In 2010, Fitzhugh Mullan and others from the George
Washington University, with collaborators from the American Academy of Family Physicians' (AAFP) Robert Graham Policy Research Center, published the seminal article “The social mission of medical education:
ranking the schools” in the Annals
of Internal Medicine (discussed in this blog on June 10, 2010 in
A New Way of Ranking Medical Schools: Social Mission). This paper looked at the production of
medical schools in the US in terms of whether their graduates were in 3
categories associated with social mission: practice in an underserved area,
practicing a primary care specialty, and having a higher percentage of
graduates who were members of underrepresented minority groups. It was the first time such data had been
published, and the results showed that most medical schools don’t do very well,
and that, in general, those that do the worst are those most often identified
as “top” schools by criteria such as National Institutes of Health (NIH)
funding or rankings by US News. This
is not surprising; enrolling students from high income families who have had
top grades at the most elite private and suburban schools, training them in a
setting in which the mix of doctors is heavily skewed to the most
subspecialized and research-intensive, located in a densely populated urban
area, is the precisely wrong formula
for recruiting physicians from underserved backgrounds and training them to
practice primary care in areas of need. Unfortunately, although there have been
small programs implemented at many schools, this model has not seen any
significant change in most medical schools, particularly those “most elite”.
This year, this group from the Graham Center and George Washington, with collaborators from the the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM), take the
next obvious step in examining the production of the nation’s doctors. In “Toward
Graduate Medical Education (GME) Accountability: Measuring the Outcomes of GME
Institutions”,[1]
in Academic Medicine (not available
free on-line; abstract at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23752037),
Candice Chen and her colleagues look at how institutions that sponsor GME (and,
importantly, get very large amounts of money from Medicare and Medicaid -- $9.3
billion and $3.18 Billion, respectively, in 2009) do in producing specialists
in short supply: primary care physicians (defined as family medicine, general
internal medicine (GIM), general pediatrics, internal medicine–pediatrics,
internal medicine geriatrics, and family medicine geriatrics), general
surgeons, obstetrician - gynecologists and psychiatrists. Identifying which
program produced who is quite a bit harder than when looking at medical school
outcomes; while a medical school is a medical school, GME-sponsoring
institutions can be consortia of a medical school and one or more hospitals,
and may often sponsor more than one residency program in the same specialty.
As in all measures of primary care production, the big
complication is in graduates of internal medicine programs, the majority of
whose graduates go into subspecialty (e.g., cardiology, gastroenterology,
pulmonary and critical care) fellowships rather than remaining in primary
care/general internal medicine (GIM). Chen’s work accounts for this, but
explicitly notes that they are unable to account for the percent of GIM
graduates who do not go on to subspecialty training but work as hospitalists.
These are clearly not in primary care, and by many accounts may represent a
majority of those completing the basic internal medicine training but not going
on to fellowship. The authors note that, by their calculations, the average for
primary care was 25.2%,”… this
overestimates primary care production, as we could not account for primary care
physicians practicing as hospitalists.”
Just as with medical schools, there was a wide variation in
the percent of graduates of different sponsoring institutions who entered these
specialties-in-need. Of 759 sponsoring institutions, they ‘…found that 158 institutions produced no primary care graduates, and
184 institutions produced more than 80%; the latter tended to be smaller institutions.”
Again no surprise; the larger, more elite and famous sponsoring institutions
(most often hospitals associated with elite medical schools) did a terrible
job, while the smaller sponsoring institutions -- often hospitals with one
(usually family medicine) or a few residencies, in smaller cities and towns,
and affiliated with Federally-Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) or Area Health
Education Centers (AHECs), based in in underserved urban and rural communities,
did well. The
Robert Graham Center website provides interactive tools to allow you to map the
density
of primary care physicians by state, county and other areas, the
output of each institution producing residents in terms of location and
specialty, and the
footprint of graduates from each GME program.
Let me restate: 158 institutions sponsoring graduate
medical education produced NO primary care graduates! Let’s add some other
numbers from the study: 198 institutions (more than 25% of the total) produced NO
rural physicians, while only 10 institutions had all graduates go to rural
areas; the average percentage of graduates providing direct patient care in
rural areas was 4.8%. 283 institutions (37%) produced NO physicians practicing
in FQHCs or rural health clinics (RHCs); 479 (63%!) institutions produced no National
Health Service Corps (NHSC; a program for sponsoring physicians for underserved
areas) physicians. This performance can be described by a single, simple word: ABYSMAL!
Elite academic medical centers have values that lead them to
attract and select students and trainees with characteristics that are the
opposite of those needed for training physicians to meet the needs of the
American people. They value caring for rarer and highly specialized tertiary
and quarternary conditions, which both are highly reimbursed and provide the
basis for research in narrow areas of disease (and almost never of health).
They value receiving large sums of money from the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) for research, most of which is basic laboratory research. These are not
bad values; they are, in fact, necessary. We need research, including basic
laboratory research and first-in-human studies, for medical science to advance
(although we also need a lot more funding for population-based research into
the causes of health and disease, and community-based efforts to address them).
We need tertiary-care medical centers where rarer or more complex conditions
can be most effectively treated by physicians and surgeons whose narrower expertise
makes them more experienced and effective.
The problem is that concentrating all these subspecialists
in the very places where students and residents are trained gives those learners
a very skewed idea of the ratio of subspecialists to primary care doctors, and
makes the teachers want to get the “best” students to go into their narrow,
subspecialized areas. In addition, selection for medical school (and to a large
extent for residencies that are more competitive because they have fewer slots)
tend to be for students who have the characteristics that help them to do well
in basic science courses, standardized tests, and possibly in laboratory
research. These students tend to come from the highest income families of
professionals, in the largest metropolitan areas, from elite public or suburban
schools. They look a great deal like the people who have plenty of doctors to
care for them, and very little like the people whose communities suffer from a
dearth of physicians in inner city and rural areas. I have previously noted
that, while about 20% of Americans live in rural areas, only about 9% of
doctors practice in such areas; this study shows it is actually much worse,
with only 4.8% of graduates in rural practice!
The situation is exacerbated by the inequity in income between primary care doctors and subspecialists, an inequity also seen (albeit at a higher level) for general surgeons vs. subspecialty surgeons, especially when hours of work are considered. Thus, students, generally selected from a population not representative of the American people, who have increasing debt (even for those from upper-middle-income, not to mention middle-income and the rare student from low income families), are attracted to specialties that pay the most; if assessments of “lifestyle” are added to the calculus, those that pay the most for the least work (or whose income/work ratios are the highest). This is a formula to continue what we have, not to make things better.
The situation is exacerbated by the inequity in income between primary care doctors and subspecialists, an inequity also seen (albeit at a higher level) for general surgeons vs. subspecialty surgeons, especially when hours of work are considered. Thus, students, generally selected from a population not representative of the American people, who have increasing debt (even for those from upper-middle-income, not to mention middle-income and the rare student from low income families), are attracted to specialties that pay the most; if assessments of “lifestyle” are added to the calculus, those that pay the most for the least work (or whose income/work ratios are the highest). This is a formula to continue what we have, not to make things better.
The authors of the paper say that “Primary care physician production of 25.2% and rural physician
production of 4.8% will not sustain the current workforce, solve problems of
maldistribution, or address acknowledged shortages. The relatively small number
of physicians choosing to work in RHCs, FQHCs, HPSAs, and the NHSC will not
support a doubling of the capacity of safety net services envisioned by the
Affordable Care Act.” They
have that right. Medical schools and GME-sponsoring institutions have for too
long been allowed to continue being self-serving, with the biggest institutions
being entirely pitiful in terms of producing the doctors America needs. It
needs an immediate, far-reaching, large-scale change, where the biggest
training programs see themselves in the business of producing primary care
doctors for underserved people.
Why would they do that? Well, there is the $9.5 billion in
Medicare and $3.18 billion in Medicaid GME funding that could be withheld if
they don’t, for a start…
[1] Chen C, et al., “Toward Graduate Medical Education (GME) Accountability: Measuring the Outcomes of GME Institutions”, Academic Medicine, Vol. 88, No. 9 / September 2013
4 comments:
Thanks for a prescient look at an important labor market dynamic. Just posted this in my Health Economics community - https://plus.google.com/communities/112595506772830136141
Interesting article, very informative.
I really impressed after read this because of some quality work and informative thoughts . I just wanna say thanks for the writer and wish you all the best for coming!. coursework writing
Very true to my current situation. The current system is not working and I appreciate you calling it out. Things need to change.
Post a Comment