Cost of Training Crisis: Anaesthetics.

The anaesthetic training programme in the United Kingdom (UK) spans over seven years and is overseen by the Royal College of Anaesthetists (RCOA). Junior doctors in England are currently striking amid ongoing pay negotiations with the government, and almost all junior doctors are worried about the cost of living. This article provides an overview of the average financial cost of training for doctors in the anaesthetic training programme. The cost incurred by anaesthetic trainees illustrates the level of financial burden faced by trainees across multiple specialities. The cost includes: student loan repayment (with interest rates), compulsory membership fees (including the Royal College of Anaesthetists and General Medical Council), postgraduate examinations (Fellowship of the Royal College of Anaesthetist exams are compulsory to complete training) and medical indemnity. The average trainee spends between 5.6% and 7.4% of their annual salary on non-reimbursable costs. This article delineates for aforementioned expenses and compares them with the training programs in Australia and New Zealand, given their status as frequent emigration destinations for UK doctors.

US Postgraduate Trainee Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Representation and Faculty Compensation By Specialty.

This study compares postgraduate trainee racial, ethnic, and gender representation and faculty compensation for 21 clinical specialties using 2015-2022 data.

Comparison of the Financial and Operational Characteristics of For-Profit and Nonprofit Hospitals Receiving Federal Graduate Medical Education Payments, 2011-2020.

This study compares graduate medical education (GME) payments between nonprofit and for-profit hospitals between 2011 and 2020 to assess how hospitals value GME.

Becas para la formación de médicos especialistas académicos del Hospital Clínico de la Universidad de Chile / Academic residents fellowship program at the University of Chile Clinical Hospital

The mission of the University of Chile Clinical Hospital is to be the main University Hospital in the country. Along with training of health professionals in clinical practice and research, the Hospital provides comprehensive health solutions to the community. Since its foundation, it played an important role in the training of health professionals and specialists. To fulfill this mission, it is important to have outstanding academics and a system that allows their renewal and replacement. From January 25, 2001, the University of Chile approved the regulations that rule the Residents Program Fellowship, aimed to train the new generations of clinical academics. These regulations allow the financing of training programs in basic or primary specialties (such as internal medicine, surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, among others) or in specialties derived from them (such as cardiology, gastroenterology and reproductive medicine, among others.) The different clinical departments and the Hospital Direction define each year how many places will be offered and in which specialties. The Faculty of Medicine Graduate School carries out the formal selection of the applicants. This article reviews the results of this program between 2013 and 2021, analyzing in detail the traceability of each graduate over the years.

[Academic residents fellowship program at the University of Chile Clinical Hospital]. / Becas para la formación de médicos especialistas académicos del Hospital Clínico de la Universidad de Chile.

The mission of the University of Chile Clinical Hospital is to be the main University Hospital in the country. Along with training of health professionals in clinical practice and research, the Hospital provides comprehensive health solutions to the community. Since its foundation, it played an important role in the training of health professionals and specialists. To fulfill this mission, it is important to have outstanding academics and a system that allows their renewal and replacement. From January 25, 2001, the University of Chile approved the regulations that rule the Residents Program Fellowship, aimed to train the new generations of clinical academics. These regulations allow the financing of training programs in basic or primary specialties (such as internal medicine, surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, among others) or in specialties derived from them (such as cardiology, gastroenterology and reproductive medicine, among others.) The different clinical departments and the Hospital Direction define each year how many places will be offered and in which specialties. The Faculty of Medicine Graduate School carries out the formal selection of the applicants. This article reviews the results of this program between 2013 and 2021, analyzing in detail the traceability of each graduate over the years.

Estimating the cost of training an ophthalmologist in Brazil / Estimativa do custo para formação de um oftalmologista no Brasil

ABSTRACT Introduction: It is estimated that 23% of the Brazilian population does not have access to an ophthalmologist, mainly because of the irregular geographical distribution of experts. It may be expensive to train ophthalmologists in Brazil. Objective: To estimate the cost of training an ophthalmologist and the labor market conditions so that the provider recovers the investment. Methods: Epidemiological study in databases from governmental sources and institutions related to the eye health system regulation. Results: The cost for training an ophthalmologist would be equal to R$ 592.272,00. After specialization, if the provider pledged all his/her income to recover the amount spent on training, it would take 5.2 years to reach the point of equilibrium. Conclusion: Young doctors from families unable to afford the cost of their education and support for at least 14 years after the beginning of the undergraduate course will hardly be able to specialize in Ophthalmology if they are unable to carry out their studies in public educational institutions. And those who can specialize are likely to choose to practice their profession in large urban centers, where most of the job opportunities are available, to at least recover the financial investment in training in the medium term.

RESUMO Introdução: Estima-se que 23% da população brasileira não tenha acesso ao oftalmologista, devido, principalmente, à falta de recursos do Sistema Público de Saúde e à distribuição geográfica irregular dos especialistas. É possível que seja caro formar oftalmologistas no Brasil. Assim, é compreensível que a maioria dos profissionais optem para ficar próximos dos grandes centros consumidores, onde estão as melhores remunerações. Objetivo: Estimar o custo para a formação de um oftalmologista e as condições do mercado de trabalho para que ele recupere o investimento. Métodos: estudo epidemiológico em bases de dados de fontes governamentais e de instituições relacionadas à regulamentação do sistema de saúde ocular. Resultados: Estimou-se que o custo para formação de um oftalmologista seja de R$ 592.272,00. Após a especialização, caso ele empenhe todo seu rendimento para reaver o valor gasto em sua formação, precisaria de 5,2 anos para atingir o ponto de equilíbrio. Conclusão: Jovens médicos oriundos de famílias incapazes de arcar com o custo de sua formação e de seu sustento, por pelo menos 14 anos após o início da graduação, dificilmente conseguirão se especializar em Oftalmologia, se não conseguirem realizar seus estudos em instituições públicas de ensino. E aqueles que conseguem se especializar, provavelmente optem por exercer a profissão em grandes centros urbanos, onde está a maior parte das oportunidades de trabalho, a fim de, a médio prazo, conseguir, pelo menos, recuperar o investimento financeiro na formação.

Medicare Support for Dental and Podiatry Graduate Medical Education Programs.

Importance: Oral health care faces ongoing workforce challenges that affect patient access and outcomes. While the Medicare program provides an estimated $14.6 billion annually in graduate medical education (GME) payments to teaching hospitals, including explicit support for dental and podiatry programs, little is known about the level or distribution of this public investment in the oral health and podiatry workforce. Objective: To examine Medicare GME payments to teaching hospitals for dental and podiatry residents from 1998 to 2018, as well as the distribution of federal support among states, territories, and the District of Columbia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was conducted using data from 1252 US teaching hospitals. Data were analyzed from May through August 2020. Exposures: Dental and podiatry residency training. Main Outcomes and Measures: Medicare dental and podiatry GME payments were examined. Results: Among 1252 teaching hospitals, Medicare provided nearly $730 million in dental and podiatry GME payments in 2018. From 1998 to 2018, the number of residents supported more than doubled, increasing from 2340 residents to 4856 residents, for a 2.1-fold increase, while Medicare payments for dental and podiatry GME increased from $279 950 531 to $729 277 090, for a 2.6-fold increase. In 2018, an estimated 3504 of 4856 supported positions (72.2%) were dental. Medicare GME payments varied widely among states, territories, and the District of Columbia, with per capita payments by state, territory, and district population ranging from $0.05 in Puerto Rico to $14.24 in New York, while 6 states received no support for dental or podiatry residency programs. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that dental and podiatry GME represents a substantial public investment, and deliberate policy decisions are needed to target this nearly $730 million and growing investment to address the nation's priority oral and podiatry health needs.

How Academic Medical Centers Can Navigate the Pandemic and Its Aftermath: Solutions for 3 Major Issues.

The COVID-19 crisis has seriously affected academic medical centers (AMCs) on multiple levels. Combined with many trends that were already under way pre pandemic, the current situation has generated significant disruption and underscored the need for change within and across AMCs. In this article, the authors explore some of the major issues and propose actionable solutions in 3 areas of concentration. First, the impact on medical students is considered, particularly the trade-offs associated with online learning and the need to place greater pedagogical emphasis on virtual care delivery and other skills that will be increasingly in demand. Solutions described include greater utilization of technology, building more public health knowledge into the curriculum, and partnering with a wide range of academic disciplines. Second, leadership recruiting, vital to long-term success for AMCs, has been complicated by the crisis. Pressures discussed include adapting to the dynamics of competitive physician labor markets as well as attracting candidates with the skill sets to meet the requirements of a shifting AMC leadership landscape. Solutions proposed in this domain include making search processes more focused and streamlined, prioritizing creativity and flexibility as core management capabilities to be sought, and enhancing efforts with assistance from outside advisors. Finally, attention is devoted to the severe financial impact wrought by the pandemic, creating challenges whose resolution is central to planning future AMC directions. Specific challenges include recovery of lost clinical revenue and cash flow, determining how to deal with research funding, and the precarious economic balancing act engendered by the need to continue distance education. A full embrace of telehealth, collaborative policy-making among the many AMC constituencies, and committing fully to being in the vanguard of the transition to value-based care form the solution set offered.

Graduate Medical Education in Otolaryngology: Making Dollars and Sense of Reform.

Graduate medical education (GME) is funded by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services through both direct and indirect payments. In recent years, stakeholders have raised concerns about the growth of spending on GME and distribution of payment among hospitals. Key stakeholders have proposed reforms to reduce GME funding such as adjustments to statutory payment formulas and absolute caps on annual payments per resident. Otolaryngology departmental leadership should understand the potential effects of proposed reforms, which could have significant implications for the short-term financial performance and the long-term specialty workforce. Although some hospitals and departments may elect to reduce resident salaries or eliminate positions in the face of GME funding cuts, this approach overlooks the substantial Medicare revenue contributed by resident care and high cost of alternative labor sources. Commitment to resident training is necessary to align both the margin and mission of otolaryngology departments and their sponsoring hospitals.

Quality and Cost of Care by Hospital Teaching Status: What Are the Differences?

Policy Points In two respects, quality of care tends to be higher at major teaching hospitals: process of care and long-term survival of cancer patients following initial diagnosis. There is also evidence that short-term (30-day) mortality is lower on average at such hospitals, although the quality of evidence is somewhat lower. Quality of care is mulitdimensional. Empirical evidence by teaching status on dimensions other than survival is mixed. Higher Medicare payments for care provided by major teaching hospitals are partially offset by lower payments to nonhospital providers. Nevertheless, the payment differences between major teaching and nonteaching hospitals for hospital stays, especially for complex cases, potentially increase prices other insurers pay for hospital care. CONTEXT: The relative performance of teaching hospitals has been discussed for decades. For private and public insurers with provider networks, an issue is whether having a major teaching hospital in the network is a "must." For traditional fee-for-service Medicare, there is an issue of adequacy of payment of hospitals with various attributes, including graduate medical education (GME) provision. Much empirical evidence on relative quality and cost has been published. This paper aims to (1) evaluate empirical evidence on relative quality and cost of teaching hospitals and (2) assess what the findings indicate for public and private insurer policy. METHODS: Complementary approaches were used to select studies for review. (1) Relevant studies highly cited in Web of Science were selected. (2) This search led to studies cited by these studies as well as studies that cited these studies. (3) Several literature reviews were helpful in locating pertinent studies. Some policy-oriented papers were found in Google under topics to which the policy applied. (4) Several papers were added based on suggestions of reviewers. FINDINGS: Quality of care as measured in process of care studies and in longitudinal studies of long-term survival of cancer patients tends to be higher at major teaching hospitals. Evidence on survival at 30 days post admission for common conditions and procedures also tends to favor such hospitals. Findings on other dimensions of relative quality are mixed. Hospitals with a substantial commitment to graduate medical education, major teaching hospitals, are about 10% to 20% more costly than nonteaching hospitals. Private insurers pay a differential to major teaching hospitals at this range's lower end. Inclusive of subsidies, Medicare pays major teaching hospitals substantially more than 20% extra, especially for complex surgical procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the evidence on quality, there is reason for patients to be willing to pay more for inclusion of major teaching hospitals in private insurer networks at least for some services. Medicare payment for GME has long been a controversial policy issue. The actual indirect cost of GME is likely to be far less than the amount Medicare is currently paying hospitals.

Graduate Medical Education Should Not Be A Commodity.

The demise of Hahnemann University Hospital demonstrates the need for health care and graduate medical education policy reform.

Funding the Educational Mission in Neurology.

Although it is self-evident that education in neurology is important and necessary, how to fund the educational mission is a frequent challenge for neurology departments and clinicians. Department chairs often resort to a piecemeal approach, cobbling together funding for educators from various sources, but frequently falling short. Here, we review the various sources available to fund the educational mission in neurology, understanding that not every department will have access to every source. We describe the multiple different teaching models and formats used by the modern student and educator and their associated costs, some of which are exorbitant. We discuss possible nonfinancial incentives, including pathways to promotion, educational research, and other awards and recognition. Neurological education is commonly underfunded, and departments and institutions must be nimble and creative in finding ways to fund the time and effort of educators.

Association of Graduate Medical Education With Hospital Performance and Patient Outcomes.

Importance: Graduate medical education (GME) funding consists of more than $10 billion annual subsidies awarded to academic hospitals to offset the cost of resident training. Critics have questioned the utility of these subsidies and accountability of recipient hospitals. Objective: To determine the association of GME funding with hospital performance by examining 3 domains of hospital operations: financial standing, clinical outcomes, and resident academic performance. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is an economic evaluation of all academic centers that received GME funding in 2017. GME funding data were acquired from the Hospital Compare Database. Statistical analysis was performed from May 2016 to April 2020. Exposures: GME funding. Main Outcomes and Measures: This study assessed the association between GME funding and each aspect of hospital operations. Publicly available hospital financial data were used to calculate a financial performance score from 0 to 100 for each hospital. Clinical outcomes were defined as 30-day mortality, readmission, and complication rates for a set of predefined conditions. Resident academic performance was determined by Board Certification Examination (BCE) pass rates at 0, 2, and 5 years after GME funding was awarded. Confounder-adjusted linear regression models were used to test association between GME funding data and a hospital's financial standing, clinical outcomes, and resident academic performance. Results: The sample consisted of 1298 GME-funded hospitals, with a median (IQR) of 265 (168-415) beds and 32 (10-101) residents per training site. GME funding was negatively correlated with hospitals' financial scores (ß = -7.9; 95% CI, -10.9 to -4.8, P = .001). Each additional $1 million in GME funding was associated with lower 30-day mortality from myocardial infarction (-2.34%; 95% CI, -3.59% to -1.08%, P < .001), heart failure (-2.59%; 95% CI, -3.93% to -1.24%, P < .001), pneumonia (-2.20%; 95% CI, -3.99% to -0.40%, P = .02), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ( -1.20%; 95% CI, -2.35% to -0.05%, P = .04), and stroke (-3.40%; 95% CI, -5.46% to -1.33%, P = .001). There was no association between GME funding and readmission rates. There was an association between higher GME funding and higher internal medicine BCE pass rates (0.066% [95% CI, 0.033% to 0.099%] per $1 million in GME funding; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found a negative linear correlation between GME funding and patient mortality and a positive correlation between GME funding and resident BCE pass rates in adjusted regression models. The findings also suggest that hospitals that receive more GME funding are not more financially stable.