GME funding must be targeted to Primary Care

Much of the cost of training physicians is currently borne by Medicare (and, to a lesser extent, Medicaid). This is known as Graduate Medical Education, or GME, funding, and it pays some, all, or more than all (depending upon the hospital and based upon a complicated formula discussed on May 25, 2009, Funding Graduate Medical Education) of the cost of training residents in the various specialties that comprise medicine. For those unfamiliar with medical education, graduation from medical school, while it confers the MD (or DO, Doctor of Osteopathy) degree and the title “doctor”, no longer permits practice in any of the US states. A least one, and in some states two, years of residency (“GME”) is required for licensure, and most doctors complete an entire residency of 3 or more years to make them eligible for certification as a specialist in a field (eg, family medicine, general surgery, internal medicine, psychiatry, etc.). Fellowship training is requires addition years beyond the core residency to become a sub-specialist – for example, those who complete an internal medicine residency can then do additional years to become a cardiologist, gastroenterologist, endocrinologist, etc.

Medicare augments its payments to institutions (usually hospitals, although there are a few consortia and federally-qualified health centers) with two types of payments, Direct GME which is intended to pay residents’ salaries and cost of teaching, and Indirect ME which is for the additional costs that training hospitals bear for a variety of reasons. (In addition to the piece linked above, see also Training rural family doctors, Nov 5 2010; PPACA, The New Health Reform Law: How will it affect the public's health and primary care?, Apr 22,2010; Primary Care and Residency Expansion, Jan 7, 2010.) These payments have been the cornerstones for funding residency education. Because the amount is tied to the percent of Medicare patients in a hospital, rather than the total number of patients cared for in hospitals or outpatient settings, it could be (and has been) argued that funding GME should be done comprehensively and separately from Medicare. The most persuasive argument is that private insurers should also contribute to GME (they don’t, although Medicaid does in some, but not all, states). On the other side, many fear that uncoupling GME funds from Medicare would make it easier for a Congress looking at ways to cut the budget to cut GME than having it as part of Medicare.

Except this year, with exceptionally high pressure to cut the budget, Medicare is not even sacrosanct, although, as I have recently argued, (Medicare: A lifeline, not a Ponzi scheme, Dec 2, 2011) most of the proposals to cut it across the board by tactics such as raising the age of eligibility are poorly conceived. So there are now proposals to cut the funding from Medicare for GME. Unsurprisingly, this has created great anxiety in the community of academic health centers, and the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), which has strongly supported expansion of GME residency slots, is quite alarmed (Preserve Medicare support for physician training, revised Oct 2, 2011). The Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), which accredits institutions that sponsor residency programs and, through its subsidiary Review Committees (RCs), each individual specialty and subspecialty, has done a study that shows that cuts in residency positions have already occurred and more major cuts are threatened if Medicare decreases its funding ("The Potential Impact of Reduction in Federal GME Funding in the United States: A Study of the Estimates of Designated Institutional Officials”). ACGME CEO Thomas Nasca, MD, is quoted by AAFP News Now as saying “We will actually reduce the number of physicians who are trained in the United States at a time when all workforce studies are demonstrating a mounting deficit of physicians….That will place us in a position where our physician-to-population ratio in 2020 and beyond is below (that of) most of the developed countries in the world." The study found that “With a 33 percent reduction in GME funding

• 68.3 percent of responders said they would reduce the number of core residency positions,
• 60.3 percent would reduce the number of subspecialty fellowship positions,
• 4.3 percent would close all core residency programs, and
• 7.8 percent would close all subspecialty programs.”

Because there are many more “core” residency positions than subspecialty fellowship positions, these would be disproportionately affected by across-the-board cuts. In addition, residency programs in primary care, which are not as profitable to the sponsoring institution, are even more likely to be cut despite the service that they provide to patients, especially those most in need. Perry Pugno, M.D., M.P.H., AAFP vice president for education, notes in that same article that "…any cuts to GME that go across the board are going to hurt primary care -- especially those of us who disproportionately take care of adults with chronic illnesses….In communities where primary care residency programs are present, those programs become the access point for the poor and disenfranchised of the area.” He says that it's not unusual for family medicine residency programs to see patients who live both in poverty and with numerous chronic illnesses. "The payment for taking care of those patients is so low that the local medical community often doesn't want to provide that care…But residency programs take all comers."

The key issue that Pugno is addressing is one that is very important issue and is not usually made explicit in national policy discussions: our current method of allocating Medicare GME funds to institutions (hospitals) rather than to individual residency programs tends to encourage funding the funding of positions in specialties that most profit those hospitals. The interests of the American people, in regard to the kinds of specialists they need, are not necessarily (and I would argue in fact are not) the same as the interests of the hospitals that sponsor residencies. Hospitals like to fund specialties whose trainees’ work enhances their revenue (e.g., cardiology fellows, who can increase the number of profitable procedures that are done) or at least decrease their loss (e.g., emergency medicine residents, who can fill gaps in seeing patients in emergency departments). Indeed, when hospitals can afford to, they often augment Medicare GME with their own funds to create more such positions. This is about their own financial interest, and does not take into account whether or not the US needs more cardiologists or ER docs, or more family physicians and general surgeons.

This contrast between the interests of the hospital (what kind of residency positions are most beneficial to its bottom line) and the needs of the population, is, of course, a subset of the larger tension. We train doctors in highly-specialized tertiary care academic health centers, while they will mostly practice in the community. There are a number of reasons that this is not brought up more often. For the general lay public, including most members of Congress and their staffs, it seems like a subtle difference. For experts, such as the AAMC, the issue is that they represent the interests of the medical schools, and want to have those interests seen as also representing the interests of the US population. Of course, they do not always, especially the interests of the most rural, poor, minority and other underserved portions of that population.

I think we need to use every opportunity to make this issue more clear and open. While it is probably true that it is a mistake to decrease federal funding for GME, it is absolutely necessary to increase the support for primary care and, in particular family medicine. And this will only happen if GME funding is explicitly tied to requiring it to be spent on primary care programs, and “prevents substitutions”.

Primary care specialty choice: student characteristics

.
I have written about both the characteristics of medical schools (recently, in A New Way of Ranking Medical Schools: Social Mission, June 20, 2010; also Rankings of Medical Schools: Do they tell us anything?, September 5, 2009) and of medical students, including the people being accepted into medical school, the specialty choice of those graduating, and what aspects of both schools and students are associated with the kind of doctors students become (Who will care for the underserved? The role of off-shore medical schools, June 2, 2010, Primary Care and Residency Expansion, January 7, 2010, "Uncomplicated" Primary Care?, October 8, 2009, Medical Student Selection, December 4, 2008). A recent study, “Primary care specialty choices of United States medical graduates, 1997-2006” (Academic Medicine June 2010;85(6):947-58) by DB Jeffe, AJ Whelan and DA Andriole from the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis provides further information to inform this discussion.

The authors used two surveys administered annually by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) to medical students: the Matriculating Student Questionnaire (MSQ) given when students begin school and the Graduation Questionnaire (GQ) given at graduation. They were able to match the questionnaires of nearly 2/3 (64.9%) of medical students graduating in the 10 years 1997-2006 to look at the degree to which the answers students gave to questions on the MSQ and GQ would predict their choice of specialty. It takes a while to get through the description of how they grouped questions, and “weighted factors”, but there are a number of important findings. Most of them not surprising, but this study provides additional data support for things we have been seeing.

Fewer graduates are entering primary care. For some reason the AAMC’s GQ counts 6 “primary care” areas, including, in addition to the usual family medicine, general internal medicine, and general pediatrics, also obstetrics/gynecology, internal medicine subspecialities (IMSS), and pediatric subspecialties (PdSS). However, this study separates them out. The percent of students entering the first 4 of these dropped from 1997 to 2006 (GIM from 15.7% to 6.7%, GP from 10.2% to 6.6%, FM from 17.6% to 6.9%, and OBG from 8.2% to 6.1%), while the subsubspecialties increased (IM from 6.8% to 11.4%, Peds from 2.2% to 4.4%). This increase in the last 2, however, did not compensate for the decrease in the first 4 so there was a net decrease from 60.7% to 42.1% for all these “primary care” specialties. The increase was in, then, surgical specialties, and more significantly in specialties such as radiology, anesthesiology, and emergency medicine. And the trend continues – although not part of the study, the article reports that the total % of students entering these 6 specialty areas in 2008 was down to 30.3% from the 42.1% in 2006. Remember, this is not just real primary care – it includes medical and pediatric subspecialties!

The more important part of this article is its correlation of certain demographic and attitudinal characteristics with specialty choice. Being female is important: over the 10 years of the study 45.1% of graduates were women, but they were over-represented in each of the 6 fields except IM subspecialties: 77.3% of OBG, 72.6% of GP, 58.2% of PdSS, 50.8% of FM and 49% of GIM. Indeed, the authors suggest that one of the reasons for the continued downturn in entry of medical students into PC fields is that the % of women in medical school, which was increasing during the study period, tended to compensate somewhat for the decreased interest in PC among men. Now that the % of women in medical school has stabilized, at roughly 50%, while interest in PC continues to go down, this is no longer having the same compensatory effect.

Compared to white students, underrepresented minority (URM) students were somewhat less likely to choose the PC specialties of GIM, GP, and FM, while Asian/Pacific Islander (As/PI) grads were less likely to choose FM, OBG, GP and PdSS, according to the text, but there are subtleties to this. For example, white students were 68% of the total but 75.3% of those entering FM; however, the % of URM students in FM (14%) was also greater than in the overall cohort (12.7%). The difference is that As/PI were much lower in FM, 9.9% compared to 18.2% of the overall cohort. In this report URM students include black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaskan natives, while the As/PI group includes some groups that are truly underrepresented in medicine and are usually counted by Federal grantmakers as URM, as well as some groups, e.g., South Asian, Japanese, Chinese, that are in fact over-represented in medicine. Many of these are among the 15.7% of students who had one or more parents who was a physician or the 24.1% more who had a non-physician professional parent. This is important because “…a student’s having a physician parent had a pervasive negative effect on graduates’ choice of any generalist-primary care specialty…” while those with non-physician professionals as parents were more likely to choose GIM, GP, and IMSS.

Though highly-touted as a deterrent to entering PC (and, perhaps, of more significance now than in the early part of this study period) debt had only a “modest” effect; students with higher debt were less likely to choose GP, PdSS, GIM, or IMSS, but more likely to choose OBG, and choice of FM was essentially unaffected. The probability of students from public medical schools entering PC was much greater than from private schools, a consistent finding of all studies, presumably reflecting the curriculum and emphasis of those schools as well as the characteristics of the students they select. The authors linked a number of questions to assess students’ “choice of medicine as a career goal” (including the importance of innovation and research, social responsibility, and prestige), and students’ “perceptions about medicine and medical practice” (including altruistic beliefs and the belief that the demands of medicine interfere with family/other interests). All were high, and few led to big differences in specialty choice. Among the most significant of those that did were “intention to practice in an underserved community” (more PC, especially FM), and “interest in academic faculty positions” (very low FM -- the odds of being interested in academic practice compared to full-time non-university practice was only 12% for someone entering FM, compared to GIM’s 86%, IMSS’ 185% and PdSS’ 316%!).

Among areas that the questionnaires did NOT look at was the probability of entering rural practice; other studies have shown that, except for family medicine, essentially no students are entering practice in rural areas (see Primary Care and Rural Areas, April 28, 2010, Medicare Costs in Rural America: A case of reaping what we haven't sown?, March 26, 2009, Ten Biggest Myths Regarding Primary Care in the Future, January 15, 2009 ). Despite their assertion (probably correct) that “…the predictive validity of planning to practicing in an underserved community at graduation has been established,” intention to practice in an underserved community is not a surrogate for intention to practice in a rural area, because practicing in a rural underserved community means living in a rural community, while one can practice in an urban underserved community and live in a more upscale neighborhood. This is particularly true for pediatrics (see Primary Care, Pediatrics, and Physician Distribution, May 21, 2009).

So what does all this tell us that is new? Not much. There is a dramatic decrease in the number and percent of students entering true primary care specialties, combined with some increase in the number entering obstetrics/gynecology, internal medicine and pediatric subspecialties and a large increase in specialties that are in no way primary care. It tells us that students who are interested in and attracted to, and are wooed by, “high-status” research and specialty care medical schools are less likely to enter primary care; that being the child of a physician or having a high family income makes one less likely to enter primary care; that students interested in caring for the underserved and women are more likely to enter primary care (although not rural practice). So what does this mean “we” should do?

Well, that depends on who “we” are. If “we” are the selective, high-status medical schools who are low on social mission (see A New Way of Ranking Medical Schools: Social Mission, June 20, 2010) and “we” value what “we” do, maybe “we” shouldn’t do anything. The same might be said if “we” are the schools that tend to be high on social mission and production of PC physicians. If, however, “we” are the American people, who need more primary care and rural physicians, or the politicians and policy makers who actually can have some influence, “we” need to make policies that reward schools that select the students whose demographic and attitudinal characteristics make them more likely to enter primary care, underserved, and rural practice. And those schools whose curriculum (formal and informal) and faculty attitudes and relative status-within-the-institution favors those same outcomes. And pay, on the back end, more money to those who do what “we” don’t have enough of (primary care, underserved and rural practice) than those who do what “we” have too much of already.

Whether or not “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity”, it is sure not going to accomplish any change in the physician workforce.
.

Primary Care and Residency Expansion

In discussing some of the things I liked in the bill that passed the Senate (December 23, 2009, Health Reform: The good, the bad, and the bigoted ) one of them was that the proposal to expand by 15,000 the number Medicare-supported residency (or Graduate Medical Education, GME) positions did not get included. The reason was that it did not explicitly require that these positions be used for primary care, which I believe is an essential requirement. I cited the strong arguments made by Shannon Brownlee and David Goodman in their New York Times op-ed of the same date, "Doctors no one needs". Most primary care, and particularly family medicine, groups were also unenthusiastic to opposed.

The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) does not agree, unsurprisingly to those who are familiar with medical education, and was the biggest advocate for that provision. As AAMC President Darrell Kirch wrote in his December 21, 2009 communication “Leader to Leader” (not publicly available on the AAMC website), the news on the Senate bill “…was a great disappointment because we viewed this as a truly historic opportunity to make a positive impact on our future workforce.” In what many in the primary care community saw as a more combative statement, he went on to say “During this process we were deeply concerned that some members of the primary care community spoke out against the amendment, and argued that it would not support the expansion of the primary care workforce. Facing an extremely tight timetable, Senate staff clearly indicated to us that such opposition would discourage the leadership from moving forward on any GME language. The AAMC expressed strong concern that the vocal opposition of the family medicine community threatened to halt progress on GME legislation that did indeed benefit all training programs.”

In a recent letter to Senator Harry Reid, staking out the organization’s positions on what needs to be included (read “benefits academic medicine”) as the Senate and House move to reconcile their health bills in conference, Dr. Kirch writes that the GME expansion is critical, and that the AAMC is “…supporting the inclusion of this workforce expansion as part of provisions to strengthen primary care.” That sounds, good, making nice. However, other parts of the letter indicated that AAMC’s attack on primary care, and particularly family medicine, groups, for not supporting the its agenda of expanding (“benefit[ing] all training programs”) has progressed.

"The AAMC recognizes that primary care is an integral part of health care delivery. Primary care, however, may be provided by many types of physicians and other practitioners. We support defining primary care by the types of services provided and not by a specialty of the physician or other provider.”

What is the problem here? Surely the assertion above is reasonable, that defining primary care by services provided rather than the specialty of the provider makes sense. And the AAMC is saying it is supportive of primary care, and even including goals for more residents in the primary care specialties in the expansion of GME slots. It is a big step for the AAMC to be so supportive, publicly, of primary care, as they have not always been. And, in addition, there are other specialty areas (e.g., general surgery) that are also in great shortage. Indeed, the movement has been to sub-specialization and sub-sub-specialization, so we are seeing fewer physicians who are even generalists in their own sub-specialties (such as cardiology). The goal should definitely not be to increase slots only for primary care, but to target those specialties in which there is a mismatch between the number of doctors being trained and the number needed by the community.

Considering primary care, however, there are several problems with the current AAMC proposal.

1. The proposed bill is about expanding residency slots, not about defining the content of a primary care practice. Yes, there are subspecialists who provide comprehensive patient-centered care for their patients. Particularly in pediatrics, but also in adult internal medicine; people who have mainly one serious chronic disease (kidney failure, cancer, heart disease) sometimes receive most of their comprehensive care from nephrologists, oncologists, or cardiologists (more often in pediatrics because having only one chronic disease is the norm in children, but much less common in adults). Many of these subspecialists do not. In identifying practices as providing primary care for, say, increased reimbursement, looking at services provided is quite reasonable. However, in looking at a strategy for creating greater primary care capacity, what makes sense is to expand the residency programs in specialties that are particularly about training physicians to practice primary care, and whose graduates actually do so – family medicine, general pediatrics, and general internal medicine. This is especially true when looking at how we can provide comprehensive primary care to communities, not simply to selected individuals. To say “let’s just train more doctors altogether, and some will probably do some primary care" (radiologists? anesthesiologists? ophthalmologists?) is a nonsense strategy.

2. The significant impact on the health of the population that is related to increased primary care capacity only occurs with more primary care doctors. It does not occur with just more doctors, some of whom might do some primary care. (This is the point of the Brownlee and Goodman piece cited above.) These results have been documented repeatedly, in a variety of geographic areas and populations. Yes, there is also a contribution made by “non-physician” primary care providers including nurse practitioners and physician’s assistants, but they are not the concern of the AAMC, and, moreover, are increasing not practicing primary care. (See “myths” 2 & 3 in Dr. Bowman’s guest blog of January 15, 2009, Ten Biggest Myths Regarding Primary Care in the Future.) I addressed the issue of specialty choice in More Primary Care Doctors or Just More Doctors? (April 3, 2009). Of note, Dr. Richard Cooper, whose positions I criticize in that piece, has more recently been advocating for the needs of poor and minority communities, a good thing. His main point is that the Dartmouth Atlas data on geographic variation do not account for socioeconomic differences (debatable, certainly); however, I have not seen any retraction of his AAMC-type support for “more doctors” rather than more primary care doctors.

3. There are not enough students currently interested in entering primary care to fill currently existing positions. Thus, even if a greater priority were given to family medicine and other primary care residency positions, the new positions would, barring a major change – that would, as discussed in many previous pieces, have to be systemic and involve large, not simply cosmetic, changes in reimbursement – also be unfilled, at least by US graduates. Then, of course, the teaching hospitals and medical schools would use them for other specialties. Indeed, a big reason even more students do not enter the “ROAD” specialties described by Pauline Chen (“Primary Care’s Image Problem”, New York Times November 12, 2009, and discussed in this blog November 17, 2009, as Primary Care’s Image: A Problem?) is the limited number of slots; increasing slots without increasing the attractiveness of primary care as a career option will just increase the mismatch between the proportion of primary care doctors needed by the society and that being produced by medical schools. To the extent that primary care residency positions are filled by international medical graduates, it continues to contribute to the “brain drain”, where third-world countries bear the cost of educating physicians to provide care to first-world citizens.

The only way an increase in the number of GME slots could be beneficial is not only if a majority are targeted at primary care, but are required to be primary care, or they don’t happen. And that only specifically primary care internal medicine residencies count, and that the slots are withdrawn if, after 5 years, more than 25% of graduates have entered subspecialty training.

In greater detail, Patrick Dowling, chair of family medicine at UCLA, comments on the AAMC letter:

“Granted these are complex issues but in the end I read this as: ‘give us more of the same—we need more doctors, more funding for academic centers and we need to get reimbursed better!’ I think the AAMC would have much more credibility if they stepped up to the plate and said:

‘The US health care delivery system is terribly flawed and we are a significant part of the problem. We have terrible geographic and specialty maldistribution of physicians, our costs continue to be way out of line compared to any other industrialized country and we have unacceptable racial and ethnic disparities in outcomes of care.

‘Moreover, because the graduates of our medical schools have overwhelming chosen to practice subspecialty medicine in green leafy suburbs we must import international physicians, to staff our inner cities and rural towns in exchange for visas. Although we are fortunate to have someone to send, these docs face overwhelming linguistic and cultural barriers, especially in the provision of care to low income minority populations. And in some instances they represent a “brain drain” in from the donor countries

‘Further, as the baby boomers begin to hit age 65 at the rate of 5,000 per day on Jan 1, 2011, the epidemic of chronic diseases linked to aging will soar. We would propose the following new innovative steps to insure that we have a geographically dispersed physician workforce that delivers cost effect, high quality care with a physician workforce that is optimally balanced by specialty.

‘If you provide $X billion in extra funding for Academic Medical Centers (AMCs), enhanced funding for NIH budgets and thousands of more Medicare funded GME spots we will insure that the number of HPSAs will be reduced by X, that the actual number of USMGs choosing bona fide primary care specialties will increase by Y number which will result in a primary care to specialty ration of A to B, a ratio which works very well in other industrialized democracies.

‘Finally, if we are funded we promise to bend the unacceptable curve of increasing costs so that average yearly increases are less than X% of CPI. If we fail to meet these objectives we agree to decreased funding over the following years of $Z billion.’

“If I was in the US Congress,” Dr. Dowling concludes, “I would tell the AAMC that rather than stuffing their pockets it is time to put some skin in the game and actually become the leaders in the science of health care delivery and solve these problems.”

Hear, hear.
.

Health Workers and Our Wars

.
This guest column is by Seiji Yamada, MD, a family physician, Associate Professor of Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the University of Hawai’i John A. Burns School of Medicine, and one of my mentors. This essay is an expansion of the one that was published in the AAMC journal Academic Medicine, chosen as one of the five best responses to the question put forth by editor Steven Kanter “How can academic medicine respond to peace-building efforts worldwide?”. Dr. Yamada’s original essay, “Academic medicine should start at home”, is at http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Fulltext/2009/11000/Academic_Medicine_Should_Start_at_Home.18.aspx

Health Workers and Our Wars

What is the responsibility of American health workers with regard to our nation’s wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? As Americans, our primary responsibility should be to influence the actions of our own government. As health workers, our expertise is in the realm of morbidity and mortality, encompassing the direct effects of violence as well as the indirect effects arising from the collapse of health services, poor access to water and food, and damage to infrastructure, economies, and societies. Thus, we should monitor our government’s actions, apply the scientific methods at our disposal, apply the moral and ethical principles to which we subscribe, formulate and recommend policy, and disseminate our findings to the people. In a democracy, the citizenry would then determine the course of action.

During this decade, our nation has been responsible for invading and occupying two countries halfway around the globe—Afghanistan since 2001 and Iraq since 2003. In the case of Iraq, the invasion of 2003 was preceded by comprehensive economic sanctions, which hampered the rebuilding of its infrastructure after the Gulf War of 1991. The consequences included childhood deaths, mental illness, juvenile delinquency, begging and prostitution, as well as cultural and scientific impoverishment.[1]

In 2002-03, the American people were not convinced by the Bush administration that war on Iraq was justified. However, despite massive demonstrations against the war prior to its launch, the intellectual classes, the corporate media, and our elected representatives went along with the administration. Democracy failed us in this respect. Prior to the war, we health workers should have been recounting the health toll of the First Gulf War and the sanctions regime. With its onset, we should have been disseminating the images and recounting the narratives of casualties of the war.[2] As it progressed, we should have been acutely interested in the number of casualties caused by the war. The best estimates for deaths among Iraqis are those of the July 2006 epidemiological survey that reported 655,000 deaths as a consequence of war.[3] This study did not distinguish among civilians, military, and irregular combatants. While its authors have been criticized for breaches in the non-identification of participants, the study is nevertheless considered the most accurate estimate.[4]

Insofar as we have failed to pay attention to such findings, American health workers have failed its constituents.

At the mention of history or political economy, many health workers groan. We are not interested in politics, they say. But unreflective citizens repeat the blather that they are fed by the corporate media. We need advocate for the cause of health—in particular for the health of those whose voices are otherwise unheard, whose deaths are otherwise uncounted, unmourned, unopposed, and unorganized against. In order to do so, our analysis must be geographically broad and historically deep, as Paul Farmer urges us.

As the United States pulls its troops out of Iraq and sends them to Afghanistan, as our military wields drones called Predator and Reaper in Pakistan, we should concern ourselves with whether the cause of peace is thereby served by such acts. Our commander-in-chief is apparently now reflecting upon whether to double down (again) in Afghanistan and pursue counterinsurgency, as urged upon him by his general in the theater.[5]

Apparently, “counterinsurgency” no longer connotes Vietnam or Central America.[6] But the “clear and hold” strategy utilized late in the Vietnam War was characterized by indiscriminate shelling and bombing of villages[7] and ran concurrently with the Phoenix program of torture and assassination.[8] Extrajudicial killings in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan are now being carried out by the CIA by missile attacks by drones, with the deaths of many innocents.[9] Of 701 people killed in 60 attacks in FATA between January 2008 and April 2009, fourteen were suspected militants.[10]

The British and the Soviets failed in their attempts to militarily control Afghanistan, while inflicting untold casualties on the populace. The Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan proved to be its Vietnam. One would think that our own country would not repeat its mistakes in Vietnam, but our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan’s go on. As American health workers, we must concern ourselves with the morbidity and mortality caused by our own government’s actions. Let us get to work.

References

[1] Save the Children UK. Iraq sanctions: humanitarian implications and options for the future. Available at: (http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/170/41947.html). Accessed July 21, 2009
[2] Yamada S, Fawzi MC, Maskarinec GG, Farmer PE. Casualties: narrative and images of the war on Iraq. Int J Health Serv. 2006; 36(2):401-15
[3] Burnham G, Lafta R, Doocey S, Roberts L. Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey. Lancet 2006; 368: 1421–28.

[4] Tapp C, Burkle FM, Wilson K, et al. Iraq War mortality estimates. Conflict & Health 2008;2:1-13.

[5] Filkins D. Stanley McChrystal’s long war. New York Times Magazine, Oct 18, 2009.

[6] Parry R. Bush’s death squads. In These Times, Jan 17, 2005. Available at (http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1872/). Accessed Jan 23, 2005.

[7] Steinglass M. Vietnam and victory. Boston Globe, Dec 18, 2005. Available at (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/12/18/vietnam_and_victory/). Accessed Sep 27, 2009.

[8] Chomsky N, Herman ES. The Washington connection and third world fascism. Boston, MA: South End Press, 1979.

[9] Mayer J. The predator war. New Yorker, Oct 26, 2009. Available at (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/26/091026fa_fact_mayer). Accessed Nov 15, 2009.

[10] Ahmad MI. Pakistan creates its own enemy. Le Monde Diplomatique. Nov 2009. Available at (http://mondediplo.com/2009/11/02pakistan). Accessed Nov 5, 2009.

Primary Care’s Image: A Problem?

.
Pauline Chen, a transplant surgeon and respected author of “Final Exam: A surgeon’s reflections on mortality” (Vintage Books) also write a “Doctor and Patient” column for the New York Times. On November 12, 2009, the topic was “Primary Care’s Image Problem”, in which she talks about the decreasing interest in primary care among medical students, and the perception among many, increased by many faculty members, that primary care was a backup to more “prestigious subspecialties…like dermatology, orthopedics, plastic surgery or radiology.” In particular, she talks of Kerry, one of her classmates, who wanted to (and did) enter primary care “despite” being at the top of her class, and how this amazed her friends. Dr. Chen addresses the attractions of the “ROAD” (radiology, ophthalmology, anesthesiology, and dermatology) to financial success as well as greater prestige, and the challenges it presents for having an adequate supply of primary care physicians.

While scarcely optimistic (“But even with current legislative efforts to address educational debt, payment discrepancies and lifestyle differences, many medical educators worry that the results will not be enough….Why? It is due to an issue deeper than money and paperwork. While the frisson of continually advancing treatments and approaches to patient care seem to envelope most other specialties, the image of primary care remains one of a vaguely anachronistic practice — a group of doctors who do not stand on the forefront of creative change and who are continually left holding the biggest bag of administrative expectations and clinical care coordination and demands.”), she also notes that “That image, however, may be changing”.

Dr. Chen attended a meeting of the Association of Deans and Directors for Primary Care, held in conjunction with the annual meeting of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) in Boston on November 9, 2009, where the discussion focused largely on changes in the type of practice, particularly in the creation of a “medical home” and a team approach to care. She quotes organization chair Bruce Gould, MD, of the University of Connecticut: “In a patient-centered medical home, I would not be the sole proprietor. Sometimes I would be the leader because of my specific skill set. But if we were dealing with adherence to diabetes care, the team’s social worker might be the leader….With a team approach each of us is freed up to practice at the top of our scope of training. And that leads to better patient outcomes and more job satisfaction.”

I admit that I found it somewhat frustrating, having been in the room, that the 3 physicians Dr. Chen quotes are all general internists, despite the fact that at least half the participants in the meeting and 2 of the 5 speakers were family doctors. I agree with the general theme expressed by many that it is important for primary care doctors to work together and not fight, but there are important differences in these specialties. In addition to the fact that family doctors care for adults and children and often pregnant women, the breadth of their practice makes them more suitable for rural practice, where there may be only a few doctors. While most family doctors do not practice in rural areas, about 20% do, which is comparable to the percent of the overall population; indeed, family medicine is the only specialty that “distributes” according to where people live.

More important for this discussion is that virtually all family physicians practice primary care, thus it is the primary care “bellwether”, going up more when student interest in primary care is up, and down more when it is down. Internal medicine, on the other hand, offers those who complete its 3-year residency the option of entering primary care / general internal medicine practice (or hospitalist practice, which is not primary care) or continuing into a subspecialty fellowship (cardiology, gastroenterology, pulmonary medicine, etc.); it is thus less sensitive to these ups and downs. As I have discussed previously (most recently in “Rankings of medical schools: do they tell us anything?” on September 25, 2009), the trend for general internal medicine is definitely down. General pediatrics, the third primary care specialty, has not seen a decrease, although the distribution and career trajectories are an issue, as I have discussed in “Primary care, pediatrics, and physician distribution” on May 21, 2009. Indeed, facing a shortage of pediatric subspecialists, many pediatrics groups are trying to encourage subspecialization.

Dr. Chen’s article ended with some guarded optimism, and an invitation to join the discussion on Tara Parker-Pope’s “Well blog”, “Giving primary care more respect”. With 180 responses (by November 16), it is clear that there are a lot of opinions out there, from physicians, medical students, other health professionals, and the general public. I admit to adding my comments, and “plugging” my October 8, 2009 blog piece “`Uncomplicated’ Primary Care?”, where I argue that primary care is anything but uncomplicated.

I thought that some comments on this from medical students on this issue might be welcome. The following comments are from students who spent 6 weeks with rural family physicians in Kansas between their first and second years of medical school, from quotes they gave to a reporter from the Kansas Family Physician, publication of the Kansas Academy of Family Physicians:

“This summer, I learned that people don’t choose family medicine because they want an easy profession. They choose it because they want to be life-long learners and truly want to help the community. Their knowledge base and diagnostic ability is no less than any specialist. The only difference they think ‘big picture’, and don’t focus on any one organ system.”

“A young man in his mid-30s came into the clinic. He was a partial quadriplegic of 15 years from a car accident. He was not there complaining of any acute symptoms or any problems; he was just there because he wanted to find a new doctor…Out of curiosity, I asked him what he was looking for in a physician. His only reply was: ‘I want someone who cares about me, not for me.’”

“I could not help but be impressed with the enormity of information family physicians are expected to ideally know. We are talking about working with every organ system of the body and also understanding the procedures and diagnostic tests that go along with these systems.”

“I learned family medicine is not simply caring for patients with chronic health issues or diagnosing and treating the common cold. While family physicians do both of those things almost every day, they also provide a variety of other care. They can deliver babies, provide women’s health, perform EGDs and colonoscopies, manage chronic pain, and diagnose extraordinarily well in the acute setting, just to list a small amount of what they do weekly.”

“Nothing compared to the feeling I got watching a family physician take care of the mother during delivery, perform an emergency C-section, and then treat the infant all within the same day. The ability of a family doctor to care for both mother and child simultaneously made me truly appreciate the rich complexity of family medicine.”

“A family physician should be held in the highest regard among physicians, for he or she must have the patience of a geriatrician, the gentleness of a pediatrician, the courage of an ER physician, the steady hand of a surgeon, and a knowledge base of every medical specialty.”

There are more, and many of them – which maybe I’ll post later – specifically talk to the role of the rural family doctor. Remember, these are not a random sample of students; they elected to do this experience. Many of them are from rural backgrounds and many are also planning careers in family medicine. All of them, having just finished their first year of medical school, have a long way to go before deciding on their specialty, and undoubtedly some will take some variant of the “ROAD”. We know from recent research that empathy takes a nose dive in the third year of medical school (“Are we training physicians to be empathic? Apparently not”, Sept 12, 2009).

However, it is great to hear these attitudes and know that at least among some students family medicine and primary care do not have an “image problem.” We can only hope that it persists in them, and in their peers. Hope, and do everything we can to foster it.
.