Generic Expansions Are Not Smart

Medical and medical education associations want generic expansions of graduate medical education positions. Billions taken from health care diverted to medical education will not address primary care deficits SMARTly. 

Generic expansion fails for the purpose of primary care. Generic is not SMART - specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, or timely. Obviously the added GME positions outside of primary care will not result in primary care. IM and PD graduate increases have been countered by decreases in the percentages remaining in primary care for no gain. Both are mired at about 1400 - 1600 entering primary care and this is likely to remain so. Both have primary care graduates most likely to crowd their practice location in top concentrations of primary care already.

Specific family medicine expansions could help, but gains of positions could result in conversions of family medicine training to non-primary care positions. What is most likely is that family medicine will remain at 3000 annual graduates as it has for the last 30 years. After 30 years family medicine has reached a peak with 100,000 as a primary care workforce. Internal medicine and pediatric primary care with both be about 50,000 or together about 100,000. HRSA 2008 projections of substantially more are in error as the projections assume retention of primary care graduates within primary care, something lacking in US primary care for decades with more to come.

Only expansions specific to primary care with permanent primary care result for a career are SMART.


Nurse practitioner and physician assistant annual graduates have doubled in number each 6 - 12 years since 1980 but the primary care results have been limited due to departures form primary care and family practice during training, at graduation, and after graduation. The last doubling of physician assistants from 3000 to 6000 resulted in a 30% increase in those entering primary care in 2008 but a 200% increase in non-primary care. Conversions of primary care to non-primary care will result in no gain in primary care and over a tripling of non-primary care.

Generic expansions of osteopathic schools have not increased family medicine numbers. Before 1970 the family practice component was 70%, in the 1990 decade it averaged 35%, and recently the AOA study noted 17%. Each increase in annual graduates has been countered by a decrease in FM proportion resulting in the same 500 - 600 family medicine DO graduates.

Over time the international medical graduate numbers have increased, but the preference has been internal medicine resulting in the least primary care yield. Caribbean annual graduate increases have resulted in forced primary care choice to return to the US via residency programs, but generic expansions of GME will allow more to bypass primary care - negating the expansion. Ross is the number one US source of primary care with by far the most annual graduates and with 26% family medicine and with over 50% primary care training program entry, but more GME positions will allow a bypass of primary care choice.

US MD expansions also fail to increase primary care. The 30% increase in annual graduates seems impressive. Unfortunately the proportion remaining in primary care continues to decline with 7% for family medicine, 4 - 5% for internal medicine, and 6% for pediatrics with 20% or less as a total. Departures from primary care and conversions of family medicine to other positions negate generic GME expansion. Also with generic expansion, graduates choosing FM or IM as a backup plan are more likely to get their higher priority subspecialty choices.

For a SMART primary care result, generic should be avoided and the focus should be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and timely. Even with a change to a totally SMART primary care design, it will take 30 class years of sufficient permanent primary care graduates (about 14,000 a year). About 2050 or 2060 the US could have sufficient primary care just as it chose in 1980 to have too little for 2010 to 2030 - by design.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Another Fine CMS You Have Gotten Us Into

Perhaps we are indeed back to the time of Another Fine Mess (Laurel and Hardy). In a mad rush to implement innovation and to save all possible costs, CMS is creating complications for people that it is most responsible to protect. As PBS and Ken Burns celebrate the legacy of The Roosevelts, it is tragic to see what has become of over a century of effort involving Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and health care equity. The United States has one of the most complex health designs and clearly the various designers often know not what they are doing to others. More cartoons and comedians would find this a ripe area for material if not for the suffering involved. Health and Human Services has a huge role across Social Security and US health care. CMS or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has a dominant role to play in the design of health care in the United States.  CMS can be progressive or regressive. Interestingly CMS has chosen to appear to be progressive and in
Read more

The Essential True Reform Restores Primary Care and Much More

The list of distractions from True Reform are impressive. For decades True Reform has been specifically avoided as primary care worsens within practices and from outside. The demise is most specifically about the financial design. Unless there is a focus on True Reform, there is little hope for Basic Health Access. This may not make as much sense to those outside of family medicine. Family physicians not familiar with AAFP may also be clueless. If you think that you can fix primary care with more technology, more rearrangements, more types of health professional graduates, or more expansions of training - think again. None of these have any hope of working without financial design changes - major changes. The following are various concepts that dominate the discussions at AAFP and primary care meetings and media releases of associations and foundations and institutions. Members, staff, media releases, programs, and personnel have been reviewed.  There is little about Tru
Read more

Innovation Is the Problem Not the Solution for Worsening Health

Image
Innovation is good. Innovation worship is not good. Innovation application without scientific testing or clinical trials is unethical regarding clinical interventions and should be just as prohibited with regard to health policy. Clinical trials can harm hundreds or thousands. Innovative policies can harm millions. It takes a reasonable understanding of health care, health care outcomes, social determinants, and the investments that most improve social determinants to understand the consequences arising from the innovative nightmares past, present, and future. If you review the information sources with a critical eye, you too may find that the innovative policy designs have been disruptive to care, have hurt health care where health care is most needed, have reduced access to care, and have resulted in distortions in the literature. Indeed what is accepted and published in journals seriously lacks consideration of alternative hypothesis, lacks inclusion of many pages of limitatio
Read more