Why "Rekindling Reform?".
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to Oliver Fein.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
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.
Providers are increasingly evaluated and measured as part of quality, credentialling, and reimbursement programs, an approach often used by managed care organizations. However, these evaluations are rarely used in residency training, meaning that physicians entering practice have little experience or understanding of these measures. To address this issue, in 1998 the authors successfully developed a three-part practice-profiling system for internal medicine residents at their institution that includes measures of patient satisfaction, disease-management profiles for diabetes and hypertension, and an Internet-based faculty-evaluation program. The patient-satisfaction profile utilizes a ten-question patient survey that emphasizes physician-patient communication issues. The diabetes and hypertension disease-management profiles use the resident's own patients to profile process and outcome measures for common chronic ambulatory conditions. The faculty-evaluation profile is conducted over the Internet, and allows the resident to compare faculty evaluations with those of his or her peer group. Residents receive the profiles as a packet in a scheduled session with a faculty supervisor twice each year. A total of 120 residents are profiled annually for the above measures. Residents rated the program very highly, and found the profiling program to be instructive and effective feedback. As payers and regulators increasingly use physician profiling, residents will benefit from learning the strengths and weaknesses of profiling systems early in their training.