The past decade has seen ongoing debate regarding federal support of graduate medical education, with numerous proposals for reform. Several critical problems with the current mechanism are evident on reviewing graduate medical education (GME) funding issues from the perspectives of key stakeholders. These problems include the following: substantial interinstitutional and interspecialty variations in per-resident payment amounts; teaching costs that have not been recalibrated since 1983; no consistent control by physician educators over direct medical education (DME) funds; and institutional DME payments unrelated to actual expenditures for resident education or to program outcomes. None of the current GME reform proposals adequately address all of these issues. Accordingly, we recommend several fundamental changes in Medicare GME support. We propose a re-analysis of the true direct costs of resident training (with appropriate adjustment for local market factors) to rectify the myriad problems with per-resident payments. We propose that Medicare DME funds go to the physician organization providing resident instruction, keeping DME payments separate from the operating revenues of teaching hospitals. To ensure financial accountability, we propose that institutions must maintain budgets and report expenditures for each GME program. To establish educational accountability, Residency Review Committees should establish objective, annually measurable standards for GME program performance; programs that consistently fail to meet these minimum standards should lose discretion over GME funds. These reforms will solve several long-standing, vexing problems in Medicare GME funding, but will also uncover the extent of undersupport of GME by most other health care payers. Ultimately, successful reform of GME financing will require``all-payer'' support.
A growing body of research confirms the existence of a powerful connection between socioeconomic status and health. This research has implications for both clinical practice and public policy and deserves to be more widely understood by physicians. Absolute poverty, which implies a lack of resources deemed necessary for survival, is self-evidently associated with poor health, particularly in less developed countries. Over the past two decades, economic decline or stagnation has reduced the incomes of 1.6 billion people. Strong evidence now indicates that relative poverty, which is defined in relation to the average resources available in a society, is also a major determinant of health in industrialized countries. For example, persons in U.S. states with income distributions that are more equitable have longer life expectancies than persons in less egalitarian states. There are numerous possible approaches to improving the health of poor populations. The most essential task is to ensure the satisfaction of basic human needs: shelter, clean air, safe drinking water, and adequate nutrition. Other approaches include reducing barriers to the adoption of healthier modes of living and improving access to appropriate and effective health and social services. Physicians as clinicians, educators, research scientists, and advocates for policy change can contribute to all of these approaches. Physicians and other health professionals should understand poverty and its effects on health and should endeavor to influence policymakers nationally and internationally to reduce the burden of ill health that is a consequence of poverty.
Since 2009, a multidisciplinary team at Weill Cornell Medical College (WCMC) has collaborated to create a comprehensive, elective global health curriculum (GHC) for medical students. Increasing student interest sparked the development of this program, which has grown from ad hoc lectures and dispersed international electives into a comprehensive four-year elective pathway with over 100 hours of training, including three courses, two international experiences, a preceptorship with a clinician working with underserved populations in New York City, and regular lectures and seminars by visiting global health leaders. Student and administrative enthusiasm has been strong: In academic years 2009, 2010, and 2011, over half of the first-year students (173 of 311)participated in some aspect of the GHC, and 18% (55 of 311) completed all first-year program requirements.The authors cite the student-driven nature of GHC as a major factor in its success and rapid growth. Also important was the foundation previously established by WCMC global health faculty, the serendipitous timing of the GHC's development in the midst of curricular reform and review, as well as the presence of a full-time, nonclinical Global Health Fellow who served as a program coordinator. Given the enormous expansion of medical student interest in global health training throughout the United States and Canada over the past decade, the authors hope that medical schools developing similar programs will find the experience at Weill Cornell informative and helpful.
There is a paucity of research that illustrates the interplay between HIV
No abstract
Capitation-based reimbursement significantly influences the practice of medicine. As physicians, we need to assure that payment models do not jeopardize the care we provide when we accept higher levels of personal financial risk. In this paper, we review the literature relevant to capitation, consider the interaction of financial incentives with physician and medical risk, and conclude that primary care physicians need to work to assure that capitated systems incorporate checks and balances that protect both patients and providers. We offer the following proposals for individuals and groups considering capitated contracts: (1) reimbursement for primary care physicians should recognize both individual patient encounters and the administrative work of patient care management; (2) reimbursement for subspecialists should recognize both access to subspecialty knowledge and expertise as well as patient care encounters, but in some situations, subspecialists may provide the majority of care to individual patients and will be reimbursed as primary care providers; (3) groups of physicians should accept financial risk for patient care only if they have the tools and resources to manage the care; (4) physicians sharing risk for patient care should meet regularly to discuss care and resource management; and (5) physicians must disclose the financial relationships they have with health plans and medical care organizations, and engage patients and communities in discussions about resource allocation. As a payment model, capitation offers opportunities for primary care physicians to influence the future of health care by improving the management of resources at a local level.KEY WORDS: capitation; physician reimbursement; physician organization; physician financial risk; universal health care access.J GEN INTERN MED 2001;16:250±256.
Understanding how different health care systems are organized and financed is rarely taught in medical school. In 1997, several U.S. and European medical schools formed an ongoing, innovative, and collaborative exchange program to enable their medical students to gain an insight into the dynamics of another country's health care system. One student from each participating institution completes a month-long rotation at a host medical school under the supervision of a faculty mentor. Selected target diagnoses serve as the basis for comparative case studies. To enable the student to effectively study the host country's health care system, each is assigned a patient with the preselected specific diagnosis. The students view the patient's care within the context of the host country's delivery system rather than being limited to the clinical diagnosis and treatment of the disease. Matching the student with a patient permits the student to see how medical care is delivered and financed in the host country. Each student is required to prepare a written report focusing on costs; organization and delivery of care; quality and outcomes of care; politics, culture, and ethics; and learning. The case studies permit comparisons of health care systems among the participating U.S. and European Union countries, as well as opportunities for institutional and individual learning.
Health care is a human right. Achieving universal health insurance coverage for all US residents requires significant system-wide reform. The most equitable and cost-effective health care system is a public, single-payer (SP) system. The rapid growth in national health expenditures can be addressed through a system that yields net savings over projected trends by eliminating profit and waste. With universal health insurance coverage through SP financing, providers can focus on optimizing delivery of services, rather than working within a system covered by payers who have incentives to limit costs regardless of benefit. Rather, with a SP, the people act as their own insurer through a partnership with provider organizations where tax dollars work for everyone. Consumer choice is then based on the best care to meet need with no out-of-pocket payments. SP financing is the best option to ensure equity, fairness, and public health priorities align with medical needs, providing incentives for wellness. Consumer choice will drive market forces, not provider network profits or insurer restrictions. This approach benefits public health, as everyone will have universal access to needed care, with treatment plans developed by providers based on what works best for the patient. In 2021, the American Public Health Association adopted a policy statement calling for comprehensive reforms to implement a SP system. The proposed action steps in this policy will help build a healthier nation, saving lives and reducing wasted health care expenditures while addressing inequities rooted in social, demographic, mental health, economic, and political determinants.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.