PEDIATRICS Vol. 67 No. 5 May 1981, pp. 585-596
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow This Policy is No Longer Valid.
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hughes, J. G.
Right arrow Articles by Bornstein, S. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hughes, J. G.
Right arrow Articles by Bornstein, S. L.

Critique of the Final Report of the Graduate Medical Education National Advisory Committee

James G. Hughes MD, Peter P. Budetti MD, Daniel D. Chapman MD, Henry G. Cramblett MD, Allen W. Mathies Jr MD, Bruce P. Meyer MD, Henry Seidel MD, Rolv K. Slungaard MD, John P. Connelly MD, and Suzanne L. Bornstein MA

I. INTRODUCTION: THE GMENAC REPORT

In 1976, the federal government took two major steps that were to have a major impact on public attitudes and policies toward the health professions. (1) Congress passed the Health Professions Educational Assistance Act of 1976, formally declaring an end to the notion that there was an overall shortage of physicians in the United States, and emphasizing geographic and primary care shortages instead. (2) Earlier, in April of the same year, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (DHEW), now the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), established the Graduate Medical Education National Advisory Committee (GMENAC) to advise the Secretary of DHEW on a set of issues related to the health professions. The formal charge to GMENAC included five specific questions: (a) What number of physicians is required to meet the health care needs of the nation? (b) What is the most appropriate specialty distribution of these physicians? (c) How can a more favorable geographic distribution of physicians be achieved? (d) What are the appropriate ways to finance the graduate medical education of physicians? (e) What strategies can achieve the recommendations formulated by the Committee?

After 4frac12 years of meetings, analysis, and developing and applying a complex methodology, GMENAC has now completed its work. Its recently published conclusions and recommendations are the subject of this policy statement.

II. GMENAC's APPROACH

GMENAC chose a ten-year span for its analysis, producing separate estimates for supply of and requirements for health professionals in 1990. Decisions on whether there would be a "shortage" or a "surplus" in a given field were based on a comparison of estimated supply with estimated requirements; the Panel's recommendations were, in turn, based on those decisions.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 PediatricsHome page
D. C. Goodman
The Pediatric Subspecialty Workforce: Time to Test Our Assumptions
Pediatrics, December 1, 2006; 118(6): 2545 - 2547.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 PediatricsHome page
Committee on Pediatric Workforce
Pediatric Workforce Statement
Pediatrics, August 1, 1998; 102(2): 418 - 427.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CLIN PEDIATRHome page
R. Listernick, R. R. Tanz, and A T. Davis
Carving a Niche: The General Academic Pediatrician as Consultant: Part II: Academic, Financial, and Educational Concerns
Clinical Pediatrics, December 1, 1988; 27(12): 583 - 586.
[Abstract] [PDF]