Financial Contribution of Residents When Billing as “Junior Associates” in the “Surgical Firm”

Stoller, Jeremy; Pratt, Sarah I.; Stanek, Stephen; Zelenock, Gerald B.; Nazzal, Munier

doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.06.013

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…12 As this analysis demonstrates from a direct cost comparison perspective, resident physicians are signifi-cantly cheaper sources of labor compared with any potential replacements. While it is not possible to calculate the indirect revenue generated by resident physicians, two studies of general surgery residents at single institutions estimated the unbilled revenue of a resident was $95,000 13 or $233,000 14 per year. A more recent multicenter prospective analysis determined unbilled consult services provided by orthopedic residents during on-call hours would fund 73% of the resident's stipends.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relative Financial Cost and Benefit of an Ophthalmology Resident Compared to an Advanced Practice Provider, Optometrist, or Faculty Ophthalmologist

Moore

Barr

2018

J Acad Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The main objective of the article is to determine the relative direct financial cost and benefit of an advanced practice provider (APP), optometrist, and faculty ophthalmologist compared with an ophthalmology resident. Design Single center cost–benefit financial analysis. Methods The direct total expenses, including mean salary and benefits; the cost/week, based upon calculated hours worked; and net revenue, based upon technical collections subtracted from total expenses were collected for all APPs, optometrists, faculty ophthalmologists, and ophthalmology residents at the University of Kentucky for the 2016 to 2017 academic year. Optometry and ophthalmology faculty collections were adjusted for clinical full-time equivalents. Results Total annual mean salary and benefits for 242 APPs, 4 optometrists, 17 faculty ophthalmologists, and 9 ophthalmology residents were $126,797, $117,021, $338,233, and $71,210, respectively. Assuming a 50-hour-work week, the calculated hourly costs were $48.77, $45.01, $130.09, and $27.39, respectively. Ophthalmology residents do not directly generate work relative value units or collections. On this basis, the net annual revenues were −$62,729, $122,757, $566,119, and −$71,210, respectively. Conclusions Ophthalmology residents are relatively inexpensive compared with potential substitute health care providers, although they are unable to generate direct revenue. Indirect costs and benefits are likely substantial, but currently incalculable. More candid analyses of the role and financial impact of trainees in health care are needed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relative Financial Cost and Benefit of an Ophthalmology Resident Compared to an Advanced Practice Provider, Optometrist, or Faculty Ophthalmologist

Moore

Barr

2018

J Acad Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…30 A study of surgical resident revenues, if they were compensated at the level of supervised "junior associates," found financial contributions to be $94,872 annually, more than 75% of direct educational costs. 31 Unsurprisingly, it has been well documented that involving a surgery resident will increase operative time and cost. A study of 29,134 cases performed at Greenville Memorial Hospital in South Carolina showed that 45 out of 246 procedures took significantly longer with a resident present in the room.…”

Section: Geographic and Specialty Maldistributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Graduate medical education funding mechanisms, challenges, and solutions: A narrative review

Whang

Kristo

2021

The American Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: With increased attention on the federal budget deficit, graduate medical education (GME) funding has in particular been targeted as a potential source of cost reduction. Reduced GME funding can further deteriorate the compensation of physicians during their residency training. Methods: In order to understand the GME funding mechanisms and current challenges, as well as the value of the work accomplished by residents, we searched peer-reviewed, English language studies published between 2000 and 2019.Results: Direct and indirect GME funding is intended to support resident reimbursement and the higher costs associated with supporting a teaching program. However, policy efforts have aimed to reduce federal funding for GME. Furthermore, evidence suggests that residents are inadequately compensated because their salaries do not reflect the number of hours worked and are not comparable to those of other medical staff. Conclusions: Our review suggests that creative solutions are needed to diversify GME funding and improve resident compensation.

show abstract

“…One advantage of creating GME programs in a community health system is that GME programs may reduce health system costs and improve patient outcomes. Numerous studies describe the additional costs in time, throughput, and other productivity metrics that come with involvement of resident and fellow learners [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. However, these studies narrowly focus on a particular aspect of a hospital profit and loss statement, failing to reflect the full scope of the contribution to the hospital and community within which these programs are situated [9,22,23].…”

Section: Cost Reduction With Improved Patient Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benefits of developing graduate medical education programs in community health systems

Alweis

Donato

Terry

et al. 2021

Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The creation of new CMS-funded Graduate Medical Education (GME) cap positions by the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2021 offers a unique opportunity for systems in community and rural settings to develop and expand their training programs. This article provides a review of the evidence behind the value proposition for system administrators to foster the growth of GME in community health systems. The infrastructure needed to accredit GME programs may reduce the cost of care for both the patients and the system through improved patient outcomes and facilitation of system efforts to recognize and mitigate social determinants of health. Residents, fellows and medical students expand the capacity of the current healthcare workforce of a system by providing coverage during healthcare emergencies and staffing services in difficult-to-recruit specialties. Those trainees are the nucleus of succession planning for the current medical staff, can facilitate the creation and expansion of service lines, and may elevate the profile of the system through scholarly work and equity and quality improvement activities. While creating GME programs in a community health system may, at first glance, be perceived as cost-prohibitive, there are robust advantages to a system for their creation.

show abstract

Financial Contribution of Residents When Billing as “Junior Associates” in the “Surgical Firm”

Cited by 5 publications

References 21 publications

The Relative Financial Cost and Benefit of an Ophthalmology Resident Compared to an Advanced Practice Provider, Optometrist, or Faculty Ophthalmologist

The Relative Financial Cost and Benefit of an Ophthalmology Resident Compared to an Advanced Practice Provider, Optometrist, or Faculty Ophthalmologist

Graduate medical education funding mechanisms, challenges, and solutions: A narrative review

Benefits of developing graduate medical education programs in community health systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About