of care (resident vs faculty)	24 (12.9)	19 (15.0)	5 (8.5)	.22	
a Data are presented as No. (%).

b A χ2 test was used to compare resident responses at payer-segregated vs payer-integrated programs. A 2-sided P < .05 was considered significant.

Residents at payer-segregated programs were more likely than those at integrated programs to report perceived racial and ethnic differences between patients seen at resident vs faculty practices (1176 of 2423 [48.5%] vs 73 of 851 [8.6%] at segregated vs integrated programs, respectively; P < .001). They were also more likely than those at integrated programs to report unequal care quality between resident and faculty care (Table 2). This trend was noted at 2 extremes: in payer-segregated programs, residents were more likely to report lower quality of care delivery with residents than with faculty (421 of 2423 [17.4%] vs 25 of 851 [2.9%] at segregated vs integrated programs, respectively). However, residents at segregated programs were also more likely to report that residents delivered higher quality care than faculty (250 of 2423 [10.3%] vs 53 of 851 [6.2%] at segregated and integrated programs, respectively). Residents at payer-segregated programs were less likely to report equal or higher care quality from residents compared with faculty (1662 [68.7%] vs 692 [81.6%] at segregated and integrated programs, respectively; P < .001) (Figure 2). Program directors were less likely than residents to report quality disparities between resident and faculty care (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Perceived Differences in Care Quality in Resident and Faculty Practices at Payer-Segregated vs Payer-Integrated Ambulatory Care Sites, Comparing Obstetrics and Gynecology Resident and Program Director Perceptions

A χ2 test was used to compare resident responses at payer-segregated vs payer-integrated programs. For payer-segregated sites, P < .001. For payer-integrated sites, P = .03.

Discussion

We found that more than two-thirds of obstetrics and gynecology residency programs and nearly three-quarters of university-based residency programs reported payer-based segregation of resident and faculty practices. Spatial separation of these practices was also prevalent at more than half of all programs. Although payer segregation was prevalent at most sites in all regions, the Midwest was notable for the highest prevalence of this structuring. Of note, residents were more likely to report perceived differences in care quality at payer-segregated sites compared with integrated sites. Residents were more likely than program directors to report differences in care quality between resident and faculty care.

Our findings add to a limited body of literature on this subject, including a survey of primary care sites demonstrating that higher Medicaid enrollment was associated with the presence of resident practitioners.3 Notably, in this study, we explored perceived differences in care quality rather than specific measured outcomes. There is an increasing body of evidence comparing resident and attending outcomes with objective health care measures. Several of these studies14,15,16,17,18 have shown poorer care delivery, patient care use, and patient satisfaction in resident compared with faculty practices. Others have demonstrated poor continuity of care in resident ambulatory care settings.19 In contrast, others have shown similar or improved objective health measures and rates of patient satisfaction in resident ambulatory care settings.20,21,22 Of note, these studies20,21,22 compared resident-led care to attending-led care but did not compare payer-segregated to payer-integrated ambulatory care settings. In our study, we compared perceptions of care quality (by residents and program directors) because this may capture nuances of care quality that may not be easily reflected in objective measures.

Interestingly, we found that program directors and residents had differing perceptions of care quality between residents and faculty based on whether patients were segregated by insurance type. Although most residents overall reported equal care quality between residents and faculty, residents were more likely than program directors to report disparate care quality between resident and faculty care. Of note, residents had disagreement in their reports of disparate care quality, with some residents reporting higher care quality in resident practices compared with faculty practices and others reporting lower care quality. This finding may reflect heterogeneity in many factors, such as time allotted for visits, local or institutional resources (eg, social work services and care coordinators), access measures (eg, appointment wait times), continuity of care, and variation in supervision in the resident practice setting.

In the US, where racial and ethnic minority individuals are more likely to have public health insurance, payer-based inequities disproportionately impact minoritized communities.2,3 In our study, half of residents from payer-segregated programs reported racial and ethnic differences in patient populations seen by residents compared with faculty. These structural inequities necessitate reform, particularly in obstetrics and gynecology, with mortality in Black pregnant individuals exceeding that of their White counterparts by 3-fold.23 Efforts to understand and address racial segregation in health care may be instrumental in addressing racial health inequities. The racial implications of payer-based segregation may also have potential legal ramifications.

Payer-based segregation may negatively impact learners and their future medical practice. One survey of third-year medical students revealed that payer-based segregation was commonly observed across medical specialties, incurring emotional exhaustion and moral injury among trainees.11 A previous study24 in internal medicine, although not focused on payer-based segregation specifically, found that dysfunctional and underresourced outpatient ambulatory care settings have worsened resident burnout and affected resident decision-making about subspecialty selection.24 Although our study did not specifically explore the association of payer-based segregation with learner morale, the association of this separation with resident experiences and future practice is an area for further study. Moreover, the long-term implications of segregation in residency ambulatory care, particularly the concern for inequitable care provision by graduated residents in clinical practice based on patients’ insurance status,25 remains an area of future investigation.

As institutions identify their own structures of segregation within training programs, it is important to seek models of integration to guide restructuring efforts. At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, for example, integration efforts included a baseline internal review detailing the disparate demographics of resident clinic patients compared with faculty practice, demonstrating that patients in the resident practice were more likely to be uninsured or publicly insured, were more likely to travel greater distances, and had longer appointment wait times. Resident and faculty practices were subsequently integrated, with schedulers blinded to patient demographics and insurance status, to ensure that clinical acuity and patient preferences were prioritized. Patient access metrics continue to be tracked to ensure equitable care for all patients.5 For other residency programs planning to restructure, seeking models such as the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill may provide important guidance for integration efforts.

This study is the first, to our knowledge, to characterize the national prevalence of payer-segregated ambulatory care in US residency training programs and specifically in obstetrics and gynecology programs. Further research is needed to characterize the prevalence of this segregation in other medical fields, understand associations with patient experiences and health outcomes, explore the effects of this structuring on trainees, and inform efforts at institutional reformation toward more equitable models of care.

Strengths and Limitations

A strength of our study is that the data were obtained from 2 large national surveys of all obstetrics and gynecology program directors and residents with high response rates. Additionally, we characterized the prevalence of payer-based segregation in obstetrics and gynecology residency training programs, which had not previously been explored.

Our study also has some limitations. The brief survey used likely does not capture nuances about programmatic structuring, referral and scheduling practices, or local resources. We could not capture individual definitions of care quality, and comparative assessments of quality are subjective. Future studies may compare objective health outcome measures as a reflection of care quality. Our study is also limited by the potential for nonresponse bias, especially in the resident survey, for which the response rate was lower. However, the similarities in demographic composition between respondents and obstetrics and gynecology residents nationally suggest that respondents were generally representative of the total surveyed population. Because the survey was administered immediately after the annual resident in-service examination, it is possible that respondents’ stress levels may have influenced their responses. Furthermore, it is notable that one-quarter of responding program directors did not respond to the question about payer-based segregation. It is possible that social desirability bias may have influenced responses (or nonresponse) to these questions. If this is true, our reported prevalence of payer segregation may be an underestimate.

Of note, although each responding program produced 1 program director response, allowing for prevalence measurement, the resident responses were deidentified and not linked to specific programs. Thus, comparison of resident and program director survey responses, particularly regarding perceived care quality, may have been limited by an inability to adjust for clustering of residents within individual programs.

We used the term public insurance, thereby grouping patients with Medicaid and Medicare, recognizing that most publicly insured patients seen in obstetrics and gynecology resident-led ambulatory settings have Medicaid and relatively few patients have Medicare.26 Future work, particularly in gynecologic subspecialties or in other medical specialties, may provide further insight into organizational structures for older patients and those with disabilities and severe health conditions qualifying for Medicare.

Conclusions

Payer-based segregation in obstetrics and gynecology residency ambulatory care settings exists in most programs, with higher rates at university-based programs. This segregation is associated with greater perceived inequities in health care delivery for patients seeing residents vs faculty. These findings reveal an opportunity for reform in medical training programs to promote more equitable health care for patients and more just models of health care delivery for trainees.

Supplement 1. eFigure. Ambulatory Care Structure Survey Questions Administered at the Time of Annual In-Service Examination by the Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology, January 2023

Supplement 2. Data Sharing Statement
==== Refs
References

1 Vinekar K. Pathology of racism - a call to desegregate teaching hospitals. N Engl J Med. 2021;385 (13 ):e40. doi:10.1056/NEJMpv2113508 34551237
2 Donohue JM, Cole ES, James CV, Jarlenski M, Michener JD, Roberts ET. The US Medicaid program: coverage, financing, reforms, and implications for health equity. JAMA. 2022;328 (11 ):1085-1099. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.14791 36125468
3 Hassan SF, Viscoli CM, O’Connor PG, . Separate but not equal? a cross-sectional study of segregation by payor mix in academic primary care clinics. J Gen Intern Med. 2023;38 (10 ):2318-2325. doi:10.1007/s11606-023-08066-x 36800147
4 Hoyert DL. Maternal mortality rates in the United States, 2022. Accessed July 31, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2022/maternal-mortality-rates-2022.pdf
5 McClurg AB, Arora KS, Schiff LD, Carey ET, Neal-Perry GS. Dismantling structural barriers: resident clinics refocused on equity. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;140 (5 ):739-742. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000004920 36201760
6 Calman NS, Golub M, Ruddock C, Le L, Hauser D; Action Committee of the Bronx Health REACH Coalition. Separate and unequal care in New York City. J Health Care Law Policy. 2006;9 (1 ):105-120.17165226
7 Washington HA. How does racial segregation taint medical pedagogy? AMA J Ethics. 2023;25 (1 ):E72-E78. doi:10.1001/amajethics.2023.72 36623307
8 Cleveland Manchanda E, Sivashanker K, Kinglake S, Laflamme E, Saini V, Maybank A. Training to build antiracist, equitable health care systems. AMA J Ethics. 2023;25 (1 ):E37-E47. doi:10.1001/amajethics.2023.37 36623303
9 Blum J, Doobay K, Feuerbach A. How should academic health centers desegregate health professions education? AMA J Ethics. 2023;25 (1 ):E21-E30. doi:10.1001/amajethics.2023.21 36623301
10 Clark L, Hughes TM, Shah R, Trivedi A, Hess L. Medical student-driven efforts to incorporate segregated care education into their curriculum. AMA J Ethics. 2023;25 (1 ):E31-E36. doi:10.1001/amajethics.2023.31 36623302
11 Wilkinson R, Huxley-Reicher Z, Fox GC, . Leveraging clerkship experiences to address segregated care: a survey-based approach to student-led advocacy. Teach Learn Med. 2023;35 (4 ):381-388. doi:10.1080/10401334.2022.2088538 35770380
12 Standard definitions. American Association for Public Opinion Research. Accessed July 13, 2024. https://aapor.org/standards-and-ethics/standard-definitions/
13 Brotherton SE, Etzel SI. Graduate medical education, 2020-2021. JAMA. 2021;326 (11 ):1088-1110. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.13501 34546319
14 Essien UR, He W, Ray A, . Disparities in quality of primary care by resident and staff physicians: is there a conflict between training and equity? J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34 (7 ):1184-1191. doi:10.1007/s11606-019-04960-5 30963439
15 Fitzpatrick V, Rivelli A, Guzman I, Erwin K. Resident versus attending prenatal care models: an analysis of the effects of race and insurance on appointment attendance. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2024;11 (4 ):1964-1972. doi:10.1007/s40615-023-01665-8 37306919
16 Amat M, Glassman R, Basu N, . Defining the resident continuity clinic panel along patient outcomes: a health equity opportunity. J Gen Intern Med. 2021;36 (9 ):2615-2621. doi:10.1007/s11606-020-06420-x 33479930
17 Yancy WS Jr, Macpherson DS, Hanusa BH, . Patient satisfaction in resident and attending ambulatory care clinics. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16 (11 ):755-762. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2001.91005.x 11722690
18 Zallman L, Ma J, Xiao L, Lasser KE. Quality of US primary care delivered by resident and staff physicians. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25 (11 ):1193-1197. doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1456-0 20645018
19 Walker J, Payne B, Clemans-Taylor BL, Snyder ED. Continuity of care in resident outpatient clinics: a scoping review of the literature. J Grad Med Educ. 2018;10 (1 ):16-25. doi:10.4300/JGME-D-17-00256.1 29467968
20 Edwards ST, Kim H, Shull S, Hooker ER, Niederhausen M, Tuepker A. Quality of outpatient care with internal medicine residents vs attending physicians in Veterans Affairs primary care clinics. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179 (5 ):711-713. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8624 30933246
21 van der Leeuw RM, Lombarts KM, Arah OA, Heineman MJ. A systematic review of the effects of residency training on patient outcomes. BMC Med. 2012;10 (1 ):65. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-10-65 22742521
22 Wojcik BM, McKinley SK, Amari N, . A comparison of patient satisfaction when office-based procedures are performed by general surgery residents versus an attending surgeon. Surgery. 2019;166 (1 ):116-122. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2019.02.009 30952442
23 Petersen EE, Davis NL, Goodman D, . Racial/ethnic disparities in pregnancy-related deaths - United States, 2007-2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68 (35 ):762-765. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6835a3 31487273
24 Nadkarni M, Reddy S, Bates CK, Fosburgh B, Babbott S, Holmboe E. Ambulatory-based education in internal medicine: current organization and implications for transformation: results of a national survey of resident continuity clinic directors. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26 (1 ):16-20. doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1437-3 20628830
25 Raglan GB, Anderson BL, Lawrence H III, Schulkin J. Obstetrics and gynecology practices and patient insurance type. Womens Health Issues. 2013;23 (3 ):e161-e165. doi:10.1016/j.whi.2013.01.003 23562002
26 The evaluation of payment for obstetric and gynecology services: from ACOG. Obstet Gynecol. 2024;143 (2 ):e40-e53. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000005487 38237166
