Title VII Funding and Physician Practice in Rural or Low-Income Areas

CONTEXT: Whether Title VII funding enhances physician supply in underserved areas has not clearly been established. PURPOSE: To determine the relation between Title VII funding in medical school, residency, or both, and the number of family physicians practicing in rural or low-income communities. METHODS: A retrospective cross sectional analysis was carried out using the 2000 American Academy of Family Physicians physician database, Title VII funding records, and 1990 U.S. Census data. Included were 9,107 family physicians practicing in 9 nationally representative states in the year 2000. FINDINGS: Physicians exposed to Title VII funding through medical school and residency were more likely to have their current practice in low-income communities (11.9% vs 9.9%, P< or =.02) and rural areas (24.5% vs 21.8%, P< or =.02). Physicians were more likely to practice in rural communities if they attended medical schools (24.2% vs 21.4%; P =.009) and residencies (24.0% vs 20.3%; P =.011) after the school or program had at least 5 years of Title VII funding vs before. Similar increases were not observed for practice in low-income communities. In a multivariate analysis, exposure to funding and attending an institution with more years of funding independently increased the odds of practicing in rural or low-income communities. CONCLUSIONS: Title VII funding is associated with an increase in the family physician workforce in rural and low-income communities. This effect is temporally related to initiation of funding and independently associated with effect in a multivariate analysis, suggesting a potential causal relationship. Whereas the absolute 2% increase in family physicians in these underserved communities may seem modest, it can represent a substantial increase in access to health care for community members.     

Commentary: primary care--medical students' unpopular choice.

Title VII funding to medical schools has not succeeded in correcting the shortage of primary care physicians. Although it is generally true that there is an inverse relationship between the amount of research funds awarded to a school and its success in producing primary care physicians, there are many exceptions. Neither Title VII, the amount of research funding, or Medicare's Direct Medical Education payments has had a substantial effect on the production of primary care physicians. These factors are comparatively insignificant when considered in the light of strong external incentives to specialize. Medical education cannot remedy the specialty imbalance unless the external environment becomes more friendly to generalists.     

A threat to the public health workforce: evidence from trends in preventive medicine certification and training

Evidence of a growing need for preventive medicine specialists is the congruence between needed competencies for practice in the current health care environment, as identified by the Council on Graduate Medical Education (COGME) and in other national reports, and the core competencies of preventive medicine residents. The total number of certified specialists in preventive medicine is 6091. The proportion of self-designated preventive medicine specialists among all U.S. physicians is on the decline and the greatest decline has been among those in public health (PH) and general preventive medicine (GPM). In addition, the total number of preventive medicine residents is on the decline, and the decline has been greatest among those training in PH and combined PH/GPM. One of the reasons for this decline has been inadequate funding due to the absence of Medicare graduate medical education (GME) financing for population-based vs. individual patient care services and meager and diminishing Title VII support. A paucity of faculty is apparent in medical schools with residency training and board certification in preventive medicine. Several actions may help reverse this trend and assure adequate numbers of preventive medicine specialists: expansion of Title VII to increase the number of residents receiving stipends and tuition, adding infrastructure support for faculty development and funding of demonstration projects in distance learning and in joint generalist/ preventive medicine residency training. Medicare GME reform should include recognition of population-based services and inclusion of preventive medicine residencies in provisions for "nonhospital-based" training and in up-weighting methodologies for primary care training. Expansion of Veterans Affairs, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and Department of Defense support is also needed as is attention to resident debt reduction.     

The next phase of Title VII funding for training primary care physicians for America's health care needs

Health care reform will add millions of Americans to the ranks of the insured; however, their access to health care is threatened by a deep decline in the production of primary care physicians. Poorer access to primary care risks poorer health outcomes and higher costs. Meeting this increased demand requires a major investment in primary care training. Title VII, Section 747 of the Public Health Service Act previously supported the growth of the health care workforce but has been severely cut over the past 2 decades. New and expanded Title VII initiatives are required to increase the production of primary care physicians; establish high-functioning academic, community-based training practices; increase the supply of well-trained primary care faculty; foster innovation and rigorous evaluation of these programs; and ultimately to improve the responsiveness of teaching hospitals to community needs. To accomplish these goals, Congress should act on the Council on Graduate Medical Education's recommendation to increase funding for Title VII, Section 747 roughly 14-fold to $560 million annually. This amount represents a small investment in light of the billions that Medicare currently spends to support graduate medical education, and both should be held to account for meeting physician workforce needs. Expansion of Title VII, Section 747 with the goal of improving access to primary care would be an important part of a needed, broader effort to counter the decline of primary care. Failure to launch such a national primary care workforce revitalization program will put the health and economic viability of our nation at risk.     

Eliminating Primary Care Health Professional Shortage Areas: The Impact of Title VII Generalist Physician Education

Most policy-makers and researchers agree that although the United States is headed for a significant physician surplus, problems of equity in access to care still remain. To help meet this challenge, Title VII of the Public Health Service Act focuses on producing generalist physicians to serve in medically underserved areas (MUAs). This study estimates the impact Title VII support for generalist training has on reducing and eliminating health professional shortage areas (HPSAs) under multiple scenarios that vary either the Title VII funding level or the percentage of Title VII-funded program graduates who practice in MUAs. For each scenario, the number of Title VII-funded residency graduates who initially practice in MUAs and the time it would take to eliminate HPSAs are estimated. Using 1996 rates, the analysis predicts that 1,214 generalist physicians will enter practice in HPSAs annually, leading to elimination of HPSAs in 24 years. In 1997, Title VII-funded programs increased the rate of graduates entering HPSAs, resulting in 1,357 providers and reducing the time for HPSA elimination to 15 years. Doubling the funding for these programs would increase the number of Title VII-funded generalist physicians entering MUAs and could decrease the time for HPSA elimination to as little as 6 years. The study concludes that eliminating HPSAs requires broader Title VII influence and continuous improvement in rates of production of graduates who practice in MUAs. Without Title VII graduates and continuous improvement of Title VII program, MUA rates, the number of HPSAs and the number of Americans with reduced access to essential health care will continue to expand.     

Family Medicine Education and Rural Health: A Response to Present and Future Needs

The importance of family medicine in providing rural health services has been established for quite some time. The need to train physicians who select the specialty of family medicine is critical at a time when medical student interest in the primary care specialties appears to be diminishing. Renewed efforts by educational institutions and incentives at the state and federal levels will be necessary to assist in the alleviation of shortages of rural physicians. The educational program at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, School of Medicine has achieved a great deal of success in training rural family physicians. A coordinated program effort, featuring the efforts of more than 200 family physicians during the past 15 years, has led to 52.5 percent of all graduates selecting family practice and more than 41 percent choosing practice sites with a population fewer than 20,000. Elements of the program at Duluth could serve as a model for other schools desiring to increase the number of students entering family medicine and rural practice.     

Relationship between US medical school admission policy and graduates entering family practice

Rural areas in the United States continue to lack an adequate supply of primary care doctors, particularly family physicians, despite the oversupply of physicians nationally. Previous studies have provided strong evidence that students from rural backgrounds, as well as those who expressed an interest at the time of medical school admission for a career in family medicine, are significantly more likely to eventually practise family medicine in rural areas than their peers. US medical schools were classified into three groups based on their written selection factors for preferentially admitting students into the graduating class of 1982. Of those schools with selection factors for students from both a rural background and an interest in a future career in family medicine, 23.7% of their graduates entered family medicine training programmes. This compares with 14.5% of graduates from schools with a preference for students from a rural background, and 12.4% from all other schools (P less than 0.001). Coupled with previous data which shows that family physicians from rural areas are more likely to eventually practise in rural areas than their peers, preferentially admitting students from rural backgrounds interested in a career in family medicine could help to solve the problem of the shortage of primary care physicians in rural areas in the US.     

A Retrospective Analysis of the Relationship Between Medical Student Debt and Primary Care Practice in the United States

PURPOSE

We undertook a study to reexamine the relationship between educational debt and primary care practice, accounting for the potentially confounding effect of medical student socioeconomic status.

METHODS

We performed retrospective multivariate analyses of data from 136,232 physicians who graduated from allopathic US medical schools between 1988 and 2000, obtained from the American Association of Medical Colleges Graduate Questionnaire, the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, and other sources. Need-based loans were used as markers for socioeconomic status of physicians’ families of origin. We examined 2 outcomes: primary care practice and family medicine practice in 2010.

RESULTS

Physicians who graduated from public schools were most likely to practice primary care and family medicine at graduating educational debt levels of $50,000 to $100,000 (2010 dollars; P <.01). This relationship between debt and primary care practice persisted when physicians from different socioeconomic status groups, as approximated by loan type, were examined separately. At higher debt, graduates’ odds of practicing primary care or family medicine declined. In contrast, private school graduates were not less likely to practice primary care or family medicine as debt levels increased.

CONCLUSIONS

High educational debt deters graduates of public medical schools from choosing primary care, but does not appear to influence private school graduates in the same way. Students from relatively lower income families are more strongly influenced by debt. Reducing debt of selected medical students may be effective in promoting a larger primary care physician workforce.     

Entry of US medical school graduates into family medicine residencies: 2010-2011 and 3-year summary

This is the 30th report prepared by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) on the percentage of each US medical school's graduates entering family medicine residency programs. This retrospective analysis based on data reported to the AAFP from medical schools and family medicine residency programs shows approximately 8.0% of the 17,081 graduates of US medical schools between July 2009 and June 2010 were first-year family medicine residents in 2010, compared to 7.5% in 2009 and 8.2% in 2008. Medical school graduates from publicly funded medical schools were more likely to be first-year family medicine residents in October 2010 than were residents from privately funded schools (9.6% versus 5.4%). The Mountain and West North Central regions reported the highest percentage of medical school graduates who were first-year residents in family medicine programs in October 2010 (14.3% and 11.3%, respectively); the New England and Middle Atlantic regions reported the lowest percentages (5.6% and 5.3%, respectively). Approximately four in 10 of the medical school graduates (40.3%) entering a family medicine residency program as first-year residents entered a program in the same state where they graduated from medical school. The percentages for each medical school have varied substantially from year to year since the AAFP began reporting this information. This article reports the 3-year average percentage from each medical school of graduates entering family medicine residencies and the number and percentage of graduates from colleges of osteopathic medicine who entered Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited family medicine residency programs in 2010.     

Entry of US medical school graduates into family medicine residencies: 2004-2005 and 3-year summary

This is the 24th report prepared by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) on the percentage of each US medical school's graduates entering family medicine residency programs. Approximately 9.2% of the 15,895 graduates of US medical schools between July 2003 and June 2004 were first-year family medicine residents in 2004, compared with 9.3% in 2003 and 10.3% in 2002. Medical school graduates from publicly funded medical schools were more likely to be first year family medicine residents in October 2004 than were residents from privately funded schools, 10.8% compared with 6.5%. The West North Central and the Mountain regions reported the highest percentage of medical school graduates who were first-year residents in family medicine programs in October 2004 at 14.9% and 12.8%, respectively; the New England and Middle Atlantic regions reported the lowest percentages at 6.6% and 5.2%, respectively. Nearly half of the medical school graduates (46.8%) entering a family medicine residency program as first-year residents in October 2004 entered a program in the same state where they graduated from medical school. The percentages for each medical school have varied substantially from year to year since the AAFP began reporting this information. This article reports the average percentage for each medical school for the last 3 years. Also reported are the number and percentage of graduates from colleges of osteopathic medicine who entered Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited family medicine residency programs, based on estimates provided by the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine.     

Entry of US medical school graduates into family medicine residencies: 2005-2006 and 3-year summary

This is the 25th report prepared by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) on the percentage of each US medical school's graduates entering family medicine residency programs. Approximately 8.4% of the 16,066 graduates of US medical schools between July 2004 and June 2005 were first-year family medicine residents in 2005, compared with 9.2% in 2004 and 9.3% in 2003. Medical school graduates from publicly funded medical schools were more likely to be first-year family medicine residents in October 2005 than were residents from privately funded schools, 9.9% compared with 5.8%. The Mountain and the West North Central regions reported the highest percentage of medical school graduates who were first-year residents in family medicine programs in October 2005 at 13.3% and 12.7%, respectively; the New England and Middle Atlantic regions reported the lowest percentages at 5.2% and 5.6%, respectively. Nearly half of the medical school graduates (47.3%) entering a family medicine residency program as first-year residents in October 2005 entered a program in the same state where they graduated from medical school. The percentages for each medical school have varied substantially from year to year since the AAFP began reporting this information. This article reports the average percentage for each medical school for the last 3 years. Also reported are the number and percentage of graduates from colleges of osteopathic medicine who entered Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited family medicine residency programs, based on estimates provided by the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine.     

Entry of US medical school graduates into family medicine residencies: 2006-2007 and 3-year summary

This is the 26th report prepared by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) on the percentage of each US medical school's graduates entering family medicine residency programs. Approximately 8.5% of the 16,110 graduates of US medical schools between July 2005 and June 2006 were first-year family medicine residents in 2006, compared with 8.4% in 2005 and 9.2% in 2004. Medical school graduates from publicly funded medical schools were more likely to be first-year family medicine residents in October 2006 than were residents from privately funded schools, 10.1% compared with 6.0%. The West North Central and the Mountain regions reported the highest percentage of medical school graduates who were first-year residents in family medicine programs in October 2006 at 12.4% and 10.7%, respectively; the New England and Middle Atlantic regions reported the lowest percentages at 5.7% and 5.6%, respectively. Nearly half of the medical school graduates (49.2%) entering a family medicine residency program as first-year residents in October 2006 entered a program in the same state where they graduated from medical school. The percentages for each medical school have varied substantially from year to year since the AAFP began reporting this information. This article reports the average percentage for each medical school for the last 3 years. Also reported are the number and percentage of graduates from colleges of osteopathic medicine who entered Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited family medicine residency programs, based on estimates provided by the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine.     

Entry of US medical school graduates into family medicine residencies: 2003-2004 and 3-year summary

This is the 23rd report prepared by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) on the percentage of each US medical school's graduates entering family medicine residency programs. Approximately 9.3% of the 15,704 graduates of US medical schools between July 2002 and June 2003 were first-year family medicine residents in 2003, compared with 10.3% in 2002 and 10.9% in 2001. Medical school graduates from publicly funded medical schools were more likely to be first-year family medicine residents in October 2003 than were residents from privately funded schools, 10.6% compared with 7.0%. The West North Central and the Mountain regions reported the highest percentage of medical school graduates who were first-year residents in family medicine programs in October 2003 at 15.2% and 11.7%, respectively; the New England and Middle Atlantic regions reported the lowest percentages at 6.2% and 5.3%, respectively. Nearly half of the medical school graduates (46.1%) entering a family medicine residency program as first-year residents in October 2003 entered a program in the same state where they graduated from medical school. The percentages for each medical school have varied substantially from year to year since the AAFP began reporting this information. This article reports the average percentage for each medical school for the last 3 years. Also reported are the number and percentage of graduates from colleges of osteopathic medicine who entered Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited family medicine residency programs, based on estimates provided by the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine.     

Entry of US medical school graduates into family medicine residencies: 2007-2008 and 3-year summary

This is the 27th report prepared by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) on the percentage of each US medical school's graduates entering family medicine residency programs. Approximately 8.3% of the 16,300 graduates of US medical schools between July 2006 and June 2007 were first-year family medicine residents in 2007, compared with 8.5% in 2006 and 8.4% in 2005. Medical school graduates from publicly funded medical schools were more likely to be first-year family medicine residents in October 2007 than were residents from privately funded schools, 10.0% compared with 5.6%. The West North Central and the Mountain regions reported the highest percentage of medical school graduates who were first-year residents in family medicine programs in October 2007 at 12.2% and 11.9%, respectively; the New England and Middle Atlantic regions reported the lowest percentages at 5.5% and 4.7%, respectively. Nearly half of the medical school graduates (46.5%) entering a family medicine residency program as first-year residents in October 2007 entered a program in the same state where they graduated from medical school. The percentages for each medical school have varied substantially from year to year since the AAFP began reporting this information. This article reports the average percentage for each medical school for the last 3 years. Also reported are the number and percentage of graduates from colleges of osteopathic medicine who entered Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited family medicine residency programs, based on estimates provided by the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine.     

An analysis of medical students' residency and specialty choices

The contemporary geographic maldistribution of physicians and shortages in some specialty areas is a persistent problem facing United States federal and state wide health planners. This paper attempts to illustrate some of the formal and informal processes of the selection of specialties and residency programs based on a survey of senior students of 37 selected American medical schools at the time of the National Residency Matching Program in 1982. Results of a factor analysis on influences on specialty choice produced two major clusters of medical students; those predominantly influenced in specialty choice by the faculty and other senior physicians (sponsorship), and those predominantly influenced by the social dimension of the physicians' role (social responsibility). These medical specialty choice orientations were also systematically related to either choice of specialty vs primary care medicine, to a life-style or status related choice of residency program, and to students' perceptions regarding a program's evaluation of a candidate. The results of the survey suggested that students who chose primary care were more apt to be influenced by sources outside of the medical school. These findings raise questions regarding the efficacy of medical school curriculum in motivating career choices in primary care. This is particularly important in view of the stated need to increase the proportion of medical school graduates choosing primary care careers.     

Predicting career decisions in primary care medicine: a theoretical analysis

Entering the 1960s, more than half of the medical doctors in the United States were family physicians, pediatricians, or general internists. Today, about one-third of all U.S. physicians are primary care practitioners. Although opinions vary on the optimal ratio of primary care to specialty physicians, in the mid-1990s, the consensus among leaders in medicine was that more primary care physicians would be needed to ensure access to quality care. The target output of graduates was set for a minimum of 50% primary care physicians, and medical school admission committees responded. The present study examines research related to career decision making in primary care medicine. We address career decision making in primary care with the expectation that selection of a medical residency is based on multiple factors, and multivariate statistical techniques comprise the most appropriate statistical procedure for developing predictive models of medical student residency choice. Additional multivariate studies for simultaneous analysis of multiple dependent and multiple independent variables are needed to determine whether health policy planners and medical schools should continue to address the distribution of primary care physicians through medical school admissions. Further to enabling prediction, researchers must renew efforts to base investigations on theoretical models, summarizing and organizing previous research, and providing one another with means to focus future studies while building on previous work.     

Undergraduate teaching of geriatric medicine in the United Kingdom: changes in the years 1981-1986

A follow-up survey of undergraduate teaching of geriatric medicine was carried out in 1986. All 27 clinical medical schools responded. Geriatric medicine is taught to all medical students in 25 and to only a proportion of students in two. Fifty-nine per cent of schools have academic departments teaching for a mean of 89 hours compared with 33 hours in non-academic departments--an overall mean of 68 hours. The subject is taught by various methods with 70% of teaching time spent on bedside clinical instruction. Other aspects of institutional and community care are often covered. The subject is examined in 18 schools. New academic departments are planned at four schools, and an increase in teaching time planned in five. To meet the needs of the population of the next century, reconsideration of curricula in some of the medical schools is recommended.     

Long-term outcomes of primary care residency choice by graduating medical students in one medical school

The ratio of primary care physicians to subspecialists is of major importance to the future of American medicine. This study examined the output of primary care physicians by a state-supported medical school that has a goal of placing 50% of its graduates in primary care. Data were obtained from alumni office questionnaires and published board-certification listings for 1102 graduates of the University of Kentucky College of Medicine from 1973 through 1983. Fifty percent of these graduates chose residency training in primary care. Of all 1102 graduates, 37% are categorized as practicing primary care physicians; 29% of the total are board certified in a primary care discipline. Attrition from primary care as an initial career choice at entry into residency was 26%. With declining medical student interest in primary care and a shortage of primary care physicians, new initiatives in medical education and in the practice of medicine are necessary to balance the specialty distribution of physicians more favorably toward primary care.     

Physicians for the 21st century. Challenges facing medical education in the United States

Since the 1980s, the American medical educational system has come under attack for its failure to train and prepare physicians for the challenges created by the changing health care market. The medical schools have been criticized for producing too many specialists and for not providing sufficient training in ethics and moral reasoning, care of the terminally ill, health care economics, alternative medicine, and the role of spiritual and religious values in healing. This study attempts to ascertain the extent to which medical schools have responded to these criticisms by changing their curriculum. The study is based on a survey of deans of medical schools in the United States. The study finds that medical schools have indeed responded to some of the criticisms by incorporating training in ethics, communication, primary and preventive care, and care of the terminally ill in their curriculum. However, the study concludes that more changes are needed to train physicians for the 21st century.     

A comparison of the professional values and career orientations of male and female medical students: some unintended consequences of U.S. public policy

During the 1970s, partly as a response to U.S. public policy which promoted the objective of equal opportunity for women, there was a dramatic increase in the proportion of women entering careers in medicine. Some observers have expressed the expectation that these women physicians will promote progressive changes in health care and that they will be more likely to emphasize "humanistic" aspects of treating patients. This paper presents data from a national survey of U.S. medical students which provides a comparison of several relevant characteristics of these male and female students. There are several important areas where significant differences are apparent. Women students are more likely to place greater importance on the desire to help people as a career motivation, for example, and are less likely to express satisfaction with the status quo in American health care. There are also significant male-female differences in career plans with respect to areas such as specialty choice and preference for practice setting. These findings are used to consider the question of the probable impact of increased numbers of women physicians on the future of American health care. Projections for the future are made more difficult because of important changes within the medical profession and in the context of health care organization, but it is clear that women physicians do represent some potential for progressive change in American medicine.