The American College of Surgeons Health Policy Research Institute

American College of Surgeons Health Policy Research Institute
Advancing Health Policy Information
for Surgery in the United States

Surgical Workforce and Care Access

Evidence guide · United States

Surgical workforce and care access

A practical framework for reading federal projections, facility records, training data and quality measures without turning any one dataset into a claim it cannot support.

Surgical access network with hospital markers, regional terrain layers and evidence folders

Start with the question

Four lenses that should not be collapsed into one number

“Surgical access” can refer to clinician supply, a facility’s capabilities, the training pipeline or the performance of care already delivered. Each lens uses a different unit and answers a different question.

01 · People

Workforce supply

Counts, full-time-equivalent estimates and projections describe clinicians. They do not describe an operating team or an available appointment.

02 · Places

Facility capacity

Certification and facility datasets establish recorded attributes. They do not automatically establish which procedures are currently offered.

03 · Pipeline

Training

Funded resident positions and reported training time are inputs to a future workforce, not counts of new surgeons practicing in a location.

04 · Results

Quality

A defined outcome or experience measure can support comparison within its scope. It is not a universal grade for a facility or proof of access.

Workforce interpretation

Read the assumptions before the projection

HRSA’s physician model documentation describes 36 specialty categories, including 11 surgical categories, with a 2023 baseline and projections through 2038. The output is scenario-based: it depends on definitions of supply, new entrants, attrition, hours worked, population change and expected use of care.

That makes a projection a conditional result, not a forecast for a named hospital. Before comparing two figures, check the specialty, baseline year, time horizon, geography, model version and whether the figure represents people or full-time equivalents. The status quo and reduced-barriers scenarios also answer different questions; neither demonstrates that a local intervention succeeded.

County data adds detail—and new reasons for caution

HRSA’s Area Health Resources Files bring together more than 6,000 variables from more than 60 source families, with county, state and national files. That breadth is useful for describing local context, but it does not make every field directly comparable. Years, specialty definitions, denominators and source organizations can differ across variables.

HRSA’s AHRF methods also warn that county dashboard values and state or national values may come from different sources. County figures therefore do not necessarily sum to the published state or national file. A defensible county analysis preserves the variable label, source, year, geography and suppression or missing-value status alongside every result.

Appropriate use

Describe a dated county indicator, compare consistently defined geographies and identify where more current local verification is needed.

Unsupported shortcut

Treat a workforce count as proof of appointment supply, combine unlike years or reproduce a national total by summing county dashboard values.

Rural and facility evidence

A facility label is a starting point, not a procedure list

Critical Access Hospital certification describes a federal hospital category. CMS states criteria that include distance requirements, no more than 25 inpatient beds, an annual average acute-care stay of 96 hours or less, and 24-hour emergency care seven days a week. These attributes matter for rural delivery systems, but CAH status alone does not establish that a specific surgical service is available today.

CMS interpretive guidance addresses additional requirements when a CAH provides surgical services, including qualified, privileged practitioners and safe performance. The conditional wording matters: it describes what must be true if the service is provided, not evidence that every CAH provides it. Current service lines, staffing, transfer arrangements and scheduling still need local confirmation.

Facility-level CMS datasets add another piece. The Ambulatory Surgical Center Quality Measures dataset provides a table, data dictionary, download and API. CMS also publishes facility-level outpatient and ambulatory surgery patient-experience data for hospital outpatient departments. A facility record can establish inclusion in that dataset and the values of defined measures. It cannot, by itself, establish procedure scope, network status, open appointments or the suitability of a facility for an individual patient.

Training pipeline

Follow the chain from a funded position to a practicing surgeon

Medicare graduate medical education records describe payment and training inputs. CMS’s Direct Graduate Medical Education page explains the payment formula and reports that Section 4122 made 200 additional full-time-equivalent cap slots available beginning in fiscal year 2026, with at least 100 positions reserved for psychiatry or psychiatry subspecialties. The 200-slot total is therefore not a count of surgical positions.

CMS’s Intern and Resident Information System records resident assignment periods used to support cost-report FTE claims and checks for overlapping claims above 100 percent. These records help trace reported training activity. They do not establish graduation, specialty completion, board certification, practice location or retention.

funded cap slot filled position completed training practice location

Each arrow requires evidence. Skipping a step converts a policy input into an unsupported workforce claim.

Quality measures need a denominator and a boundary

Quality data belongs beside workforce and facility data, not inside it. A measure may address an outcome, a safety process or patient experience for a defined population and period. Before comparing facilities, verify the care setting, eligible cases, denominator, reporting window, risk adjustment where applicable and the meaning of missing or unavailable results.

The Department of Veterans Affairs publishes patient quality, safety and outcome measures and identifies measures that are unavailable or still developing. Within VA, the National Surgery Office and the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program use surgical data and risk-adjusted outcomes for quality improvement. This shows how a defined measurement system can support oversight. It does not turn one measure into a complete judgment about a medical center, and it does not establish how quickly a particular patient can obtain care.

Match the evidence to the claim
Evidence Can support Cannot establish alone
Workforce projection Scenario-based supply and demand context Local appointment access
Facility or certification record Recorded status and defined attributes Current procedure availability
GME record Funding or reported training activity Future local surgeon supply
Quality measure A defined result for a defined population Overall quality or access

Editorial method

How this desk evaluates a workforce claim

  1. 1. Open the primary recordUse the responsible federal agency’s documentation, dataset or report rather than a summary headline.
  2. 2. Fix the date and unitRecord the release, reporting period, geography, population and whether the unit is a person, FTE, facility or measured event.
  3. 3. State the boundaryWrite what the source measures and what it leaves unmeasured before interpreting the result.
  4. 4. Add local evidenceUse current local records when the question concerns a community, facility, service line or appointment.

Sources for this guide were checked on August 26, 2026. Dynamic datasets and agency pages should be checked again before relying on their current contents.

Research contributors

Perspectives across health services research

Explore the institute’s contributor profiles for documented expertise that helps readers interpret safety, outcomes, evidence and access questions around surgical workforce policy.

Albert W. Wu, MD, MPH

Patient safety and outcomes research

Professor of Health Policy and Management and Medicine; Director, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Services and Outcomes Research.

Bimal H. Ashar, MD, MBA

General internal and preventive medicine

Professor of Clinical Medicine; clinical leader in the Johns Hopkins Division of General Internal Medicine.

Jodi Segal, MD, MPH

Comparative effectiveness and drug safety

Professor of Medicine; Co-Director, Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness; Director, Pharmacoepidemiology Program.

Lisa A. Cooper, MD, MPH

Health equity and patient communication

Bloomberg Distinguished Professor; Director, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Equity.

Research index

25 evidence guides for surgical workforce and access

Browse the published research by the question you need to answer. Each guide identifies the source, unit, date and boundary that should remain visible in policy reporting.

25published guides
01

Workforce measures

Start with definitions, geography and the assumptions behind counts and projections.

02

Facilities and rural access

Separate a recorded facility attribute from current procedure availability and referral access.

03

Training and team capacity

Follow the evidence chain from funded training positions to the clinical team needed for surgery.

04

Community pathways and preparedness

Read travel, referral, population and disruption evidence without reducing access to one metric.

05

Quality and research methods

Keep outcomes, patient experience and mapping methods within their stated denominators and limits.

Interactive workforce evidence

Continue into the Surgery Workforce Atlas

Explore the preserved county- and state-level workforce map after reviewing the projection, facility and training-data limits in this desk.

Open the interactive Atlas →

Scroll to Top