Clinical Informatics Fellowship Programs: In Search of a Viable Financial Model: An open letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

In the US, the new subspecialty of Clinical Informatics focuses on systems-level improvements in care delivery through the use of health information technology (HIT), data analytics, clinical decision support, data visualization and related tools. Clinical informatics is one of the first subspecialties in medicine open to physicians trained in any primary specialty. Clinical Informatics benefits patients and payers such as Medicare and Medicaid through its potential to reduce errors, increase safety, reduce costs, and improve care coordination and efficiency. Even though Clinical Informatics benefits patients and payers, because GME funding from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has not grown at the same rate as training programs, the majority of the cost of training new Clinical Informaticians is currently paid by academic health science centers, which is unsustainable. To maintain the value of HIT investments by the government and health care organizations, we must train sufficient leaders in Clinical Informatics. In the best interest of patients, payers, and the US society, it is therefore critical to find viable financial models for Clinical Informatics fellowship programs. To support the development of adequate training programs in Clinical Informatics, we request that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issue clarifying guidance that would allow accredited ACGME institutions to bill for clinical services delivered by fellows at the fellowship program site within their primary specialty.

Report of the Task Force on Residency Training Information, American Board of Emergency Medicine.

The American Board of Emergency Medicine gathers extensive background information on emergency medicine residents and the programs in which they train. Before the compilation of this report, this information has not been widely available.

Longitudinal study of emergency physicians by the American Board of Emergency Medicine: 1995 interim survey results.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To obtain current demographic data and information regarding the opinion of a stratified random sample of emergency physicians about the greatest current challenges facing emergency medicine. METHODS: An annual survey was conducted by the American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) using a stratified random sample of 1,004 emergency physicians selected from four cohorts, 1979, 1984, 1988, and 1993. These samples were further divided between diplomates who had completed emergency medicine residency training and those who had not. The 1993 non-residency-trained panel was replaced by a random sample of American College of Emergency Physicians members who were full-time emergency physicians, were not ABEM diplomates, and had not completed a residency in emergency medicine. The interim survey instrument is a one-page collection of relevant demographic items selected from the comprehensive 5-year questionnaire with the addition of the open-ended question, "What are the greatest challenges facing emergency medicine today?" RESULTS: Of the interim surveys distributed, 95% (n = 956) were returned. Because the 1995 interim survey was the first distributed after the initial 1994 comprehensive survey, the demographic data had changed little. Such data will become increasingly important and useful as changes are reported over subsequent years. The main challenge identified by participants was the impact of managed care (31%), followed by economic and financial issues (23%). Personal impact issues, such as individual stress and malpractice, accounted for a smaller number of responses (18%). CONCLUSION: Overall, the ABEM Longitudinal Study participant responses to the 1995 interim survey describe a committed group of emergency physicians who are struggling and coping with the needs of a maturing specialty and with the crosscurrents and changes in American medicine.