Reimagining Nephrology Fellowship Education to Meet the Future Needs of Nephrology: A Report of the American Society of Nephrology Task Force on the Future of Nephrology.

The American Society of Nephrology (ASN) Task Force on the Future of Nephrology was established in April 2022 in response to requests from the American Board of Internal Medicine and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education regarding training requirements in nephrology. Given recent changes in kidney care, ASN also charged the task force with reconsidering all aspects of the specialty's future to ensure that nephrologists are prepared to provide high-quality care for people with kidney diseases. The task force engaged multiple stakeholders to develop 10 recommendations focused on strategies needed to promote: ( 1 ) just, equitable, and high-quality care for people living with kidney diseases; ( 2 ) the value of nephrology as a specialty to nephrologists, the future nephrology workforce, the health care system, the public, and government; and ( 3 ) innovation and personalization of nephrology education across the scope of medical training. This report reviews the process, rationale, and details (the "why" and the "what") of these recommendations. In the future, ASN will summarize the "how" of implementing the final report and its 10 recommendations.

Lessons to Learn From Hahnemann University Hospital's Closure.

Despite the number of hospital closures over the past decade, the June 2019 announcement of the closing of Hahnemann University Hospital (HUH) in downtown Philadelphia has greatly impacted the academic medicine community. Several factors contributed to the collapse of the hospital; however, the operational approach throughout the period leading up to and during the hospital's closing left faculty, students, and especially residents with many questions as they scrambled to determine how to continue their careers. This Invited Commentary examines factors that contributed to the crisis following the hospital's closure, such as the influence of HUH's ownership history and the complicated landscape of graduate medical education, and discusses the lessons that can be learned from this cataclysmic event. Above all, the academic medicine community must consider lessons learned from HUH's closure and make a firm commitment to preserve and protect the educational mission of our institutions.

Financial and Clinical Impact of Transfer Patients at Major Teaching Hospitals.

PURPOSE: The authors examined the "hub-and-spoke" health care system in the United States for patients transferred from one hospital ("spoke") to a major teaching hospital ("hub") and assessed the financial and clinical impact of this system on major teaching hospitals. METHOD: The authors surveyed Council of Teaching Hospitals and Health Systems members to collect detailed financial and clinical data from fiscal year 2015 for transfer cases and nontransfer cases (cases directly admitted to the teaching hospital). Data included computed margins (the difference between revenue received and direct and indirect facility costs as estimated by the hospitals) as well as case severity, average length of stay (ALOS), time of admission, surgical or medical status, and other situational variables for All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Groups (APR-DRGs). The authors used an ordinary least-squares regression model with fixed effects to analyze the data. RESULTS: Twenty-six hospitals provided data. The average difference between transfer and nontransfer cases was a 2.18 day longer ALOS and a $1,716 lower computed margin, for a case in the same APR-DRG and hospital (P < .001 for both outcomes). Transfer cases had a 19% higher case severity of illness rating and were disproportionately represented among complex APR-DRGs. Transfer patients were 14% more likely to be Medicaid beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with nontransfer cases, transfer cases at major teaching hospitals were more complex and resulted in greater resource utilization, affecting the financial margins on which teaching hospitals rely to support their multipart mission.

The Decline In Rural Medical Students: A Growing Gap In Geographic Diversity Threatens The Rural Physician Workforce.

Growing up in a rural setting is a strong predictor of future rural practice for physicians. This study reports on the fifteen-year decline in the number of rural medical students, culminating in rural students' representing less than 5 percent of all incoming medical students in 2017. Furthermore, students from underrepresented racial/ethnic minority groups in medicine (URM) with rural backgrounds made up less than 0.5 percent of new medical students in 2017. Both URM and non-URM students with rural backgrounds are substantially and increasingly underrepresented in medical school. If the number of rural students entering medical school were to become proportional to the share of rural residents in the US population, the number would have to quadruple. To date, medical schools' efforts to recognize and value a rural background have been insufficient to stem the decline in the number of rural medical students. Policy makers and other stakeholders should recognize the exacerbated risk to rural access created by this trend. Efforts to reinforce the rural pipeline into medicine warrant further investment and ongoing evaluation.

Looking Under the Streetlight? A Framework for Differentiating Performance Measures by Level of Care in a Value-Based Payment Environment.

The majority of quality measures used to assess providers and hospitals are based on easily obtained data, focused on a few dimensions of quality, and developed mainly for primary/community care and population health. While this approach supports efforts focused on addressing the triple aim of health care, many current quality report cards and assessments do not reflect the breadth or complexity of many referral center practices.In this article, the authors highlight the differences between population health efforts and referral care and address issues related to value measurement and performance assessment. They discuss why measures may need to differ across the three levels of care (primary/community care, secondary care, complex care) and illustrate the need for further risk adjustment to eliminate referral bias.With continued movement toward value-based purchasing, performance measures and reimbursement schemes need to reflect the increased level of intensity required to provide complex care. The authors propose a framework to operationalize value measurement and payment for specialty care, and they make specific recommendations to improve performance measurement for complex patients. Implementing such a framework to differentiate performance measures by level of care involves coordinated efforts to change both policy and operational platforms. An essential component of this framework is a new model that defines the characteristics of patients who require complex care and standardizes metrics that incorporate those definitions.

Taking Risk: Early Results From Teaching Hospitals' Participation in the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative.

The authors describe observations from the 27 teaching hospitals constituting the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) cohort in the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative. CMMI introduced BPCI in August 2011 and selected the first set of participants in January 2013. BPCI participants enter into Medicare payment arrangements for episodes of care for which they take financial risk. The first round of participants entered risk agreements on October 1, 2013 and January 1, 2014. In April 2014, CMMI selected additional participants who started taking financial risk in 2015. Selected episodes include congestive heart failure (CHF), major joint replacement (MJR), and cardiac valve surgery. The AAMC cohort of participating hospitals selected clinical conditions on the basis of patient volume, opportunity to impact savings and quality, organizational and clinical team readiness, and prior process improvement experience. Early financial results suggest that focused attention to postacute care utilization and outcomes, rapid changes in care processes, program pricing rules, and team composition drove savings and losses. The first cohort of participants generated savings in MJR, CHF, and cardiac valve episodes; losses were experienced in stroke, percutaneous coronary intervention, and spine surgery. Although about one-quarter of U.S. teaching hospitals are participating in BPCI, the proliferation of existing and new payment models, as well as the 2015 announcement to increasingly pay providers according to value, mandates close scrutiny of program outcomes. The authors conclude by proposing additional opportunities for research related to alternative payment models.

The Nation's Physician Workforce and Future Challenges.

There is much debate about the adequacy of the U.S. physician workforce and projections of its future size, distribution and composition. Beginning with 3 observations about the workforce we believe are largely not subject to dispute, we address the debate by providing an overview of the current state of the workforce and Graduate Medical Education in the United States; a brief history of both calls for graduate medical education reform since 1910 and the recent, intense debate about the reliability of workforce projections; and a discussion of the challenges to understanding the physician workforce. We draw 3 concluding observations: (1) Precisely because projections can be unpredictable in their impact on both physician workforce behavior and public policy development, policy makers need to devote more attention to workforce projections, not less. (2) More research devoted specifically to the workforce implications of delivery and payment reforms is strongly needed. (3) Such research must be pursued with a sense of urgency, given the rapid aging of the Baby Boom generation, which will put a disproportionate demand on the nation's physician workforce.

Yes, It Is Time to Rethink Postgraduate Training Requirements for Licensure!

In his Commentary in this issue, Dr. Freeman asks whether it is time to rethink postgraduate training requirements for licensure. The majority of U.S. states require a minimum of one year of postgraduate residency training to qualify for a medical license. The original rationale for requiring just a single year of training dates back over half a century to the era of a general practitioner completing medical school followed by a rotating internship prior to heading out into independent general practice. Today, however, the requirement for a single year of training for licensure is in direct contrast to the more rigorous requirements for specialty certification, the current trend in medical education toward competency-based training, and the unanimous agreement among national organizations that readiness for independent practice usually takes three to five years of progressive training. The complexity of medical practice today, the rising use of technology, and the rapid explosion of the understanding of medical science raise the important question of whether this licensing requirement is out of sync with state medical boards' goal of protecting the public by licensing only qualified physicians. A national discussion should be held to distinguish clear minimal standards for physician training that protect the public by ensuring that practicing physicians are highly qualified through rigorous training.

Multiple listing in kidney transplantation.

The increasing number of patients with end-stage renal disease and the expanding waiting lists for various solid-organ transplants, particularly kidney transplants, has compelled prospective transplant recipients and their care teams to explore novel ways to accelerate this process, initiating the practice of multiple listing. Multiple listing is defined as being listed for an organ transplant at more than 1 transplant center. Current policy allows patients to be listed at more than 1 transplant center in 1 or more organ procurement organization. Multiple listing can be beneficial for different groups of transplant candidates. Current data support a beneficial effect for the patient on multiple waiting lists, most notably portending a survival advantage for transplant recipients. The kidney transplant list has the most patients who are multiply listed (4.7%), followed by the liver transplant list at 3.8%. The main potential downside of multiple listing is its effect on patients not on multiple lists, as well as the cost accrued to achieve multiple listings. With the newly clarified policy of the United Network for Organ Sharing, a pivotal role for nephrologists in educating patients about the option of multiple listing becomes more apparent. In this article, current practices and policies regarding multiple listing are reviewed and opinions and ethics relating to the practice are discussed.