The Supply and Distribution of the Preventive Medicine Physician Workforce.

CONTEXT: Preventive medicine physicians work at the intersection of clinical medicine and public health. A previous report on the state of the preventive medicine workforce in 2000 revealed an ongoing decline in preventive medicine physicians and residents, but there have been few updates since. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe trends in both the number of board-certified preventive medicine physicians and those physicians who self-designate preventive medicine as a primary or secondary specialty and examine the age, gender distribution, and geographic distribution of this workforce. DESIGN: Analysis of the supply of preventive medicine physicians using data derived from board certification files of the American Board of Preventive Medicine and self-designation data from the American Medical Association Masterfile. SETTING: The 50 US states and District of Columbia. PARTICIPANTS: Board-certified and self-designated preventive medicine physicians in the United States. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number, demographics, and location of preventive medicine physicians in United States. RESULTS: From 1999 to 2018, the total number of physicians board certified in preventive medicine increased from 6091 to 9270; the number of self-identified preventive medicine physicians has generally decreased since 2000, with a leveling off in the past 4 years matching the trend of preventive medicine physicians per 100 000 population; there is a recent increase in women in the specialty; the practice locations of preventive medicine physicians do not match the US population in rural or micropolitan areas; and the average age of preventive medicine physicians is increasing. CONCLUSIONS: The number of preventive medicine physicians is not likely to match population needs in the United States in the near term and beyond. Assessing the preventive medicine physician workforce in the United States is complicated by difficulties in defining the specialty and because less than half of self-designated preventive medicine physicians hold a board certification in the specialty.

The value of workforce data in shaping nursing workforce policy: A case study from North Carolina.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the Institute of Medicine's Committee for Assessing Progress on Implementing the Future of Nursing recommendations noted that little progress has been made in building the data infrastructure needed to support nursing workforce policy. PURPOSE: This article outlines a case study from North Carolina to demonstrate the value of collecting, analyzing, and disseminating state-level workforce data. METHODS: Data were derived from licensure renewal information gathered by the North Carolina Board of Nursing and housed at the North Carolina Health Professions Data System at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. DISCUSSION: State-level licensure data can be used to inform discussions about access to care, evaluate progress on increasing the number of baccalaureate nurses, monitor how well the ethnic and racial diversity in the nursing workforce match the population, and investigate the educational and career trajectories of licensed practical nurses and registered nurses. CONCLUSION: At the core of the IOM's recommendations is an assumption that we will be able to measure progress toward a "Future of Nursing" in which 80% of the nursing workforce has a BSN or higher, the racial and ethnic diversity of the workforce matches that of the population, and nurses currently employed in the workforce are increasing their education levels through lifelong learning. Without data, we will not know how fast we are reaching these goals or even when we have attained them. This article provides concrete examples of how a state can use licensure data to inform nursing workforce policy.

Building a Value-Based Workforce in North Carolina.

Health care in the United States is likely to change more in the next 10 years than in any previous decade. However, changes in the workforce needed to support new care delivery and payment models will likely be slower and less dramatic. In this issue of the NCMJ, experts from education, practice, and policy reflect on the "state of the state" and what the future holds for multiple health professional groups. They write from a broad range of perspectives and disciplines, but all point toward the need for change-change in the way we educate, deploy, and recruit health professionals. The rapid pace of health system change in North Carolina means that the road map is being redrawn as we drive, but some general routes are evident. In this issue brief we suggest that, to make the workforce more effective, we need to broaden our definition of who is in the health workforce; focus on retooling and retraining the existing workforce; shift from training workers in acute settings to training them in community-based settings; and increase accountability in the system so that public funds spent on the health professions produce the workforce needed to meet the state's health care needs. North Carolina has arguably the best health workforce data system in the country; it has historically provided the data needed to inform policy change, but adequate and ongoing financial support for that system needs to be assured.

Specialty distribution of physician assistants and nurse practitioners in North Carolina.

Physician workforce projections often include scenarios that forecast physician shortages under different assumptions about the deployment of physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs). These scenarios generally assume that PAs and NPs are an interchangeable resource and that their specialty distributions do not change over time. This study investigated changes in PA and NP specialty distribution in North Carolina between 1997 and 2013. The data show that over the study period, PAs and NPs practiced in a wide range of specialties, but each profession had a specific pattern. The proportion of PAs-but not NPs-reporting practice in primary care dropped significantly. PAs were more likely than NPs to report practice in urgent care, emergency medicine, and surgical subspecialties. Physician workforce models need to account for the different and changing specialization trends of NPs and PAs.

The Evolving Role of Medical Assistants in Primary Care Practice: Divergent and Concordant Perspectives from MAs and Family Physicians.

Medical assistants (MAs) are a flexible and low-cost resource for primary care practices and their roles are swiftly transforming. We surveyed MAs and family physicians in primary care practices in North Carolina to assess concordance in their perspectives about MA roles, training, and confidence in performing activities related to visit planning; direct patient care; documentation; patient education, coaching or counseling; quality improvement; population health and communication. For most activities, we did not find evidence of role confusion between MAs and physicians, physician resistance to delegate tasks to properly trained MAs, or MA reluctance to pursue training to take on new roles. Three areas emerged where the gap between the potential and actual implementation of MA role transformation could be narrowed-population health and panel management; patient education, coaching, and counseling; and scribing. Closing these gaps will become increasingly important as our health care system moves toward value-based models of care.

The global health workforce shortage: role of surgeons and other providers.

The debate over the status of the physician workforce seems to be concluded. It now is clear that a shortage of physicians exists and is likely to worsen. In retrospect it seems obvious that a static annual production of physicians, coupled with a population growth of 25 million persons each decade, would result in a progressively lower physician to population ratio. Moreover, Cooper has demonstrated convincingly that the robust economy of the past 50 years correlates with demand for physician services. The aging physician workforce is an additional problem: one third of physicians are over 55 years of age, and the population over the age of 65 years is expected to double by 2030. Signs of a physician and surgeon shortage are becoming apparent. The largest organization of physicians in the world (119,000 members), the American College of Physicians, published a white paper in 2006 titled, "The Impending Collapse of Primary Care Medicine and Its Implications for the State of the Nation's Health Care" [37]. The American College of Surgeons, the largest organization of surgeons, has published an article on access to emergency surgery [38], and the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Science has published a book on the future of emergency care (Fig. 10). The reports document diminished involvement and availability of emergency care by general surgeons, neurologic surgeons, orthopedists, hand surgeons, plastic surgeons, and others. The emergency room has become the primary care physician after 5 PM for much of the population. A survey done by the Commonwealth Fund revealed that less than half of primary care practices have an on-call arrangement for after-hours care. Other evidence of evolving shortage are reports of long wait times for appointments, the hospitalist movement, and others. The policies for the future should move beyond dispute over whether or not a shortage exists. The immediate need is for the United States, as a society, to commit to workforce self sufficiency in health care. The reliance on international graduates for more than 25% of the nation's physicians is a transnational problem. Reliance on IMGs, nurses and other health professions for the United States workforce is an issue of international distributive justice. Wealthy, developed countries, such as the United States, should be able to educate sufficient health professionals without relying on a less fortunate country's educated health workers. The 2000 Report of the Chair of the AAMC, the accrediting agency for United States and Canadian medical schools through the LCME, recommended expansion of medical school class sizes and expansion of medical schools [41]. For the past 25 years, the AAMC has supported a no-growth policy and the goal that 50% of USMGs be primary care physicians. In 2003, the AAMC developed a workforce center,-led by Edward Salsberg. The workforce center has provided valuable data and monitoring of the evolving workforce graduating from medical and and osteopathic schools in the United States. The NRMP, also managed by the AAMC, has begun useful studies analyzing the specialty choices of the more than 20,000 participants in the Match each year. The AAMC workforce policy was altered in 2006, and a 12-point policy statement was issued (see http://aamc.workforceposition.pdf). Three of the 12 points reflected significant change from past positions. They are a call for a 30% increase in physicians graduated by United States allopathic medical schools and an increase in residency positions now limited by the BBA of 1997. The recommendation that students make personal specialty choices reversed the prior recommendation that a majority of students enter primary care practice.

A Methodology for Using Workforce Data to Decide Which Specialties and States to Target for Graduate Medical Education Expansion.

OBJECTIVE: To outline a methodology for allocating graduate medical education (GME) training positions based on data from a workforce projection model. DATA SOURCES: Demand for visits is derived from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and Census data. Physician supply, retirements, and geographic mobility are estimated using concatenated AMA Masterfiles and ABMS certification data. The number and specialization behaviors of residents are derived from the AAMC's GMETrack survey. DESIGN: We show how the methodology could be used to allocate 3,000 new GME slots over 5 years-15,000 total positions-by state and specialty to address workforce shortages in 2026. EXTRACTION METHODS: We use the model to identify shortages for 19 types of health care services provided by 35 specialties in 50 states. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The new GME slots are allocated to nearly all specialties, but nine states and the District of Columbia do not receive any new positions. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis illustrates an objective, evidence-based methodology for allocating GME positions that could be used as the starting point for discussions about GME expansion or redistribution.

An international call to arms to improve allied health workforce planning.

Although the funding and organization of the health care systems in the United States and England are quite different, there are striking similarities in the allied health workforce planning challenges facing the two countries. This paper identifies some common issues facing workforce policy-makers in both countries and suggests key next steps to enhance workforce research and planning in both countries, including the creation of a national minimum data set for allied health professions.