Foreign Physicians: Preliminary Findings on the Use of J-1 Visa Waivers to Practice in Underserved Areas
Released: 2006-05-18T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Many foreign physicians who enter U.S. graduate medical education programs do so as participants in the Department of State’s Exchange Visitor Program—an educational and cultural exchange program aimed at increasing mutual understanding between the peoples of the United States and other countries. Participants in the Exchange Visitor Program enter the United States with J-1 visas. More than 6,100 foreign physicians with J-1 visas took part in U.S. graduate medical education programs during academic year 2004–05. This number was about 40 percent lower than a decade earlier, when about 10,700 foreign physicians with J-1 visas were in U.S. graduate medical education programs.

Physicians participating in graduate medical education on J-1 visas are required to return to their home country or country of last legal residence for at least 2 years before they may apply for an immigrant visa, permanent residence, or certain nonimmigrant work visas. They may, however, obtain a waiver of this requirement from the Department of Homeland Security at the request of a state or federal agency, if the physician has agreed to practice in, or work at a facility that treats residents of, an underserved area for at least 3 years.

States were first authorized to request J-1 visa waivers on behalf of foreign physicians in October 1994. Initially, states were authorized to request waivers for up to 20 physicians each fiscal year; in 2002, the annual limit was increased to 30 waivers per state. Physicians who receive waivers may work in various practice settings, including federally funded health centers and private hospitals, and they may practice both primary care and nonprimary care specialties. States and federal agencies may impose additional limitations on their programs beyond federal statutory requirements, such as limiting the number of requests they will make for physicians to practice nonprimary care specialties.

Obtaining a J-1 visa waiver through a state request involves multiple steps. A physician must first secure a bona fide offer of employment from a health care facility that is located in, or that treats residents of, an underserved area. The physician, the prospective employer, or both then submit an application to a state to request the waiver. The state submits a request for the waiver to the Department of State. If the Department of State recommends the waiver, it forwards its recommendation to the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). USCIS is responsible for making the final determination and notifying the physician when a waiver is granted. According to officials involved in recommending and approving waivers at the Department of State and USCIS, after review for compliance with statutory requirements and security issues, nearly all states’ waiver requests are recommended and approved. Once physicians are granted waivers, they must work at the site specified in their waiver applications for a minimum of 3 years. During this period, although states do not have explicit responsibility for monitoring physicians’ compliance with the terms and conditions of their waivers, states may conduct monitoring activities at their own initiative.

For purposes of J-1 visa waivers, HHS has specified two types of underserved areas in which waiver physicians may practice: health professional shortage areas (HPSAs) and medically underserved areas and populations (MUA/Ps). In general, HPSAs are areas, population groups within areas, or facilities that HHS has designated as having a shortage of primary care health professionals and are identified on the basis of, among other factors, the ratio of population to primary care physicians. MUA/Ps are areas or populations that HHS has designated as having shortages of health care services and are identified using several factors in addition to the availability of primary care providers. In 2004, Congress gave states the flexibility to use up to 5 of their 30 waiver allotments each year— which we call “flexible waivers”—for physicians to work in facilities that serve patients who reside in a HPSA or MUA/P, regardless of the facilities’ location.

No one federal agency is responsible for managing or tracking states’ and federal agencies’ use of J-1 visa waivers to place physicians in underserved areas. Further, no comprehensive data are available on the total number of waivers granted for physicians to practice in underserved areas. HHS’s Health Resources and Services Administration is the primary federal agency responsible for improving access to health care services, both in terms of designating underserved areas and in administering programs— such as the NHSC programs—to place physicians and other providers in them. However, HHS’s oversight of waiver physicians practicing in underserved areas has generally been limited to those physicians for whom HHS has requested J-1 visa waivers.

Waivers Remain a Major Means for Providing Physicians, and States Request Most Waivers

J-1 visa waivers continue to be a major means of supplying physicians to underserved areas in the United States, with states and federal agencies reporting that they requested more than 1,000 waivers in each of fiscal years 2003 through 2005. We estimated that, at the end of fiscal year 2005, the number of physicians practicing in underserved areas through the use of J-1 visa waivers was roughly one and a half times the number practicing there through NHSC programs.

In contrast to our findings a decade ago, states are now the primary source of waiver requests for physicians to practice in underserved areas. In fiscal year 2005, more than 90 percent of the waiver requests for physicians were initiated by the states, compared with fewer than 10 percent in 1995. (See fig. 1.) Every state except Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands reported requesting waivers for physicians in fiscal year 2005, for a total of 956 waiver requests. In 1995—the first full year that states had authority to request waivers—nearly half of the states made a total of 89 waiver requests.

During the past decade, the two federal agencies that requested the most waivers for physicians to practice in underserved areas in 1995—the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Housing and Urban Development—have discontinued their programs. These federal agencies together requested more than 1,100 waivers for physicians to practice in 47 states in 1995, providing a significant source of waiver physicians for some states. For example, these federal agencies requested a total of 149 waivers for physicians to practice in Texas, 134 for New York, and 105 for Illinois in 1995. In fiscal year 2005, the three federal agencies that requested waivers for physicians to practice in underserved areas—the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Delta Regional Authority, and HHS—requested a total of 56 waivers for physicians to practice in 15 states.

With diminished federal participation, states now obtain waiver physicians primarily through the 30 waivers they are allotted each year. The number of waivers states actually requested, however, varied considerably among the states in fiscal years 2003 through 2005. For example, in fiscal year 2005, about one-quarter of the states requested the maximum of 30 waivers, while slightly more than a quarter requested 10 or fewer (see fig. 2). Collectively, the 54 states requested 956 waivers, or roughly 60 percent of the maximum of 1,620 waivers that could have been granted at their request.

States Requested Waivers for Physicians to Work in a Variety of Practice Specialties and Settings

Of the waivers states requested in fiscal year 2005, about 44 percent were for physicians to practice exclusively primary care, while about 41 percent were for physicians to practice exclusively in nonprimary care specialties, such as anesthesiology or cardiology. An additional 7 percent were for physicians to practice psychiatry. A small proportion of requests (5 percent) were for physicians to practice both primary and nonprimary care—for example, for individual physicians who practice both internal medicine and cardiology (see fig. 3).

More than 90 percent of the states that requested waivers in fiscal year 2005 reported that, under their policies in place that year, nonprimary care physicians were eligible to apply for waiver requests. Some of these states limited these requests. For example, some states restricted the number of hours a physician could practice in a nonprimary care specialty. Further, two states reported that they accepted applications from, and requested waivers for, primary care physicians only.

Regarding practice settings, more than three-fourths of the waivers requested by states in fiscal year 2005 were for physicians to practice in hospitals and private practices, including group practices. In addition, 16 percent were for physicians to practice in federally qualified health centers—facilities that provide primary care services in underserved areas—or rural health clinics—facilities that provide outpatient primary care services in rural areas (see fig. 4). More than 80 percent of the states requesting waivers in fiscal year 2005 reported requiring facilities where the physicians worked—regardless of practice setting—to accept some patients who were uninsured or covered by Medicaid.

Most States Reported Conducting Some Monitoring Activities

Although states do not have explicit responsibility for monitoring physicians’ compliance with the terms and conditions of their waivers, in fiscal year 2005, more than 85 percent of the states reported conducting at least one monitoring activity. The most common activity—reported by 40 states—was to require periodic reports by the physician or the employer (see table 1). Some states required these reports to specify the number of hours the physician worked or the types of patients—for example, whether they were uninsured—whom the physician treated.

Not all states that requested waivers conducted monitoring activities. Six states, which collectively accounted for about 13 percent of all state waiver requests in fiscal year 2005, reported that they conducted no monitoring activities in that year.

Most States Reported That the Annual Limit Was Adequate but Reported Differing Views on Having Allotments Redistributed

The majority of the states reported that the annual limit of 30 waivers per state was at least adequate to meet their needs for J-1 visa waiver physicians. When asked about their needs for additional waiver physicians, however, 11 states reported needing more. Furthermore, of the 44 states that did not request their 30-waiver limit in each of fiscal years 2003 through 2005, more than half were willing, at least under certain circumstances, to have their unused waiver allotments redistributed to other states in a given year. Such redistribution would require legislation. Fourteen states reported that they would not be willing to have their states’ unused waiver allotments redistributed.

Most States Reported That the Annual Waiver Limit Was Adequate, While Some Reported the Need for More

About 80 percent of the states reported that the annual limit of 30 waivers per state was adequate or more than adequate to meet their needs for J-1 visa waiver physicians. However, 13 percent of the states reported that the 30-waiver limit was less than adequate (see fig. 5).

Among the 16 states that requested 29 or 30 waivers in fiscal year 2005, 10 states reported that the annual limit was at least adequate for their needs. The other 6 states that requested all or almost all of their allotted waivers that year reported that the 30-waiver limit was less than adequate.

As mentioned earlier, states can use up to 5 of their waiver allotments for physicians to work in facilities located outside of HPSAs and MUA/Ps, as long these facilities serve patients who live in these underserved areas. While we inquired about states’ views on the adequacy of the annual limit on these flexible waivers, fewer than half of the states reported requesting flexible waivers in fiscal year 2005—the first year they were authorized to do so. When asked about the annual limit of 5 flexible waivers, half of the states (27 states) reported that this limit was at least adequate, but nearly one-third (17 states) did not respond or reported that they were unsure of their need for flexible waivers. The remaining 10 states reported that the annual limit of 5 flexible waivers was less than adequate (see fig. 6). Of these 10 states, 8 had also reported that the annual limit of 30 waivers per state was at least adequate for their needs, suggesting that some states may be more interested in increasing the flexibility with which waivers may be used than in increasing the overall number of waivers each year.

In addition to commenting on the adequacy of the annual waiver limits, states estimated their need for additional physicians under their J-1 visa waiver programs. Specifically, 11 states (20 percent) estimated needing between 5 and 50 more waiver physicians each. Collectively, these 11 states reported needing 200 more waiver physicians (see table 2).

Although 10 states reported requesting the annual limit of 30 waivers in each of fiscal years 2003 through 2005, the large majority (44 states) did not. When asked to provide reasons why they did not use all 30, many of these states reported that they received fewer than 30 applications that met their requirements for physicians seeking waivers through their state J-1 visa waiver programs. Some states, however, offered further explanations, which touched upon difficulties attracting physicians to the state, low demand for waiver physicians among health care facilities or communities, and mismatches between the medical specialties communities needed and those held by the physicians seeking waivers. For example: Difficulties attracting waiver physicians: One state commented that the increase in the annual limit on waivers from 20 to 30 in 2002 opened more positions in other states, contributing to a decrease in interest among physicians seeking waivers to locate in that state. Two states suggested that because they had no graduate medical education programs or a low number of them, fewer foreign physicians were familiar with their states, affecting their ability to attract physicians seeking J-1 visa waivers.

Low demand for waiver physicians: Many states noted low demand for foreign physicians among health care facilities or communities in the states. Two of these states commented that they had relatively few problems recruiting U.S. physicians. Another state commented that health care facilities—particularly small facilities and those located in rural areas—may be reluctant to enter into the required 3-year contracts with waiver physicians because of their own budget uncertainties.

Lack of physicians with needed specialties: One state commented that most communities in the state need physicians trained in family medicine and that few physicians with J-1 visas have that training. Similarly, another state noted a lack of demand among the health care facilities in the state for the types of medical specialties held by physicians seeking waivers.

In response to a question about whether they had observed any significant changes in the number of physicians seeking J-1 visa waivers, 15 states reported seeing less interest from physicians, or fewer applications, since 2001. Some states suggested that the decline might be due to an overall reduction in the number of physicians with J-1 visas who were in graduate medical education programs. Three states mentioned the possibility that more physicians may be opting to participate in graduate medical education on an H-1B visa, which does not have the same foreign residence requirement as a J-1 visa.

States’ Views Differed on Having Unused Waiver Allotments Redistributed

Of the 44 states that did not use all of their waiver allotments in each of fiscal years 2003 through 2005, slightly over half (25 states) reported that they would be willing, at least under certain circumstances, to have their unused waiver allotments redistributed to other states. In contrast, about one-third of the states with unused waiver allotments (14 states) reported that they would not be willing to have their unused waiver allotments redistributed. (See table 3 and, for further details on states’ responses, see app. I.)

The 14 states that reported they would be willing under certain circumstances to have their unused waiver allotments redistributed listed a variety of conditions under which they would be willing to do so, if authorized by law. These conditions centered around the timing for redistribution, the approach for redistribution, and the possibility for compensation.

Timing of redistribution: Seven states reported that their willingness to have their unused waiver allotments redistributed depended in part on when the redistribution would occur in a given year. Their comments suggested concerns about states being asked to give up unused waiver allotments before having fully determined their own needs for them. For example, three states reported that they would be willing to release at least a portion of their unused waiver allotments midway through the fiscal year. One state reported that it would be willing to have its unused waiver allotments redistributed once the state reached an optimal physician-to-population ratio. Finally, two states specified that states benefiting from any redistribution should be required to use the redistributed waivers within the same fiscal year.

Approach for redistribution: Three states reported that their willingness to have their unused waiver allotments redistributed depended on how the redistribution would be accomplished. Two states reported a willingness to do so if the allotments were redistributed on a regional basis—such as among midwestern or southwestern states. Another state reported that it would be willing to have its unused waiver allotments redistributed to states with high long-term vacancy rates for physicians. This state was also willing to have its unused waiver allotments redistributed in emergency relief situations, such as Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath, to help attract physicians to devastated areas.

Possibility for compensation: Two states stated that they would be willing to have their unused waiver allotments redistributed if they were somehow compensated. One state remarked that it would like more flexible waiver allotments, equal to the number of unused waiver allotments that were redistributed. The other state did not specify the form of compensation.

Other issues: One state commented that it would be willing to have its unused waiver allotments redistributed as long as redistribution did not affect the number of waivers it could request in future years. Another state responded that any provision to have unused waiver allotments redistributed would need to be pilot-tested for 2 years so that its effect could be evaluated.

The 14 states that reported that they would not be willing to have their unused waiver allotments redistributed to other states cited varied concerns. Several states commented that, because of physicians’ location preferences and differences in states’ J-1 visa waiver program requirements, a redistribution of unused waiver allotments could possibly reduce the number of physicians seeking waivers to practice in certain states.

Physician location preferences: Three states commented that physicians seeking J-1 visa waivers might wait until a redistribution period opened so that they could apply for waivers to practice in preferred states. As one state put it, if additional waivers were provided to certain states, a physician might turn down the “number 15 slot” in one state to accept the “number 40 slot” in another. This concern was also raised by four states that reported they were willing to have their unused waiver allotments redistributed under certain circumstances; two of these states specifically mentioned the possible negative impact that redistribution could have on rural areas.

Differences in state program requirements: One state commented that until state requirements for waivers were made consistent among states, having unused waiver allotments redistributed would benefit states with more lenient requirements or force states with more stringent requirements to change their policies. While this state did not specify what it considered to be stringent or lenient requirements, substantial differences in state programs do exist. For example, some states restrict their waiver requests solely to primary care physicians, while others place no limits on the number of allotted waivers they request for nonprimary care physicians. In another example, four states require 4- or 5-year contracts for all physicians or for physicians in certain specialties. One state commented that if it lost an unused waiver allotment to a state with more lenient requirements, it would have given away to another state a potential resource that it had denied its own communities.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may have.

Contact and Acknowledgments

For information regarding this testimony, please contact Leslie G. Aronovitz at (312) 220-7600 or aronovitzl@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. Kim Yamane, Assistant Director; Ellen W. Chu; Jill Hodges; Julian Klazkin; Linda Y.A. McIver; and Perry G. Parsons made key contributions to this statement.

Appendix I: State Responses to Selected Survey Questions

Much less than adequate No States that requested 30 waivers in each of fiscal years 2003 through 2005 were not asked about their willingness to have unused waiver allotments redistributed to other states.

Related GAO Products

State Department: Stronger Action Needed to Improve Oversight and Assess Risks of the Summer Work Travel and Trainee Categories of the Exchange Visitor Program. GAO-06-106. Washington, D.C.: October 14, 2005.

Health Workforce: Ensuring Adequate Supply and Distribution Remains Challenging. GAO-01-1042T. Washington, D.C.: August 1, 2001.

Health Care Access: Programs for Underserved Populations Could Be Improved. GAO/T-HEHS-00-81. Washington, D.C.: March 23, 2000.

Foreign Physicians: Exchange Visitor Program Becoming Major Route to Practicing in U.S. Underserved Areas. GAO/HEHS-97-26. Washington, D.C.: December 30, 1996.

Health Care Shortage Areas: Designations Not a Useful Tool for Directing Resources to the Underserved. GAO/HEHS-95-200. Washington, D.C.: September 8, 1995.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.