Questions to Ask Medical School Deans
Medical schools are expanding.
That is nothing new in osteopathic medical education. The osteopathic schools have been expanding for some time.
In 2010, there were 26 osteopathic colleges in 34 locations, which enrolled 5,428 entering students. When I started watching these numbers in 1977, there were only 12 osteopathic schools, and the entering class was 1,163. Osteopathic doctors were still fighting for recognition as "real doctors" — which became hard to deny once they were drafted for service in Vietnam.
The biggest change in my 50 years of involvement with medical schools, and a major rural breakthrough, has been the growth of osteopathic medical education.
For 30 years (1972-2002) the number of M.D. training schools and admissions slots was pretty constant — around 126 schools and 16,500 entry positions. In 2003 the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) determined that we are bound for a doctor shortage. Their thinking was that the population is growing, Americans are getting older and sicker and will need more care, and, if we insure our whole population, the newly insured will use more doctoring.
Sounds reasonable. The association recommended that its members expand admissions by 30 percent. Its membership is on track to do so, with 136 member schools planning to offer 21,000 slots to would-be M.D. students in the fall of 2013.
I have a few quibbles. The real issue in American medical education is geographic distribution and specialty distribution. It doesn't matter how many doctors you have if they are of the wrong kinds and are in the wrong places — as they have been throughout my 50 years of medical school watching.
Most of the allopathic (i.e., M.D.-degree-granting) schools deny responsibility for their alumni's careers, though exceptional schools like the University of Minnesota School of Medicine at Duluth show how remarkably effective a school can be at admitting and preparing students for rural careers even with limited curricular time and resources.
From 1975 until 1998, I reported directly to medical school deans in a succession of schools. My work involved liaison with legislators in five different states, and included such tasks as setting up legislative hearings, gathering data and drafting reports for legislators on, for example, how many students from state A were practicing medicine in state A.
I worked for eight different deans in three different medical schools. At one point I drafted a report for a regional legislative conference of state legislators that might have been called, "How to Tell When Your Medical School Dean is Presenting Deceptive Information and What Follow Up Questions to Ask."
It began with the classic prevarication, "Over 50 percent of our graduates are going into primary care." Deans using this statement knew that their graduates started internal medicine or pediatric residencies but that most would keep going straight into the subspecialties.
These eight men (and they were all men) were as varied as any other bunch of business executives — two were scrupulously honest, one not so much. Several were good businessmen; one was not. I could wax lurid.
But these deans were treated with deference by the legislatures, which I never understood. They were treated differently than were other witnesses, even their university bosses, who would eventually fire them. That legislative deference, that reluctance to ask the hard questions, was not in the best interest of the people of the states paying the bills.
I did notice that the school with cancelable contracts with surrounding states maintained much more robust rural programs than the school with the rural legislative mandate but no legislative oversight.
Too few primary care doctors and too few rural doctors: readers of this column know the pattern if not the details. Here's one easy way to understand and remember the situation, which has held fairly constant for the past 50 years: the percentage of doctors practicing in rural areas is about half the percentage of the rural population.
Another rule of thumb: We need half our docs in primary care. We now have about 30 percent. And the numbers are getting worse.
Npw that medical schools are expanding, there is an opportunity for state legislatures to get into the habit of asking hard questions of their state medical schools and building some accountability into their reporting systems.
For example, in a typical state medical school state appropriations may account for less than 5 percent of revenue, tuition another percent or two. This pays for all the undergraduate medical education.
In many schools faculty practice plan and research receipts may account for over 90 percent of the total. The school will be glad to talk about research receipts but not their practice revenue. The legislature and its staff should require detailed understanding of the many practice plan accounts and why some practice revenues should not help offset teaching costs, tuition and, hence, student debt.
We know, and medical schools know, how to prepare and select applicants for admission who are likely to become primary care docs and to practice in rural areas. At this point, though, most schools have no incentives to meet national workforce needs.
They appoint admissions committees from the faculty who select young people for admission who look like the faculty members looked at age 22. In other words, exemplary young people who have a probability of practicing in a rural community of about 3 percent.
It's your job to work with key legislators. Get them interested. Keep them interested. Help them ask the right questions. That medical school dean may be a nice person but s/he's just running a large public utility and getting a lot of public perquisites for doing it.
Is s/he delivering the product you're paying for?
Wayne Myers is a retired pediatrician and rural medical educator. He directed the federal Office of Rural Health Policy from 1998 through 2000, and was President of the National Rural Health Association in 2003. He and his wife, JoAnn, farm in rural Maine. This column first appeard in the Rural Assistance Center Winter newsletter.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version


Comments
Great column on what kinds of docs we need
Wayne, I really enjoyed your column about Questions to Ask Medical School Deans. Among other great challenges facing medical educators today are the increasingly stringent requirements of the LCME in regards to accreditation and proving what is being taught and how it's being assessed.
We have launched a new curriculum management system out of Duke School of Medicine designed especially for MedEd that is enabling medical schools around the work to map their curriculum in ways that can make their accreditation faster, smoother and more transparent. We are proud to be helping to support the education of future rural physicians from Kansas to Tanzania in this time of great need and transition. Please contact us at solutions@lcmsplus.com if you'd like more information about our system and what kind of difference it's making. Thanks again for your insightful and refreshing column.
Allison Wood, Founding CEO
LCMS+
Failure by Design
For 30 years there has been no progress in primary care workforce, rural workforce, or workforce for 200 million Americans in 30,000 zip codes. This is because the designs and designers have already managed to concentate 50% of workforce and over 50% of health spending into 1000 zip codes clustered together in 1% of the land area. Those left behind are 60% of the urban population and 70% of the rural population that together have multiple times lower concentrations of health workforce, services, and spending.
The top concentration Super Center zip codes are packed with academic centers and the largest health systems that receive all lines of revenue and the top reimbursement in each line. They also receive special revenue sources not seen by zip codes with most Americans. Corporate insurance blends with corporate health care and corporate suppliers and corporate investors and academic centers that are often just as corporate.
In addition to creating new ways to spend health dollars, the designers of health care find more ways to shape existing revenue sources their way - including dollars meant for primary care and health access and populations left behind. Why else would primary care training result 70% in hospital and specialty and subspecialty workforce? Why else would zip codes with top concentrations of workforce be designated as Health Professional Shortage Areas? Why else would obligated workforce be diverted from underserved settings to teaching positions? Why else would the nation bypass permanent primary care sources such as family medicine to favor flexible sources that steadily depart primary care during training, at graduation, and each year after graduation? The specific workforce types most needed for elderly, rural, underserved, disadvantaged, and most American populations are minimized by design.
Redesigns or true reforms are not possible when only small portions of hundreds of billions of dollars are needed to send to associations, consultants, lobbyists, and politicians to keep shaping the designs and the designers the same direction - toward existing concentrations.
Worst of all, the designers actually think they are helping the nation's economy and improving the nation's health. Designs fail when they result in substantial costs for little result for fewer Americans for just a few months or years of their lives. A real design for health and for health care focuses on nearly all Americans across nearly all years of their lives with care delivered in nearly all locations.
Specific Health Access Training
As noted, the designs of health care result in the wrong types of workforce in the wrong locations.
It takes many words to describe the simple fact of workforce concentration by design. Once there is understanding of the design, it is quite simple to describe the training needed to result in health access - in this case using the specific example of rural workforce and medical schools.
Prior to admission to medical school, candidates must demonstrate at least a year of employed or volunteer service in a rural location of need. Admission requires a signed contract obligating 8 years of rural workforce. Training is entirely in a rural location focused on the front line clinician training needed. Since all will spend their years in rural health delivery, they also have the best motivation to apply each day of training toward this goal. Graduates serve their 8 years and are supported by candidates prior to admission and trainees during training. Graduates are also familiar with the needs of trainees as they were once themselves trainees. The above is a compilation of what has worked in the US and in Japan for 40 years (RPAP, Jichi, others).
This is a design that startes with over 90% instate rural practice result. The target counties are the 2200 counties with lower or lowest workforce. The rural career outcomes begin with 25% of a career spent in the target instate rural outcome. The remaining 24 years of a career continue to increase career contributions to new record levels as shaped by specific preparation, specific admissions, specific training, and specific obligation. In Japan at the very end of careers, graduates of Jichi medical school are still 4 times more likely to be found where needed and are still 70% inside their prefecture. They are now leading an expansion of rural specific graduates.
This is also a specific instate design that protects 30 US states from losing decades of state education and higher education and training investment to about 10 states with top concentrations by design.
Generic training works best for top concentrations. Specific training is required to fit the needs of 200 million in 30,000 zip codes left behind - including 70% of the 60 million in rural America.
Workforce training must be specific for the people in need of workforce.
SMART Basic Health Access - Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Timely
Task Force Recommends Incentives
The National Rural Task Force of National Rural Health Association has a Vision Statement addressing the rural workforce issue. One of the recommendations uses cash incentives to institutions that train and keep providers in rural communities. The recommendation states:
"After five years retention in rural practice and every five years thereafter, provide a cash award to the training program and institutions where the rural primary care provider had trained."
I think there is a lot of merit to this recommendation because it leads to accountability and offers an incentive that will literally pay over time.
Rural provider development
I am a rural family physician and have been praciticing in Appalachia for six years. My wife, a geriatrician, and I both attended a big state medical school and then completed our residencies, chief years, and fellowships at a large private medical school before returning to her hometown to practice. Dr. Meyer writes clearly that a lack of accountability to anyone for the career choices their students make keeps most state funded universities from needing to address this issue. This is a multifaceted discussion and the issue of self-confidence is one that my wife and I often discuss.
As we have worked with our individual practices and the local hospital to recruit new physicians we have both become aware of the lack of independence that our current medical education program develops in students and residents. How do we help new physicians learn that not every person admitted with chest pain needs an inpatient cardiology consult and that not every COPD exacerbation requires a visit from the pulmonologist. This is a failing of our training system and if we do not begin to instill this confidence in new physicians they will never feel comfotable being too far from "the mothership." The question is how do we successfully accomplish this with current medical students and residents without requiring a complete redesign of medical school and residency curriculums.