RESUMEN
We show that the middle-range exchange-correlation hybrid of Henderson, Izmaylov, Scuseria and Savin (HISS) performs extremely well for elemental and binary semiconductors with narrow or visible spectrum band gaps, as well as some wider gap or more ionic systems used in devices. The lattice parameters are superior to those predicted by the screened hybrid functional of Heyd, Scuseria and Ernzerhof (HSE), and provide a significant improvement over the geometries predicted by typical semilocal functionals, yielding results competitive with PBEsol, which was specially tuned for solids. HISS also yields band gaps superior to those produced by functionals developed specifically for the solid state. Timings indicate that HISS is more computationally efficient than HSE, implying that the high quality lattice constants coupled with improved optical band gap predictions render HISS a useful adjunct to HSE in the modeling of geometry-sensitive semiconductors.
Asunto(s)
Simulación por Computador , Fuentes Generadoras de Energía , Semiconductores , Modelos MolecularesRESUMEN
CONTEXT: In the mid-1980s, states expanded their initiatives of scholarships, loan repayment programs, and similar incentives to recruit primary care practitioners into underserved areas. With no national coordination or mandate to publicize these efforts, little is known about these state programs and their recent growth. OBJECTIVES: To identify and describe state programs that provide financial support to physicians and midlevel practitioners in exchange for a period of service in underserved areas, and to begin to assess the magnitude of the contributions of these programs to the US health care safety net. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, descriptive study of data collected by telephone, mail questionnaires, and through other available documents, (eg, program brochures, Web sites). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: All state programs operating in 1996 that provided financial support in exchange for service in defined underserved areas to student, resident, and practicing physicians; nurse practitioners; physician assistants; and nurse midwives. We excluded local community initiatives and programs that received federal support, including that from the National Health Service Corps. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number and types of state support-for-service programs in 1996; trends in program types and numbers since 1990; distribution of programs across states; numbers of participating physicians and other practitioners in 1996; numbers in state programs relative to federal programs; and basic features of state programs. RESULTS: In 1996, there were 82 eligible programs operating in 41 states, including 29 loan repayment programs, 29 scholarship programs, 11 loan programs, 8 direct financial incentive programs, and 5 resident support programs. Programs more than doubled in number between 1990 (n = 39) and 1996 (n = 82). In 1996, an estimated 1306 physicians and 370 midlevel practitioners were serving obligations to these state programs, a number comparable with those in federal programs. Common features of state programs were a mission to influence the distribution of the health care workforce within their states' borders, an emphasis on primary care, and reliance on annual state appropriations and other public funding mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS: In 1996, states fielded an obligated primary care workforce comparable in size to the better-known federal programs. These state programs constitute a major portion of the US health care safety net, and their activities should be monitored, coordinated, and evaluated. State programs should not be omitted from listings of safety-net initiatives or overlooked in future plans to further improve health care access. JAMA. 2000;284:2084-2092.
Asunto(s)
Apoyo Financiero , Área sin Atención Médica , Médicos/provisión & distribución , Atención Primaria de Salud , Ubicación de la Práctica Profesional/economía , Estudios Transversales , Becas , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud , Fuerza Laboral en Salud , Motivación , Evaluación de Programas y Proyectos de Salud , Planes Estatales de Salud , Apoyo a la Formación Profesional , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
Medicaid is the second-largest explicit payer of graduate medical education (GME). All but five states pay for GME ($2.4 billion in 1998). As states rapidly move their Medicaid populations to managed care, Medicaid support for GME is subject to change. Just sixteen states and the District of Columbia carve out Medicaid GME payments from capitated rates to managed care plans and rechannel them to teaching programs. Concurrently, managed care has motivated several states to distribute Medicaid GME funds in ways more explicitly accountable to the public. Ten states require that GME payments be directly linked to state policy goals intended to vary the distribution of or limit the health care workforce.
Asunto(s)
Educación de Postgrado en Medicina/economía , Programas Controlados de Atención en Salud/organización & administración , Medicaid/economía , Apoyo a la Formación Profesional/organización & administración , Presupuestos , Política de Salud , Humanos , Innovación Organizacional , Objetivos Organizacionales , Planes Estatales de Salud/organización & administración , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To identify states that have played a key role in promoting, developing, and supporting telemedicine initiatives aimed at improving access to basic health care and to characterize the range of actions and policy-making roles taken by the states. METHODS: State agencies involved in telemedicine initiatives and state-funded telemedicine programs were interviewed by telephone. An informal case study approach was used with a standard, open-ended questionnaire. Twenty-seven states were contacted in early 1995. RESULTS: Sixteen states have been active in telemedicine development since 1989, with the level of activity expanding considerably in the last 2 years. Some states, particularly Georgia, Kansas, Texas, South Dakota, and Louisiana, have well-developed programs. Policy actions taken by the states in support of telemedicine differ considerably. They include planning and coordination, development of networks, more limited program development, funding, building a telecommunications infrastructure for telemedicine, and regulatory support and clarification. A wide array of funding sources has been used, including state tax dollars and state-earmarked federal monies and regulatory judgments. The level of funding by the states has also varied, ranging from less than $100,000 to tends of millions of dollars. CONCLUSION: There are varied roles and policy actions that states have assumed in promoting and supporting telemedicine development. States are investing considerable dollars and effort in telemedicine and appear likely to continue this activity in order to promote its development and improve access to health care.
Asunto(s)
Desarrollo de Programa , Telemedicina , Financiación Gubernamental , Política de Salud , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud , Humanos , Telemedicina/economía , Telemedicina/organización & administración , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
State laws enacted between 1985 and 1992 were reviewed to examine state involvement in influencing the supply and distribution of generalist physicians. Forty-seven states enacted 238 relevant laws during this period. In 1991 and 1992, 36 states enacted 98 laws, as compared with 1985 and 1986, when 8 states enacted 12 laws. Legislation addressed planning and oversight; financial incentives to institutions, students, and residents; and strategies to enhance the practice environment. A new strategy is to link funding to measureable outcomes, such as the career choices of a state medical school's graduates. Few states devoted resources to evaluate their efforts.