Responding to disasters: academic medical centers' responsibilities and opportunities.

Disaster preparedness and disaster response should be a capability of all academic health centers. The authors explore the potential role and impact of academic medical centers (AMC)s in disaster response. The National Disaster Medical System and the evolution of disaster medical assistance teams (DMAT) are described, and the experience at one AMC with DMAT is reviewed. The recent deployment of a DMAT sponsored by an AMC to the Hurricane Katrina disaster is described, and the experience is used to illustrate the opportunities and challenges of future disaster medical training, research, and practice at AMCs. AMCs are encouraged to identify an appropriate academic unit to house and nurture disaster-preparedness activities, participate in education programs for health professionals and the public, and perform research on disaster epidemiology and response. Networks of AMCs offer the potential of acting as a critical resource for those AMCs stricken by a disaster and for communities needing the infusion of highly trained and motivated health care providers. The Association of American Medical Colleges can play a critical role in assisting and coordinating AMC networks through its relationship with all AMCs and the federal government and by increasing the awareness of medical educators and researchers about this important, emerging area of medical knowledge.     

Rediscovering the medical school.

Medical schools, once devoted primarily to educating medical students, have evolved into complex academic medical centers (AMCs), some of which place a greater emphasis on research and the clinical business than on educating future physicians. This occurred primarily as the result of outside forces, specifically the available revenue streams that have fostered growth. Discipline-based departments have been at the center of the governance structure of medical schools, but many AMCs now have research institutes and centers to enhance research productivity, and faculty group practices to maximize clinical revenue. Although AMCs have been successful in making scientific discoveries, developing new technologies, and providing state-of-the-art clinical care, their successes have not always been favorable to the education mission. Furthermore, the roles of departments and their chairs have not always been carefully considered; a mismatch between organizational and governance structures is occurring. In this article several suggestions are offered to help medical schools rediscover their unique reason for existence and better distinguish core missions from core businesses. Mission-based management and mission-based budgeting provide the framework for maximum success of all the missions. Specific suggestions include (1) organizing a national task force to consider optimal organizational and governance structures of modern AMCs, (2) establishing a core teaching faculty, (3) creating a matrix letter of assignment that aligns salary rates with assigned activities, (4) linking education to the provision of health care to the underinsured, and (5) forming education centers to effectively centralize governance of the education mission.     

Academic medicine and the search for meaning and purpose.

The transformation of the health care industry into a marketplace governed by commercialism and free competition challenges the doctrine of medicine as a profession valuing service to the patient above financial reward. Many physicians have become disenchanted with their ability to serve as advocates for and provide care to their patients. Financial success, the measure of the marketplace, has become the dominant standard of measurement or "value" for most academic medical centers (AMCs). Many doctors report their work is less fulfilling. As a result, all three social missions-patient care, teaching, and research-are in jeopardy. The growth of modernism, preeminence of biomedical research, and dominance of a market-driven clinical enterprise will continue to pose challenges to the health care system in the United States. However, AMCs can provide the leadership and serve as the ambassadors through which the health care system can be renewed with a sense of direction and purpose. Renewal must begin with more open discourse about what we value in health care and what kind of medical profession we want to have, to include addressing questions such as: What does it mean to be an academic physician? What gives my work meaning and purpose? This kind of dialogue could easily be built into the medical students' curricula and residency training programs, with the faculty taking the lead.     

The impact of the lack of health insurance: how should academic medical centers and medical schools respond?

The lack of health insurance has significant deleterious effects on the health of individual patients and creates substantial financial pressure on health care institutions. Despite the historical role of academic medical centers (AMCs) and medical schools in caring for the uninsured, financial shortfalls have increased pressure on these institutions to restrict care of this population. Limiting care of the uninsured, however, conflicts with the ethical foundations of academic medicine and risks further harm to the health of this population. Instead of restricting care, the effects of uninsurance should be mitigated through the joint efforts of medical schools and AMCs by measuring clinical work using work Relative Value Units rather than collections; recognizing faculty who provide care for the uninsured in the promotions process; adjusting billing rates for clinical services according to patients' ability to pay; delivering one standard of care irrespective of insurance status; continuing to evaluate the impact of uninsurance and intervention strategies; providing leadership in measuring and improving the quality of care; ensuring that trainees and the public are familiar with the effects of a lack of health insurance; and assisting safety net providers by providing educational materials pertinent to their respective patient populations and more fully integrating these providers into the academic community.Although all physicians in the private and public sectors should share in the care of the uninsured, academic medicine must remain faithful to its historical role of providing care to the uninsured and should improve the health of the uninsured through a proactive strategy involving advocacy, clinical care, education, and research.     

Challenges and opportunities in the care of international patients: clinical and health services issues for academic medical centers.

International visitors who travel to the United States for the express purpose of receiving medical care constitute a small, but unique and important, subset of patients in this country. These visitors have traditionally sought care at what are widely regarded as the premier U.S. academic medical centers. Their care may prove challenging due to logistical, medical, language, and cross-cultural issues, and has the potential to distract from the educational and research missions of these medical centers. The author reflects on how one academic medical center, the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, has experienced and responded to these challenges. Specific issues include scheduling and evaluation challenges, language and cultural differences, and arranging continuity care. The author concludes that when an institution invests the resources necessary to address these issues, and enlists physicians stimulated by this challenging group of patients, the arrangement is mutually beneficial to the international patients and the institution. Scholarly evaluation of this phenomenon has been virtually nonexistent, due to both the unique niche occupied by these programs and institutional competition for this group of patients. However, collaborative evaluation of international patient programs will provide the opportunity to assess similarities, differences, and effectiveness, benefiting both those providing and those receiving care by improving the appropriateness and quality of care.     

Integration of student-health physicians into U.S. medical schools and their affiliated teaching hospitals.

PURPOSE: To determine whether physicians in the student health services (SHSs) at U.S. medical schools and their affiliated teaching hospitals, referred to here as academic medical centers (AMCs), have unique opportunities for integration into AMCs that do not exist for physician-faculty at SHSs on purely academic campuses. METHOD: A survey of SHS offices at the 124 U.S. medical schools was conducted in the spring of 1999. The questionnaire asked about the reporting relationships of the SHS within the AMC, whether the student-health physicians had academic appointments within the AMC, and whether these physicians participated in the AMC's clinical services, administration, research, or teaching activities. RESULTS: There were 116 (94%) responses (not all responses were complete and eight were excluded because their campuses offered no formal SHS). Approximately half of the SHSs (52/107, 49%) reported to their AMCs. Student-health physicians with career-track appointments were more likely to be found at SHSs reporting to AMCs (35/58, 60%) than at SHSs reporting solely to a division of student affairs (20/58, 34%). Having a career-track appointment increased the likelihood of the student-health physicians' attending on the wards (34/59, 58%), seeing private patients in an AMC's faculty practice (40/59, 68%), participating in administrative activities for an AMC (50/56, 89%), and participating in research activities (36/57, 63%). CONCLUSIONS: Student health services that reported to their AMCs were more likely to have faculty with career-track appointments, and these appointments were more likely to result in the integration of student-health physicians into their AMC's clinical services, administration, and research activities. Career-track appointments, however, had no influence on whether teaching activities occurred within the SHS. Fully integrating student-health physicians into the AMC's activities enhances outcomes for both the SHS and its AMC.     

Clinical integration and new options for academic medical institutions in network development.

The author outlines two options, made possible by developments in antitrust law, that can create a favored role for academic health science centers as well as for stand-alone medical schools and teaching hospitals, using the unique strengths of these institutions that are often considered weaknesses by the marketplace. The first option is the development of clinically integrated collaborations that need not be either system-wide or necessarily governed by total quality management processes, or involve the characteristics of ownership typical of the usual integrated delivery systems. The second option is the development of new clinical "products." Each option encourages creative financing, legal, medical, and governance approaches and makes it possible for centers, medical schools, and teaching hospitals to build multi-provider collaborations that are in harmony with their missions and different from the less-compatible integrated delivery systems that they often seek to build. The author provides an extensive background on antitrust law to explain the two options and the criteria for crafting them within antitrust law. He then describes how antitrust law applies to multi-provider networks and in particular to academic health science centers and free-standing medical schools and teaching hospitals, and gives examples of the kinds of fruitful collaborations these institutions could engage in. He urges those institutions to realize that if they keep faith with their best characteristics in creative new ways (such as those suggested by his article), they will thrive in the years ahead.     

The U.S. health care system is in crisis: implications for academic medical centers and their missions.

The medical care system in the United States is in crisis. Health care costs are escalating and threatening coverage for millions of people. Concerns about the quality of care and patient safety are heightening; patients and payers now publicly share these concerns and want to make providers more accountable. Traditionally, the response to rising health care costs has been to modify reimbursement models and incentives. Currently there is a movement to shift the responsibility of cost containment to the patients. The authors express doubts about the overall effectiveness of this strategy and propose reengineering the health care system to improve quality and efficiency.Leaders of academic medical centers must understand the forces and dynamics of change, and the potential institutional response to improve the quality and efficiency of their delivery systems and to preserve their missions: clinical care, education, research, and community service. As they suggest the operational changes needed to respond to this evolving health care environment, the authors discuss the implications for the various missions. The graduates of training programs must be prepared to function within multidisciplinary teams and constantly seek ways to improve quality and efficiency to ensure that care is accessible, affordable, and safe. Academic medical centers need to expand their research agenda to develop more expertise in quality and process improvement research. Additionally, they must provide the leadership to foster the transition from an era of "managed care" to an era of "organized systems of care."     

Medical faculty development: a modern-day odyssey

Academic medical centers (AMCs) are pillars of the community; they provide health care, create jobs, educate biomedical professionals, and engage in research and innovation. To sustain their impact on human health, AMCs must improve the professional satisfaction of their faculty. Here, we describe ways to enhance recruitment, retention, creativity, and productivity of health science faculty.     

Integrating clinician-educators into Academic Medical Centers: challenges and potential solutions.

During the last decade academic medical centers (AMCs) have hired large numbers of clinician-educators to teach and provide clinical care. However, these clinician-educators often do not advance in academic rank, since excellence in clinical care and teaching alone is not adequate justification for advancement. The authors articulate the problems with the present system of recognition for clinician-educators-i.e., the requirement for regional and national reputation, the lack of reliable measures of clinical and teaching excellence, and the lack of training opportunities for young clinician-educators. They call for solutions, including fundamental changes in promotion criteria (e.g., focus criteria for promotion on clinician-educators' accomplishments within their institutions) and the development of valid and feasible methods to measure outcomes of teaching programs. Further, they recommend the development of a new faculty position, a "clinician-educator researcher," to foster the scholarship of discovery in medical education and clinical practice. Investments in clinician-educator researchers will ultimately help AMCs to achieve their threefold mission-excellence in patient care, teaching, and research.     

Forum on the future of academic medicine: final session--implications of the information revolution for academic medicine.

The seventh and final meeting of the Association of American Medical Colleges' (AAMC's) Forum on the Future of Academic Medicine began December 4, 1998, with a talk by William W. Stead, MD, associate vice-chancellor for health affairs at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and director of its informatics center. Dr. Stead envisions a future in which informatics and information technology will place the consumer squarely in the center of the system, empowered with greater knowledge of health care; he gave three short scenarios to illustrate future typical interactions of consumers with the system. He then discussed the implications for academic medicine. For example, academic medical centers (AMCs) could become the information providers and quality assurance hubs of their regions. Various participants questioned some of the speaker's claims (one asserting that there would be serious complications if clinical information were made available to patients). The second speaker, Valerie Florance, PhD, director of the AAMC's better-health@here.now program, discussed her program, whose purpose is to explore the ways medical schools and teaching hospitals can best use information technology and the Internet in the coming decade to improve individual and community health. Nothing in the ensuing discussion indicated that the participants believed that academic medical centers would be spared painful dislocations if they were to embark on a road of institutional reform to respond to the pressures of the new and more competitive global economy. Greater awareness of this not-necessarily-welcomed message may be one of the lasting legacies of the forum.     

What matters: making the case for public support of teaching hospitals and medical schools.

For the last 100 years, U.S. medical schools and teaching hospitals have convinced the public that they can be counted on to provide excellent care, train the next generation of medical professionals, advance research, and anchor their communities. Public support expressed through government funding has been correspondingly generous. But those who run academic medicine's institutions cannot take such support for granted, particularly in light of recent wide swings and inconsistencies in what the public wants, and must continue to work together proactively to show the public and its representatives that government funding is needed and deserved. In this article, the author focuses on issues of funding patient care, as the role of the government in supporting biomedical research as a public good is well accepted. The author reviews why academic medicine's institutions are unique and valuable (for example, teaching hospitals are generally the places that Americans expect to go for advanced specialized care; they also serve their communities' need for primary care, including care for the underserved). He then makes clear that the competitive marketplace model, which has recently begun to dominate health care, does not work in that arena, despite that model's success in other industries. For example, mergers, vertical integration, and simplified payment systems (in contrast to Medicare) have failed for teaching hospitals and medical schools because those strategies do not take into account the complexity of those institutions. He concludes with five approaches that leaders in academic medicine should take to work for the public good and to strengthen public trust and support for academic medicine's role in patient care (e.g., work for success at the local level to have influence at the national level).     

Health maintenance organizations and medical education: breaking the barriers

Academic medical centers (AMCs) are under pressure to increase ambulatory medical education, but their capacity for such teaching is limited. Health maintenance organizations (HMOs) are a large and growing institutional setting that could participate in clinical education. Until now, relatively few HMOs and AMCs have reached agreements about teaching, because traditional suspicions have blocked collaboration. Responding to a case prepared as the basis of discussion, about 450 academics and HMO medical directors explored the barriers to and incentives for cooperation between AMCs and HMOs in clinical education. The two groups identified different issues as barriers to collaboration, leaving considerable room to negotiate agreements. AMCs, especially, need to be prepared to offer meaningful academic and financial inducements to attract HMOs to participate in teaching.     

Three easy pieces

The author provides information about and analyzes three issues confronting academic medical centers in the realms of education, patient care, and research. (1) In the educational realm, he indicates why medical centers must play an expanded role in training primary care physicians, explains the dangers of not doing so, and describes ongoing and proposed approaches and reforms for achieving this goal. (2) In the arena of patient care, he explains why modifying physician reimbursement policies is essential for more physicians to develop careers as generalists. Other more controversial physician payment reform measures and their implications for health care and academic medical centers are discussed; the author urges that benefit to patients always be the first concern of such reforms, even at the expense of more narrowly based interests such as limits in faculty salaries or reduced overages to institutions. (3) Regarding research, he discusses various facets and implications of conflict of interest for biomedical scientists--both the reality of misconduct and the appearance of it--especially as they apply to the growing number and forms of university-industry relationships, and urges that such conflicts be managed within guidelines that clarify expectations and standards in an atmosphere of appropriate disclosure and oversight. He concludes by urging academic medical centers to rise to, rather than avoid, the three challenges he has described.     

Genetic privacy and academic medicine: the Oregon experience.

Legislators are considering the conflicting concerns of consumers, researchers, health care providers, and business in the rapidly developing area of genetics. The Oregon Genetic Privacy Act of 1995 was written to protect the individual's right to genetic privacy by providing legal protection for medical information, tissue samples, and DNA samples. This legislation has had an impact on the academic medical center of Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU) with its teaching hospital and associated clinics, both in providing medical services and in research. This impact has occurred in several areas: (1) informed consent, (2) ownership of genetic information, and (3) security of medical information. It affects both patient care and research. OHSU and other academic medical centers have a mandate to provide leadership in the education of medical students, residents, and physicians about genetic privacy and the issues and areas affected by it. As genetic privacy legislation is developed and enacted at state and federal levels, the needs of individuals must be balanced with the needs of institutions and of research in the larger context of societal needs.     

The potential of the academic medical center to shape policy-oriented rural health research.

Rural communities continue to have problems in gaining access to basic health care services, a problem exacerbated by persistent shortages of physicians, financially threatened rural hospitals, and weak local economies. Academic health centers can help to address these issues, not only by increasing the flow of their graduates to rural areas, but also by supporting health services research designed to shape public policy that affects the rural United States. Examples of such research include experiments designed to influence the locational decisions of medical students and residents, studies of the quality and cost-effectiveness of care in rural hospitals, and the testing of new ways to provide emergency medical care in rural areas. Such policy-oriented research is compatible with both the intellectual and the service missions of most medical schools; in addition, lessons learned in rural areas may be relevant in more urbanized areas.     

Is the teaching hospital an endangered species?

The nonmunicipal teaching hospital faces some special challenges in adapting to the increasingly austere fiscal environment in which all hospitals must operate. However, except in a few instances, such developments as constraints on Medicaid expenditures do not appear to be notably more serious for teaching hospitals than for their community counterparts. The teaching hospitals most closely connected with medical schools provide more charity care and carry more bad debt than community hospitals. But other teaching hospitals have about the same burden as their community counterparts. The most serious problem facing teaching hospitals results from new bases of prospective reimbursement, some of which do not adequately compensate hospitals that treat more "difficult" cases--that is, more expensive cases. Competitive providers of health care such as health maintenance organizations promise to reduce admissions at all types of hospitals; whether this reduction will selectively affect teaching hospitals is not yet clear. By contrast, the fiscal state of municipal teaching hospitals is far more precarious than that of their nonmunicipal counterparts. The ability of these institutions to maintain high-quality patient care and teaching programs is in considerable jeopardy.     

Academic health centers

There are 123 academic health centers in the United States, and they are markedly diverse in organization and function. Some have large research programs, others emphasize the education of nurses and allied health professionals, but all have one characteristic in common--namely, the dominant role of the medical school-teaching hospital combination. Their evolution has been shaped to a great degree by four federal initiatives: funding of research and research training by the National Institutes of Health, legislation that permitted close relations between Veterans Administration hospitals and medical schools, health-manpower legislation, and Medicare and Medicaid. Although academic health centers were created to foster the integration of structure and function, federal funding has always been categorical in support of research, teaching, or patient care. No federal funding was ever intended to stabilize the overall academic health center as an institution. This mattered little during a period of expansion, but the future of academic health centers is now uncertain in a period of federal cutbacks, rising health-care costs, and worry about an oversupply of physicians. Academic health centers must enter a new phase of institutional planning for which they are ill equipped. Special interests must be submerged for the good of the whole, diversity must be encouraged, and each center should exploit its own special strengths.     

Meeting the challenges facing clinical research: solutions proposed by leaders of medical specialty and clinical research societies.

The development of a robust national clinical research enterprise is needed to improve health care, but faces formidable challenges. To define the impediments and formulate solutions, the Institute of Medicine's Clinical Research Roundtable convened leaders from medical specialty and clinical research societies in 2003. Participants considered how to influence clinical research funding priorities, promote mechanisms to train physicians and other health care professionals to conduct clinical research, and how to encourage health care providers to follow evidence-based medical practice. Consensus emerged on multiple issues, including intersociety collaboration, the need for a core clinical research curriculum for training the new cadre of clinical researchers, joint advocacy for increased funding of clinical research and for the education of policymakers and the public on the benefits of clinical research. Specific recommendations were made on mechanisms for recruitment, training, and retention of clinical research trainees and mentors. Steps were outlined (1) to overcome career disincentives and develop appropriate reward systems for mentors and trainees, (2) to encourage use of web-based and continuing-medical-education-based mechanisms to bring practitioners up to date on issues in and results of clinical research, and (3) to create incentives for individuals, clinics, and hospitals to practice evidence-based medicine (EBM). Collectively, the response and proposed strategies can serve as a roadmap to improve clinical research funding and training, evidence-based medical practice, and health care quality.     

Faculty practice plans: the organization and characteristics of academic medical practice

The contemporary academic medical center is a complex organization providing medical and other professional health education, biomedical and behavioral research, and a comprehensive range of patient care services. This paper presents data from the Association of American Medical Colleges' 1989 survey of 125 member faculty practice plans. The survey data showed that 62% of the 74 responding plans were units or associations within the medical school corporate structure. Plans were organized along a broad continuum from the autonomous, departmental model with decentralized governance and management to the group model with centralized governance and management. The growth of managed care, increased competition, and a greater reliance by the medical school on clinical practice income as a financing source are causing the practice plan to expand beyond billing of professional fees. The survey data showed that 75% of the practice plans operated satellite centers, and 61% planned to build new ambulatory care facilities in order to expand and improve services to patients. The practice plans also have adapted to changes in third-party reimbursement and are establishing mechanisms to negotiate managed care contracts involving multiple clinical departments to increase referrals and maintain patient shares; 86% of the plans participate in at least one managed-care organization. The role of the practice plan will continue to evolve in response to the needs of the academic medical center for a cooperative and supportive environment in which to conduct its traditional missions of teaching, research, and patient care.