Separate But Not Equal? A Cross-Sectional Study of Segregation by Payor Mix in Academic Primary Care Clinics.

BACKGROUND: At some US Academic Health Centers (AHCs), patients with predominantly Medicaid insurance are seen in one clinic and patients with other insurance are seen in another. The extent of this practice and implications are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion of AHCs that have at least two primary care internal medicine clinics that differ substantially in proportion of patients with Medicaid and to compare patient demographic, staffing, and operational features. PARTICIPANTS: General internal medicine chiefs and clinic directors at 40 randomly selected US AHCs plus the top 10 AHCs in terms of NIH funding. MAIN MEASURE: An AHC was classified as maintaining clinics that differed substantially in the proportion of patients with Medicaid if any two differed by ≥ 40% (absolute). Other criteria were used for pre-specified secondary analyses (e.g., ≥ 30%). KEY RESULTS: Thirty-nine of 50 AHCs (78%) participated. Four of 39 (10%; 95% CI, 3 to 24%) had two clinics differing by ≥ 40% in the proportion of patients with Medicaid, eight (21%; 95% CI, 9 to 36%) had clinics differing by ≥ 30%, and 15 (38%; 95% CI, 23 to 55%) had clinics differing by ≥ 20%. Clinics with more patients with Medicaid by any of the three criteria were more likely to employ resident physicians as providers of longitudinal care (with faculty supervision) and more likely to have patients who were Black or Hispanic. CONCLUSIONS: Some US AHCs maintain separate clinics defined by the proportion of patients with Medicaid. Clinics with a higher proportion of patients insured by Medicaid are more likely to employ residents (with faculty oversight), feature residents as providers of longitudinal care, and serve patients who are Black and Hispanic. Further research is needed to understand why some AHCs have primary care clinics distinguishable by insurance mix with the goal of ensuring that racism and discrimination are not root causes.

Which Internal Medicine Clerkship Characteristics Are Associated With Students' Performance on the NBME Medicine Subject Exam? A Multi-Institutional Analysis.

PURPOSE: To identify which internal medicine clerkship characteristics may relate to NBME Medicine Subject Examination scores, given the growing trend toward earlier clerkship start dates. METHOD: The authors used linear mixed effects models (univariable and multivariable) to determine associations between medicine exam performance and clerkship characteristics (longitudinal status, clerkship length, academic start month, ambulatory clinical experience, presence of a study day, involvement in a combined clerkship, preclinical curriculum type, medicine exam timing). Additional covariates included number of NBME clinical subject exams used, number of didactic hours, use of a criterion score for passing the medicine exam, whether medicine exam performance was used to designate clerkship honors, and United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 performance. The sample included 24,542 examinees from 62 medical schools spanning 3 academic years (2011-2014). RESULTS: The multivariable analysis found no significant association between clerkship length and medicine exam performance (all pairwise P > .05). However, a small number of examinees beginning their academic term in January scored marginally lower than those starting in July (P < .001). Conversely, examinees scored higher on the medicine exam later in the academic year (all pairwise P < .001). Examinees from schools that used a criterion score for passing the medicine exam also scored higher than those at schools that did not (P < .05). Step 1 performance remained positively associated with medicine exam performance even after controlling for all other variables in the model (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample, the authors found no association between many clerkship variables and medicine exam performance. Instead, Step 1 performance was the most powerful predictor of medicine exam performance. These findings suggest that medicine exam performance reflects the overall medical knowledge students accrue during their education rather than any specific internal medicine clerkship characteristics.

The hidden curriculum: medical students' changing opinions toward the pharmaceutical industry.

BACKGROUND: Authorities suggest academic medical centers eliminate conflicts of interest. The authors evaluated medical students' opinions and knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry. METHOD: An anonymous 20-item questionnaire was administered to medical students from four different medical schools; 15 items addressed opinions, and five items were free-response knowledge questions. Results were analyzed by Fisher exact test. RESULTS: Authors received 667 responses from the schools. Sixty-five percent of clinical students believed accepting gifts was appropriate; 28% of preclinical students believed it was appropriate (P < .001). Knowledge was the same for clinical and preclinical students. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical students were more favorable toward receiving gifts than were preclinical students, yet there was no difference in their knowledge of the industry. Increased formal and informal education about the pharmaceutical industry is necessary during the clinical years.