Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jan;17(1):e1-e10.
doi: 10.1200/OP.20.00600. Epub 2020 Dec 3.

State of Physician and Pharmacist Oncology Workforce in the United States in 2019

Ya-Chen Tina Shih  1 , Bumyang Kim  1 , Michael T Halpern  2
Affiliations

State of Physician and Pharmacist Oncology Workforce in the United States in 2019

Ya-Chen Tina Shih et al. JCO Oncol Pract. 2021 Jan.

Abstract

Purpose: To examine the geographic distribution of physician and pharmacist workforce specialized in oncology in the United States.

Methods: Using the National Provider Identifier data, we identified two types of oncology workforce via the healthcare provider taxonomy codes. Oncologists were physicians self-identified as providing oncologic care to patients. Oncology pharmacists were pharmacists with an oncology subspecialty. We calculated the geographic density of physician and pharmacist oncology workforce and used county-level cancer crude rates to quantify the demand for oncology workforce. We used spatial data to plot the density of oncology workforces relative to county-level cancer rates and compared the county-level density of oncologists and oncology pharmacists.

Results: Of the 30,553 members of the oncology workforce in 2019, 28,681 were oncologists and 1,090 were oncology pharmacists. The mean county-level density of oncologists was 2.94 (SD = 7.32) per 100,000 persons. Sixty-four percent of counties had no oncologists with primary practice location in that county and 12% had no oncologists in the local and adjacent counties. Counties in the top quartile of cancer rates had the highest percentage without any oncologists with primary practice location in the county (75%) and with no oncologists in the local as well as adjacent counties (16%).

Conclusion: Geographically mismatched demand and supply characterized the current oncology workforce. Wide discrepancies in the supply of oncologists across geographic regions highlight the importance of developing core competencies for health professions not specialized in oncology to deliver quality cancer care in areas with unmet need for oncology care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig 1.
Fig 1.
Availability of oncology workforce at county level (local and adjacent), by county-level cancer rate quartiles, and by census division.
Fig 2.
Fig 2.
(A) Density of oncologists and cancer rates (in quartiles) by US counties, (B) US counties without oncologists in the home and adjacent counties and cancer rates (in quartiles), and (C) density of oncologists versus density of oncology pharmacists by US counties.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Shapiro E, Cooper CS, Greenfield S, et al. : The American Academy of Pediatrics Workforce Survey for the Section on Urology 2015. J Pediatr Urol 13:68-72, 2017 - PubMed
    1. Kim JS, Cooper RA, Kennedy DW: Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery physician work force issues: An analysis for future specialty planning. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 146:196-202, 2012 - PubMed
    1. AAMC : The 2019 Update: The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections From 2017 to 2032. Washington, DC, AAMC, 2019
    1. Hortobagyi GN, American Society of Clinical Oncology : A shortage of oncologists? The American Society of Clinical Oncology workforce study. J Clin Oncol 25:1468-1469, 2007 - PubMed
    1. Erikson C, Salsberg E, Forte G, et al. : Future supply and demand for oncologists: Challenges to assuring access to oncology services. J Oncol Pract 3:79-86, 2007 - PMC - PubMed

Publication types