Expansion of gambling in Canada: implications for health and social policy.

Canada experienced a dramatic increase in legalized gambling in the 1990s, primarily because of governments' need to increase revenue without additional taxation. This article examines gambling from a public health perspective. The major public health issues include gambling addiction, family dysfunction and gambling by youth. Debates have emerged about the health, social and economic costs and benefits of gambling. Stakeholder and social policy groups have expressed concern about the impact of expanded gambling on the quality of life of individuals, families and communities. Epidemiological studies show that the prevalence of gambling in the general adult population is low but increasing. Of particular concern is the high though steady prevalence of gambling among youth. New technologies have been linked to gambling-related problems such as addiction to gambling by video lottery terminals. Gambling by means of the Internet represents another emerging issue. The article concludes with recommendations for health and social policy related to gambling. These recommendations incorporate a broad public health approach to create a strong research program and to balance risks and benefits.

Measuring contributions to the research mission of medical schools.

The authors of this article, who were the members and staff of a research panel formed by the AAMC as part of its mission-based management initiative, reflect on the growing interest in quantitative information in the management of the research mission of medical schools. They note the serious limitations of any such system of measures for research, particularly its inability to represent directly the quality of the research effort. Despite these concerns, the authors acknowledge that leaders in academic medicine have always used quantitative measures in one form or another to compare performance or assess progress. Two factors appear to be driving increases in this practice: (1) the need to demonstrate to institutional stakeholders that resources are being used wisely and that the school's performance justifies continued investment in the research mission; and (2) the need to fashion an economic strategy to manage precious institutional resources, particularly research space. Given these realities, the authors offer guidelines for the proper development and use of measures to assess contributions by faculty, departments, and institutions to the research mission. They also comment on the measures most commonly used in four areas: grants and other revenue-generating activities; publications; faculty members' research reputation and contributions to the national research enterprise; and support to the general research mission of the school. The authors conclude that quantitative information can help institutional leaders in important management decisions. However, the potential for misuse is great. The key is always to regard this information as an aid to judgment, not a substitute for it.

The changing landscape for clinical research.

The authors review the history of U.S. clinical research and identify the profound changes stemming from advancements in the biomedical sciences, the recent transformation in the organization and financing of health care delivery, and the increasing application of information technologies. They observe that the enterprise must reorganize to account for the changed landscape, but there is a lack of the data necessary to monitor change and determine the extent to which clinical research is successfully realigning and sustaining itself. The authors discuss the evolving definition, scope, and venues for clinical research, and review previous analyses of clinical research's difficulties and remedies proposed: shared responsibility in the financing of academic medicine, support by federal and private health insurers for routine costs of patient care in clinical trials, and strengthened collaboration between and among industry, academia, insurers, and government. The authors conclude by describing two major initiatives to foster clinical investigation in the new landscape. The first is the Clinical Research Summit Project, a convocation of representative stakeholders from the health care system with an interest in clinical research, whose charge will be to formulate a national agenda for clinical research that has the broad-based support of the stakeholders. Among the challenges of this undertaking are the needs to identify new and stable sources of support for clinical research infrastructure, assess the future workforce needs for clinical investigation, and devise new methods to ensure the continued vitality and account-ability of clinical research. The second is the Clinical Research Task Force, an initiative of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), which is already exploring and advising on how AAMC member organizations can best strengthen their capacity to support clinical research programs in the current scientific, health care delivery, and financial environment.

How medical schools can maintain quality while adapting to resource constraints.

To gain a better understanding of the effects on medical schools of ongoing transformations in medical practice, science, and public expectations, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) formed the Advisory Panel on the Mission and Organization of Medical Schools (APMOMS) in 1994. Six working groups were appointed to address different issues of importance. This article is a report of the findings and recommendations of the Working Group on Adapting to Resource Constraints. That group was charged to consider how leaders in academic medicine can respond to the challenges of external forces and the anticipated diminishing of resources, and to focus on medical schools and how they can maintain quality while reengineering to effect needed changes. The group members developed their thinking within four categories: size of the academic enterprise; organizational models and their relationships to the clinical enterprise; faculty tenure and compensation; and partnerships with capital-intensive entities. Three recommendations for action, to which the APMOMS unanimously agreed, were made to the AAMC, which has already acted upon them in ways described in the article. The group also developed a series of "ideas for consideration," which represent a range of the members' perspectives. The working group did not seek (and probably could not have obtained) unanimous agreement on many of the issues that these ideas focus upon. The ideas are presented as a series of resolutions designed to stimulate discussion and foster better-informed planning.

On the cost of educating a medical student.

The cost of educating a medical student has been an issue of intermittent public concern for most of the twentieth century, beginning in 1910 with the Flexner Report. The issue is now reemerging as a topic of high public and political interest, for several reasons, including concern about medical schools and their financing. Estimates of medical student education costs appear to vary widely; but such variations derive from the different ways the question has been framed. Costs can be categorized as instructional costs and total educational resource costs. Instructional costs, which can be distinguished further as marginal costs or proportionate-share costs, are those costs that can be related directly to the teaching program and its support. Total educational resource costs are those costs supporting all faculty deemed necessary to conduct undergraduate medical education in all their activities of teaching, research, scholarship, and patient care. The authors review studies spanning a period of more than 20 years and find that instructional cost estimates of medical student education, when adjusted to a standard base year (1996 dollars), fall within a fairly narrow range: most are between $40,000 and $50,000 per student per year. Estimates of total educational resource costs show greater variation, but four of six estimates fall between approximately $72,000 and $93,000 per student per year. The authors note that present directions of curricular innovation-small-group learning, investment in information technology, and clinical education in ambulatory sites-offer little solace to those concerned with mitigating the costs of medical student education. Several proposals have been advanced to restructure medical student education in the name of efficiency and cost-effectiveness, but many are simply maneuvers to transfer responsibility for costs to other entities. Only by a net reduction of the medical school curriculum might costs truly be reduced. Yet the medical knowledge base continues to increase, as does the range of information and skills required of medical students. Unless society is prepared to change dramatically its concept of the well-educated physician, opportunities for significant reductions in the costs of medical student education are difficult to visualize.

Preserving medical schools' academic mission in a competitive marketplace.

To gain a better understanding of the effects on medical schools of transformations in medical practice, science, and public expectations, the AAMC in 1994 formed the Advisory Panel on the Mission and Organization of Medical Schools and appointed six working groups to address relevant issues. This article is a report of the findings of the Working Group on Preserving Medical Schools' Academic Mission in a Competitive Marketplace, which was charged with exploring how medical schools could acquire and/or preserve an adequate patient base for teaching, research, and income generation in a competitive marketplace. The other groups' reports will appear in future issues of Academic Medicine. To understand the diversity of approaches that schools have taken to achieve this goal and to preserve their missions, the group interviewed representatives of nine medical schools, selected to represent a cross section of U.S. medical schools. The interviews took place on four occasions between June 1995 and March 1996. The information and comments shared by participants helped the working group gain insight into the fundamental issues it had been charged to address, including those of new delivery structures, what value schools offer to delivery structures, how education and research can be incorporated and supported financially, possible new pressures on relationships between medical schools and teaching hospitals, changes in faculty physicians' employment relationships and terms, and the role of the medical school in graduate medical education. In collecting and analyzing the data, the working group focused on the distinction between protecting an institution's existing enterprise and preserving an institution's core mission. This article gives a detailed overview of the information and comments each school presented, organized under the appropriate question. The working group's conclusions and commentaries on the findings follow. An appendix presents more detailed summaries of the schools' presentations, organised as case studies. The picture that emerges is complex. The working group concluded that medical schools will take a variety of approaches to define and preserve their missions. Most, but not all, medical schools will be able to secure the patient bases necessary to fulfill their missions even in a competitive marketplace. However, the nature of many of the schools is likely to change, and it is not clear whether the core missions of education and research will continue at their present levels at all schools.

Reengineering academic medical centers: reengineering academic values?

Academic medicine is entering an era of profound, unsettling change resulting not simply from the drastic transformation of the health care marketplace but more fundamentally from the chronic, growing gap between academic medicine's seemingly insatiable demand for total resources and the supply of resources that society is willing to provide. To examine this problem, the author reviews the major factors that have shaped the development of academic medical centers (AMCs) since World War II and are now the roots of their vulnerability. The first was the major federal investment in university-based programs of science research and education that began in the 1940s; the second was the enactment in the 1960s of the Medicare/Medicaid legislation that established federal responsibility for the support of graduate medical education. After describing important characteristics (e.g., number of faculty, number of students, dollars spent on research) of the growth and accomplishment that resulted from this massive infusion of federal funds over the last few decades, the author discusses several adverse consequences, such as the de-emphasis on education in favor of research and clinical service delivery and the serious disjunction between the internal labor markets of the AMCs and the external labor markets of the real world that AMCs' graduates enter. The author then analyzes the severe challenges being faced by academic medicine in research, education, and clinical practice in the emerging resource-limited environment. Of particular concern are the fate of the clinical investigator and the future of clinical research. The author concludes with a list of four feasible strategic options for AMCs (e.g., "build one's own system") and an extensive list of what he believes AMCs will do to respond to the stresses now upon them (e.g., capitalize on unique strengths rather than trying to compete in all areas). He concludes that it will take courage for AMCs to preserve their core values in the new era, but that this can be done if AMCs craft new adaptive structures that are better attuned to the new environment and not wedded to one that is vanishing.

The JIM interview. David Korn, MD.

When David Korn, MD, was named dean of the Stanford University School of Medicine on October 9, 1984, he assumed leadership of a world class research institution. Stanford was at the forefront of medicine in the areas of transplantation and oncology, and the steady influx of privately insured patients had generated a net operating surplus of $17 million in that year alone. However, in the same issue of the Stanford University Hospital newsletter which announced the selection of Korn as Dean, a small article appeared on a new prospective payment system based on diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). The article stated that the new system had begun smoothly, though some payments for cost outliers had been delayed. Other cost containment measures soon followed, most notably the implementation of managed care, and by 1990, Stanford was $14 million in the red. Buffeted by changes in medical reimbursement, competition with less costly hospitals, and a nasty squabble with Congress over indirect research costs, Stanford has been on the frontlines of a struggle now confronting many academic medical centers. After successfully consolidating the university's clinical services into a unified Stanford Health System, Korn announced that he would be stepping down as Dean on April 1. Interviewed in his office in Palo Alto, Korn reflected on the difficulties of dealing with managed care, the current financial state of the institution, and what Stanford's experience may predict for other academic medical centers.