These numbers are only a net positive for rheumatologists. However, saturated locations will still be saturated.
One extra boon for rheumatologists is that it isn't a field that is readily open for midlevel takeover. Sure, NPs can see your OA, fibro, and very simple RA, but overall I've realized that the rheumatology patient population is generally less accepting of a non-MD managing their disease than many other fields.
Excellent point about the patients. Also, I think the patients have excellent reasons for feeling this way.
Besides cases where diagnosis is *abundantly* clear,
most PHYSICIANS seem to know little of rheum outside the extremely common,
and EVERYONE seems unable to make any but the most common rheum diagnoses with any certainty,
and most can't properly interpret most of the most common panels
A lot of rheum dx's have systemic effects that most non-specialists don't want to touch with a ten foot pole - lupus and kidney failure? Not something I want to play with.
Couple the diagnostic uncertainty, complexity, lack of experience, potential for random systemic extreme badness,
Not to mention - the treatments for a lot of this?
PCPs can be loose with steroids and methotrexate,
but I don't see anyone wanting to touch any of the rest of the immunosuppresants.
Anything past those, the risk of PML and agranulocytosis - basically everyone wants rheum to write for rheum dx's
(aside from the specialists that do it if for their scope of practice, GI w/ Crohns, Derm w/ Psoriasis, etc)
I think rheum is at, or should be near, the bottom of any list of specialties that are ranked,
"Hey I'm a doctor or a midlevel I think I can wing this, especially since it's not procedure heavy"
TLDR:
I will say this, in my training at least, it seemed like rheum was the turf no one wanted to play on, like, ever.
I think that was a good thing, actually, and well deserved.