Health Care Transformation: The Role of Academic Health Centers and Their Psychologists.

The health care system of the United States has been in a period of dramatic transformation since the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, and the rate of change is accelerating. Historically, health care delivery was focused on the efforts of independent individual providers related to single patients, but the future will require interprofessional teamwork to achieve successful transformation. Academic health centers must identify nimble leaders who can harness the expertise of every team member to succeed in yielding the triple aim-better care for individuals, better health for populations, and lower overall cost. To create this change, there are several critical success factors for academic health center leaders, including creating a culture of collaboration, becoming "multipliers," embracing innovation, adhering to core professional ethics, and working to promote resilience. Given their extensive training and predisposition to these skills, psychologists are well-positioned to serve as leaders in today's academic health systems.

Physician workforce projections in an era of health care reform.

In 2020, the United States may face shortages of 45,400 primary care physicians and 46,100 medical specialists-a total of 91,500 too few doctors. Unfortunately, health workforce shortages like these are being advanced as cause for repealing or "defunding" the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The extension of health insurance coverage to millions of Americans is a critical first step toward a healthier America. It would be a national failure to leave millions of Americans without health insurance coverage because they will generate additional demand. Rather, the solution is to find ways to meet that demand. Workforce projections utilizing real data and carefully formulated assumptions to assess how and why supply and demand change over time can greatly assist policy makers in finding those solutions. With implementation of the ACA under way, it is time to understand what lessons such projections can teach, and to begin to heed those lessons.

Physician Mental Health: My Personal Journey and Professional Plea.

Longitudinal surveys of adults in the United States have shown that approximately 1 in 5 individuals experienced a mental illness in the prior year, with an increase in the observed prevalence over the last decade. Studies of physicians, including medical students, residents, and fellows, have shown that they also experience mental disorders, with some research (e.g., on depression) showing prevalence rates higher than those in the general population. Tragically, physicians also have higher suicide rates than the general population. In this commentary, the author discusses his own challenges with mental disorders beginning in early childhood. He shares how earlier trauma led to the emergence of symptoms that nearly caused him to withdraw from medical school during his first year, and he describes how support from a faculty member helped him receive psychiatric treatment that allowed him to successfully negotiate that serious crisis and experience a long, productive career. The author underscores how the idealized image of the physician as care giver rather than care receiver that many bring to their medical career, as well as the stigma associated with mental disorders, may prevent physicians from seeking care. He uses the narrative of his personal journey to make a plea to colleagues to share their own stories of mental illness and successful treatment, arguing that this is key to ultimately destigmatizing these issues for the profession of medicine.

Navigating Tumultuous Change in the Medical Profession: The Coalition for Physician Accountability.

Collaboration among the national organizations responsible for self-regulation in medicine in the United States is critical, as achieving the quadruple aim of enhancing the patient experience and improving population health while lowering costs and improving the work life of clinicians and staff is becoming more challenging. The leaders of the national organizations responsible for accreditation, assessment, licensure, and certification recognize this and have come together as the Coalition for Physician Accountability. The coalition, which meets twice per year, was created in 2011 as a discursive space for group discussion and action related to advancing health care, promoting professional accountability, and improving the education, training, and assessment of physicians. The coalition offers a useful avenue for members to seek common ground and develop constructive, thoughtful solutions to common challenges. Its members have endorsed consensus statements about current topics relevant to health care regulation, advanced innovation in medical school curricula, encouraged a plan for single graduate medical education accreditation for physicians holding MD and DO degrees, supported interprofessional education, championed opioid epidemic mitigation strategies, and supported initiatives responsive to physician workforce shortages, including the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, an expedited pathway by which eligible physicians may be licensed to practice in multiple jurisdictions.

Conflict-of-interest management: efforts and insights from the Association of American Medical Colleges.

The Association of American Medical Colleges has issued three major reports to help academic medical centers manage financial conflicts of interest in clinical research. One report addresses individual conflicts, another addresses institutional conflicts, and the third is a survey-based assessment of institutions performance to date in conflict-of-interest management. While implementation of policies to manage individual conflicts has been significant and widespread, the extent to which institutional conflicts are being managed is unclear. Developing effective and accepted policies to manage potential conflicts involving the funding of education remains a major challenge.

The humanities interface of nursing and medicine.

In the 1970s, the field of medical humanities developed and included ethics, literature, history, integrative medicine, and other topics, most often described from a physician's perspective. During this same period of revolutionary changes in health care, nursing curricula did not seek to emphasize content in humanities, perhaps because stereotypical views of nursing as the "caring profession" made such coursework seem redundant. In 2001, as a result of the Institute of Medicine's call for all health professionals to be educated in interdisciplinary teams, there was a new focus on the importance of interdisciplinary education. Collaborative experiences in the humanities can foster professional relationships that lead to professional growth, promote collaboration, and enhance patient-centered care. The purpose of this article is to describe the relevance of humanities to the interdisciplinary education and practice of health care providers. This article extends the thinking about the value of interdisciplinary education beyond the traditional dimensions of evidence-based practice, quality improvement, and informatics to humanities. Ways to provide nurses and physicians with interdisciplinary humanistic experiences are illustrated through an overview of projects jointly developed by the School of Nursing and the College of Medicine at The Pennsylvania State University.

What Should Guide Health Policy? A Perspective Beyond Politics.

As the U.S. electorate has become increasingly polarized, these divisions are poised to shape legislative and regulatory work in the years ahead. For those whose focus is on the public goods of health care for all, the advancement of science through rigorous research, and the contribution of higher education to the continual improvement of the nation's workforce, there is profound uncertainty about the future. There are several pressing questions facing the nation and academic medicine, including the future of affordable, accessible insurance; acceptance of scientific evidence; sustainable learning and teaching methodologies; and the well-being and preparation of the nation's health workforce to care for an increasingly diverse nation. For those in academic medicine and policy making alike, the authors propose a framework, grounded in scientific evidence and guided by clinical ethics, for designing and evaluating health policy solutions for these and other pressing questions.

Faculty and staff teams: a tool for unifying the academic health center and improving mission performance.

The organizational structure of the academic health center (AHC) may present significant barriers to deep and lasting organizational change. The insular nature and structure often seen in academic departments and other units at AHCs result in competition for scarce resources, rather than in working together to add value to one another or to the organization as a whole. Successful unification around organizational performance goals is needed more than ever by AHCs as they struggle to meet their challenges. Over a five-year period (2000-2005) at the Penn State College of Medicine and Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, organizational inner cohesiveness was created through the use of teams that unified the clinical, academic, and research enterprises. Barriers that typically separate academic departments, such as a lack of understanding of the impact of organizational funds flow on each of the missions, were broken down. Traditional barriers between employees and management (e.g., poor communication, lack of clarity on organizational goals, and claims that neither side understood the other) were reduced. Problems that seemed to be intractable in the past such as an inequitable distribution of resources, responsibilities, and rewards, were solved through the implementation of a teams approach across departments and missions. The authors describe the creation and operation of these AHC-wide teams. The rationale for using teams is elucidated, the difference between teams and committees is defined, and data on five years of team performance are presented. The authors argue that the breadth of scope and comprehensiveness of the teams approach represents an effective model for implementing AHC-wide transformational change.

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 importance of anatomy in health professions education and the shortage of qualified educators.

The current shortage of faculty qualified to teach anatomy in U.S. medical schools is reversible. Sufficient numbers of individuals are in the pipeline to provide a future cadre of well-trained faculty members educating students in gross anatomy. The challenge is to realign departmental, institutional, and federal training grant priorities and resources, creating incentives for graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and faculty members to stay the course and become the teachers needed to educate the next generation of health professionals. These strategies include (but are not limited to) team-teaching gross anatomy, thereby distributing the time commitments of a laboratory-based course more widely within a department; funds made available from the administration of medical schools to allow postdoctoral fellows to participate in teaching and providing compensation for the research activities; using "mission-based budgeting" to specifically compensate for faculty teaching time; and, finally, re-instituting federally funded training grants that solved this same teaching crisis in the not-too-distant past.