POLICY STATEMENT |
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Key Words: graduate medical education trust fund Balanced Budget Act Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education Payment Program direct graduate medical education freestanding children's hospitals graduate medical education indirect medical education Medicaid Medicare portable authorization system residents Title VII
Abbreviations: GME—graduate medical education DGME—direct GME DRG—diagnosis-related groups IME—indirect medical education BBA—Balanced Budget Act of 1997 CHGME PP—Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education Payment Program PPS—prospective payment system NIH—National Institutes of Health
| GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION (GME) AS A PUBLIC GOOD |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Residency or GME has been accepted by our society as an essential part of maintaining a high-quality physician workforce.1 After earning a medical degree, US physicians are required by law in every state to complete an additional 1 to 3 years of GME before receiving a license to practice medicine.2 This demanding educational process is unique to the medical profession.
Resident physicians provide valuable medical services, frequently to underserved populations and to patients with complex illnesses, under the supervision of experienced physicians. Thus, GME is a public good that ensures the sustained availability of highly skilled physicians and directly provides essential clinical services rendered by resident physicians.
There are many costs associated with GME. Direct costs include salaries and benefits, as well as the overhead costs of practice for the resident physician, such as licensing fees, medical liability insurance, clinical facility expenses, such as utilities and maintenance, and administrative costs. Because residents must be under supervision for their education, there is also the expense of faculty time for education and supervision. Finally, because they are medical school graduates providing valued health care services, residents also receive salary and fringe benefits, although at a fraction of the income of physicians in independent practice.
In addition, the sponsoring institution incurs indirect costs of training residents. Residents may be less efficient and may perform more diagnostic testing, additional procedures, and require more staff support. Residents, often located at tertiary care centers, may also care for more complex patients. Leaders in managed care believe that services at teaching hospitals cost 5% to 10% more than those at nonteaching hospitals.3 Thus, for almost 4 decades, the US government has explicitly funded GME, primarily through the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
| GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION (GME) AND THE MEDICARE TRUST FUND |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Before the enactment of Medicare, GME programs were funded primarily by the sponsoring teaching hospital through patient-care revenues. With the passage of Medicare in 1965, teaching hospitals received pass-through from Part A for the costs of GME, including resident salaries, benefits, and overhead, which are now referred to as direct GME (DGME) payments. In 1965, Congress recognized that hospitals with educational activities enhanced the quality of care offered and that the cost of this education should be borne by society. In the reports accompanying the Medicare legislation, Congress declared5:
Educational activities enhance the quality of care in an institution, and it is intended, until the community undertakes to bear such education costs in some other way, that a part of the net cost of such activities (including stipends of trainees, as well as compensation of teachers and other costs) should be borne to an appropriate extent by the hospital insurance program.
With the implementation of the Medicare diagnosis-related groups (DRG) payment system in 1983, teaching hospitals were given an adjustment factor to their reimbursement rate on the basis of their resident-to-bed ratio.6 Congress described the purpose of the indirect medical education (IME) adjustment as follows:
This adjustment is provided in light of doubts ... about the ability of the DRG case classification system to account fully for factors such as severity of illness of patients, requiring the specialized services and treatment programs provided by teaching institutions and the additional costs associated with the teaching of residents ... The adjustment for indirect medical education costs is only a proxy to account for a number of factors that may legitimately increase costs in teaching hospitals.7,8
In 2001, DGME payments were approximately $3 billion, and in fiscal year 2006, Medicare IME payments were estimated at approximately $5.6 billion. Congress has reduced the IME adjustment several times since its inception, with the most recent prescribed cuts occurring as part of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003.9
There are several important consequences of Medicare's primary role in GME. First, Medicare subsidizes GME as part of the expense of caring for Medicare patients. Thus, freestanding children's hospitals (technically referred to as "Medicare prospective payment system-exempt" hospitals) received, on average, only approximately $374 per resident from Medicare in fiscal year 1997, because they care for very few Medicare patients; predominantly pediatric end-stage renal disease patients. These hospitals must seek other sources of funding for their GME programs. However, many pediatric residents train in general hospitals that receive both DGME and IME payments for these residents; thus, Medicare's GME policies still have a major effect on pediatric residency education. Second, Medicare Part A pays for hospital services. Medicare payment for associated GME costs, therefore, is based on hospital-based services provided by residents. Thus, these reimbursement policies are a major financial disincentive for resident education in nonhospital settings. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) allowed hospitals to count residents in nonhospital settings in determining the IME if the hospital substantially incurs all of the cost of training in that setting10; however, it is not clear that this change has increased ambulatory care training. Finally, Medicare provides GME support to any hospital with an accredited residency program. For years, this entitlement created a tremendous financial incentive for hospitals to increase the number of residency positions to increase Medicare reimbursement rates and to benefit from the clinical services provided by the residents. Increasingly fewer resident positions have gone unfilled during the past decade because of the high demand for residency positions in the United States by international medical graduates. Historically, Medicare's GME financing policies constituted an open-ended federal subsidy, although in 1997 Congress also placed a cap on the number of residency positions that Medicare would fund at each hospital. This cap has not only limited the growth of GME positions in the country but also frozen the geographic distribution of GME positions since its implementation. In 2005, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, authorized by the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, made a one-time redistribution of resident slots. Hospitals that did not fill all of their resident slots under their BBA cap relinquished them to a subset of those hospitals that had more resident slots than their BBA cap permitted to be eligible for Medicare GME reimbursement.
The nation's system of GME financing has a tremendous impact on the pediatric workforce and the education of future pediatricians.
| CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION PAYMENT PROGRAM (CHGME PP) |
|---|
|
|
|---|
With enactment of this legislation, Congress recognized that, until comprehensive GME financing reform occurs, CHGME PP funding is essential to provide Medicare PPS-exempt children's hospitals a level of federal GME support equivalent to the Medicare GME support provided to all teaching hospitals. Without it, in today's health care market, Medicare-PPS children's hospitals, which train nearly 30% of all pediatricians, nearly 50% of all pediatric subspecialists, and the majority of pediatric research scientists, would be at significant risk, which would jeopardize the nation's future pediatric workforce.
The Health Resources and Services Administration administers the CHGME PP. It makes DGME and IME payments to
60 eligible children's hospitals during the federal fiscal year. Congress authorized one third of the funding to go toward DGME payments and the remaining two thirds to go toward IME payments. The DGME payment is based on a standardized national average per resident amount and the average number of Medicare-weighted.* full-time equivalent residents, subject to the resident cap and rolling average established under the BBA. The IME payment varies by hospital, depending on the number of Medicare-unweighted full-time equivalent residents, the area-wage index of the metropolitan area in which the hospital is located, the complexity of its patient population, the volume of patients, the number of Medicare-approved beds, and its teaching intensity.
Unlike Medicare GME funding, Congress must appropriate funds annually for the CHGME PP. From fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2004, Congress fully funded the CHGME PP; however, cuts were made in subsequent years. Congress appropriated $303 million for the CHGME PP in fiscal year 2004, $301 million in fiscal year 2005, and $297 million in fiscal year 2006. Given the duration of residency training, the uncertainty of CHGME PP funding levels from year to year is highly problematic.
| OTHER SOURCES OF GME FUNDING |
|---|
|
|
|---|
In total, 46 states and the District of Columbia contributed to GME through their Medicaid fee-for-service programs in 2005. Thirty-one of the states that paid for GME under fee-for-service programs did so through hospital per-case or per-diem rates. Of the 35 states and the District of Columbia that reported capitated Medicaid arrangements, 14 made explicit Medicaid GME payments to teaching hospitals or teaching programs; 10 others included the payments by incorporating them into the capitated rates negotiated in Medicaid managed care contracts with teaching hospitals.13
Title VII Programs
Training Grants in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry, a provision of Title VII of the Public Health Service Act, provide the authority and funding for faculty development, academic administrative units, predoctoral training, and intensive primary care training for residents in diverse ambulatory settings. Title VII helps fund residency education in general pediatrics, internal medicine, and family practice, but this funding was cut by $154.3 million in 2006.
Additional Federal Sources for GME Funding
A number of federal agencies sponsor residency training opportunities and funding outside the normal mechanisms of Medicare, Medicaid, Title VII, and the Children's Hospital GME Payment Program. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), for example, sponsors a limited number of subspecialty training positions, and through research grants, provides funding for some resident research activities. In addition to clinical areas of expertise, the NIH's National Library of Medicine offers predoctoral and postdoctoral research training in biomedical informatics, as well as support for librarians, scientists, health professionals, and others who wish to obtain cross-training to become in-context information specialists. The Agency for Health Care Research and Quality likewise offers a variety of training programs to support predoctoral work. Finally, the Maternal and Child Health Bureau operates a comprehensive program of training opportunities through its MCH Training Program, which funds public and private nonprofit institutions of higher learning to provide leadership training in maternal and child health. Although this is not a comprehensive list of training opportunities, it serves to demonstrate the breadth of experiences offered through a number of less well-known federal programs.
Private or Industry-Sponsored GME Funding
More recently, pharmaceutical and medical device companies have supported a few GME positions in particular specialties. In 2006, a program to fund additional dermatology GME positions with funds from both the specialty society and pharmaceutical companies was announced. The program was withdrawn when concerns were raised about the potential influence of industry on residents. The Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) has developed and revised Standards of Commercial Support and has grappled with many of the same issues that GME is starting to face.14 The experiences gleaned from the continuing medical education community can be applied to GME policy development pertaining to funding issues, and thereby further solidify the relationship between these components of lifelong learning.
Cross Subsidy From Patient Care Revenue
The largest source of funding for GME in all specialties, however, continues to be cross-subsidies from patient-care revenue from private payers; however, these funds are not specifically designated for GME. In 2001, the US Bureau of Health Professions estimated Medicare provides 40%, Medicaid provides 10%, and the Bureau of Health Professions provides 1% of GME financing; 49% of GME financing is provided by "other" sources.15
| Transparency and Decoupling Indirect Medical Education (IME) |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Care for indigent patients, clinical research, and specialized services and technology for complex patients continue to be important regional and national needs that need adequate financing. Disproportionate share funding provides some support for indigent care at many teaching hospitals serving large proportions of unfunded or public sector patients. However, these funds have also been reduced over time by the BBA. Additional mechanisms should be developed to support the costs of these missions.
Given the substantial public funding directed toward GME, the products of this funding may face increased scrutiny. Traditional measures, such as the knowledge and skills of those being trained, will continue to be relevant. Greater accountability for the quality of care being delivered within GME-funded teaching settings is also likely. Finally, it will be increasingly important to demonstrate that GME funding results in an appropriate supply of physicians, trained in needed specialties and geographically distributed to ensure that the health needs of diverse populations across all U.S. communities are well served.
| AN ALL-PAYER GME TRUST FUND |
|---|
|
|
|---|
An all-payer GME trust fund has been proposed that will create many benefits.17 A national GME trust fund could eliminate distortions in the physician workforce caused by the current Medicare funding methodology and develop mechanisms for financing residency positions that will best meet the evolving physician workforce needs of the United States. The total number of residency positions financed can be based on national workforce needs. Funding could be more flexible to support education in ambulatory and community sites for residents in primary care specialties. Also, GME support could be provided to all specialties, including pediatrics, pediatric medical subspecialties, and pediatric surgical specialties, on the basis of need.
Some concerns about a national all-payer GME trust fund include an increase in the cost of employment-based and directly purchased health insurance; these costs are currently being partially borne by Medicare and other payers who support GME. An all-payer trust fund could potentially reduce a teaching hospital's incentive to care for Medicare patients; however, it is very unlikely that a teaching hospital would adopt such a strategy or policy given the dominant role of Medicare as a payer.
Allocation of funds also could be a divisive issue. A centralized planning body that allocates GME funds to each hospital and/or specialty could become highly politicized and also may be insensitive to signals from the health care market, leading to the training of an excessive number of physicians in certain specialties. Use of a market mechanism may be more flexible and responsive to actual societal requirements for physicians.
| DISTRIBUTING GME FUNDS TO MEET WORKFORCE NEEDS AND DEMANDS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
A proposed market mechanism would be a portable authorization system that would allocate GME funds for direct medical education costs to accredited residency programs on the basis of the selection of the program by qualified students or residents; thus, the funding would follow the residents to their program. The total number of positions to be funded would be set by a public-private health care workforce policy body on the basis of national workforce requirements. A portable authorization system will not directly address geographic maldistribution of physicians. Thus, continuing support for programs such as the National Health Service Corps and state-level scholarship, loan forgiveness, and incentive programs remain essential to address this problem.
| FINANCING PEDIATRIC SUBSPECIALTY GME |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| IF PUBLIC SUPPORT OF GME IS NOT SUSTAINED |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| CONCLUSIONS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| RECOMMENDATIONS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Strategies
2. Health care services provided by licensed residents should be reimbursed.
Strategy
3. All health care payers, including Medicare and Medicaid, should contribute equitably to a fund that supports the direct costs of GME, including resident salaries and benefits, faculty teaching time, and overhead and patient care expenses directly related to residency education.
Strategies
4. GME programs in Medicare PPS-exempt children's hospitals should receive a level of support per resident equivalent to that of other teaching hospitals for their GME activities.
Strategies
5. The distribution of GME funds needs to be directed to cover the costs of educational activities and to satisfy public demands for transparency and accountability.
Strategies
6. GME funding should be used to help achieve pediatric workforce goals, as determined by the pediatric community.
Strategies
7. Representatives from pediatrics must be active participants in all significant deliberations and decision-making processes pertaining to GME financing.
COMMITTEE ON PEDIATRIC WORKFORCE, 2007–2008
Beth Pletcher, MD, Chair
Luisa I. Alvarado-Domenech, MD
William T. Basco, MD
Andrew J. Hotaling, MD, Section Representative
Mary E. Rimsza, MD
* Scott A. Shipman, MD, MPH
Richard P. Shugerman, MD
Rachel Wallace Tellez, MD, MS
PAST COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Michael R. Anderson, MD
Aaron Friedman, MD
David C. Goodman, MD, MS
LIAISON
Gail A. McGuinness, MD
American Board of Pediatrics
CONTRIBUTOR
*Richard J. D. Pan, MD, MPH
STAFF
Ethan A. Jewett, MA
Holly J. Mulvey, MA
| ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
| FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* When determining the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) residents for GME funding purposes, Medicare-weighted resident FTEs count residents beyond their initial residency period (i.e. fellows) as 0.5 FTE per current Medicare rules. For Medicare-unweighted counts, all residents (including fellows) are counted equally as 1 FTE. ![]()
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The following policy statement has been revised:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||