|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| [ Top of Page ] [ Home ] [ Contact Us ] [ Help ] [ The National Academies Home ] | ||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 75
HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH PERSONNEL:
DEMAND, SUPPLY, AND ADEQUACY OF TRAINING RESOURCES
E ~ izabeth McG ~ Ann *
INTRODUCTION
Health services research is an applied field that has as its
domain all aspects of the health care delivery system. The
ultimate goal of health services research is to provide the
information base necessary to design a health care delivery
system capable of maximizing the health of the population within
the resource constraints imposed by the public and private
sectors. The subjects of this research field include the
training of health professionals; the process by which services
are delivered; outcomes of care; methods by which patients pay
and health professionals are reimbursed for care; the quality,
efficacy, effectiveness, and appropriateness of services; and the
interrelationships of these components.
Health services studies may be methodologic, descriptive,
analytic, or experimental, which implies a range of requirements
for trained personnel. The demands for individuals trained in
health services research come from academe, government, and the
private sector. Given the complexities of the health care
delivery system, the field relies upon researchers trained in
numerous disciplines, as well as those capable of bringing
disciplines together to work cooperatively. Figure 1 illustrates
broadly the domains of health services research.
U.S. Population --------> Service Delivery -a --> Outputs
Health Needs System
--Demographics
--Culture
--Morbidity
--Mortality
--Efficacy
--Effectiveness
--Efficiency
--Equity
--Quality
FIGURE 1. A framework for health services research.
--Expenditures
--Health
transitions
--Satisfaction
* The opinions expressed in this paper are the author's and do
not necessarily reflect those of either the Committee on
Biomedical and Behavioral Research Personnel or the National
Research Council.
OCR for page 76
Much of health services research looks at the relationship
between the needs of the population and the delivery of services.
The gaps between the demands for and supply of health technology
often are studied in order to formulate approaches to closing the
gaps.
Finally, health services research examines the output of
service delivery system as an indicator of system performance.
The two outputs that have been the principal focus of research
are expenditures on care and the health transitions (increments
and decrements to health) that result from the application of
service delivery system technologies. Others have argued that
patient satisfaction with care also should be assessed.
Economists, statisticians, and econometricians have developed
tools for examining expenditures, whereas clinicians and
psychologists have studied the health transitions and
satisfaction.
The diversity of questions formulated and analyzed by health
services researchers makes it difficult to develop a neat
taxonomy of the field. In an effort to explain through example,
the remainder of this paper describes the training of individuals
engaged in health services research, the various pathways used to
produce these researchers, the current levels of support for
training, and future events that might affect the demand for
health services research personnel. At the conclusion of the
paper, the question of the adequacy of these mechanisms for
producing enough well-trained health services researchers for the
near term is discussed. Throughout, many questions are raised
for which there are not adequate data to arrive at an answer.
These questions are raised not to frustrate the reader but to
suggest avenues for a more systematic inquiry into the demand for
and supply of health services research personnel.
WHO CONDUCTS HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH?
Defining the requirements for health services research
personnel is a complex task, for by its nature health services
research is an interdisciplinary field requiring individuals
trained in a variety of disciplines, as well as individuals who
are capable of bringing disparate disciplines together to examine
questions about the delivery of health services. Because there
are no certification or licensing requirements, it is difficult
to estimate the number and types of individuals who currently are
conducting health services research studies. In this section
four indicators of the types of individuals who constitute the
health services research community are provided.
One indicator comes from the membership of the Association
for Health Services Research (AHSR), the professional society for
such personnel. Table 1 gives the distribution of AHSR's
76
OCR for page 77
membership by discipline. As the table demonstrates, the
membership includes a wide variety of disciplines; these have
been categorized for presentation purposes into more aggregate
groupings and originally included more than 40 named disciplines.
The top three disciplines are medicine (18.1 percent), economics
(13.2 percent), and public health (12.7 percent). No single
discipline is dominant.
The educational background of the membership provides
another illustration of the training received by those currently
practicing in the field and is displayed in Table 2. About half
of the members hold a research doctorate degree; about 21 percent
are physicians or other health professionals; almost 20 percent
have masters degrees; and the remainder have bachelors degrees,
are in training, or did not specify their training in the
membership survey.
The institutional affiliations of members illustrate the
variety of professional settings in which health services
research personnel operate. Table 3 provides a distribution of
the membership by the institutional affiliation of the
individual. The greatest proportion of members are located in
university settings (46.5 percent), followed by health care
delivery or private health industry organizations (almost 27
percent). Other private organizations (e.g., consulting firms)
and government employees make up 10.8 and 5.2 percent,
respectively, of the membership.
Finally, the publications that comprise health services
research demonstrate the variety of topics considered and
disciplines required to conduct such studies. The AHSR has an
award each year for the best article in the field. Table 4 shows
a listing of the titles, journals,ffirst author, and discipline
of the articles thit were nominated for 1988 Article of the Year.
Health services research is conducted by persons who have been
trained in a variety of disciplines. Most of the studies are
interdisciplinary in nature and require a team of individuals who
can work together to solve the complex methodologic and
conceptual issues posed by the subject matter. The articles
shown in Table 4 provide one indicator of the variety and type of
topics addressed by leading health services researchers and some
sense of the disciplines involved. The extent to which the field
is interdisciplinary is understated because only the first author
is shown. Many of these projects included physicians, social
scientists, and methodologists (e.g., statisticians).
TRAINING FOR HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH
As suggested from the above discussion, the training
currently received by those who are conducting health services
research covers a variety of disciplines and degrees; therefore,
77
OCR for page 78
there are a variety of formal and informal ways in which
individuals become trained. Thus, the discussion of training
considers each of these approaches to training separately:
0 disciplinary degree programs (e.g., programs that grant
a professional or research degree in a traditional
discipline such as economics);
0 interdisciplinary training programs (e.g., public
policy, health services research);
postdoctoral training programs; and
0 on-the-job training (e.g., socialization of research
personnel into the field of health services research).
Because the scope of health services research is broad, most
individuals probably are trained in a narrow aspect of the field
and then receive socialization into broader issues through some
combination of additional work (e.g., postdoctoral studies) or by
learning on the job. Whether this is the most efficient means of
producing such personnel remains an open question.
DISCIPLINARY DEGREE PROMS
Currently, most individuals engaged in health services
research have received their training primarily from disciplinary
degree programs, including economics, quantitative methods (e.g.,
statistics, operations research, epidemiology), sociology,
psychology, management (e.g., business, accounting, planning),
and so on. It seems likely that for the foreseeable future, the
field of health services research will continue to draw upon
individuals with disciplinary degrees for a majority of its
personnel. Clearly, the degree requirements for these programs
already are well established, and the principal issues for this
group of potential researchers are as follows:
the type and amount of training necessary to acquire
health services research skills and
the extent of migration between disciplinary and
interdisciplinary research and methods for influencing
. . .
mlgratlon.
Although health services research is interdisciplinary and
depends upon the skills and knowledge of investigators who have
received different training, as the field has become more mature,
it has developed its own language and information base. For
health services research to be conducted efficiently and
effectively (i.e., to avoid reinventing the wheel), individuals
who wish to engage in this research must be socialized into the
field in some manner. The two most common mechanisms--
78
OCR for page 79
postdoctoral training and on-the-job training--are discussed
below. Most formal training programs take about 2 years, whereas
on-the-job training has a less specific time frame. The amount
of time required probably depends upon an individual's prior
training, experience, and aptitude for learning new applications.
One of the difficulties in estimating the number of persons
currently engaged in or capable of performing health services
research is that a majority of individuals have the potential of
migrating in and out of the field. Further, some may spend only
a portion of their professional time in health services research,
while spending the remaining time in some other activity (e.g.,
medical practice or other disciplinary research). Migration may
have the advantage of providing a niexib~e work force capable of
expanding and contracting to meet the demands of the marketplace.
The impact of migration on the supply of personnel is an issue
that is particularly relevant to interdisciplinary research.
Because little is known about the effects of such labor-market
patterns, an investigation of the role of migration on the demand
and supply of health services researchers should include
attention to the following questions:
o What is the minimum amount of time that must be spent
in health services research in order to produce high-
qua~ity research?
O Is migration between health services and other research
fields desirable?
O What are the implications of migration for the quality
of research produced?
Having this potentially large source of human energy on
which to draw for new health services research talent raises the
question of the mechanisms by which such individuals might be
attracted into the field. The attractiveness of any career path
depends upon at least two factors: the financial viability of
that avenue as compared to competing alternatives and the
relative importance of the probJems-under study.
The funding for health services research is small relative
to biomedical research; thus, among those who have biomedical
research as an alternative, health services research probably is
not as attractive. However, those who are competing for research
funding in the behavioral sciences may find health services
research relatively attractive. If research funding in this area
expands, one might expect greater numbers of persons to be drawn
into the field. Other mechanisms, such as Career Development
Awards, that provide a stable source of funding for new entrants
to the field while they develop a research track record provide
an appropriate means of attracting new talent into this field.
Such awards are not widely available for health services research
79
OCR for page 80
in general; most fall within more specialized areas of inquiry
and tend to be aimed at physician researchers.
Health services research also may be attractive to some
because of the policy significance of the issues addressed.
There is considerable interest in government and the private
sector regarding issues of patient health outcomes, the
appropriateness and quality of medical care, and the cost-
containment potential of alternative delivery systems. Because
both the public and private sectors are seeking answers to
complex questions, the opportunities for working in an area of
high visibility have expanded. This will appeal to those who are
interested in applied rather than more theoretical fields of
· ~
1nqulry.
INTERDISCIPLIN=Y TWINING PROMS
Interdisciplinary training is a relatively new--and
increasingly important--avenue for producing health services
researchers. Perhaps the most familiar programs are in public
policy, public health, and health services or health policy
research. In these programs students are introduced to a variety
of methodologic approaches and taught the strengths and
weaknesses of different methods for answering particular research
or policy questions. This type of training introduces the
individual to the contributions that can be made by different
disciplines, which may be necessary in order to manage a team of
researchers with different backgrounds.
The interdisciplinary training may be general (e.g., public
policy) or specialized (e.g., health services research). Because
there are few such programs, each one is almost a unique case,
and it is difficult to generalize about the advantages and
disadvantages of each approach. Perhaps it is most important to
know that both paths exist and that both are likely to produce
some high-quality individuals capable of conducting health
services research projects. As these fields develop, however,
this may become a more efficient and effective means of producing
health services research personnel. For those in
interdisciplinary programs, the major issues are the following:
o the availability of such training programs relative to
the number of applicants;
o the ability of such programs to attract high quality
students; and
o career opportunities that are open to graduates of
these programs.
Currently, there is no information on any of these three
issues. What would be required in order to answer these
80
OCR for page 81
questions is a comprehensive listing of interdisciplinary
training programs and a survey of them. Admissions data combined
with interviews of program directors could be used to answer the
first two questions. In particular, it would be helpful to know
what types of individuals are likely to pursue these programs
(e.g., recent college graduates, individuals with related job
experience, individuals making career changes) and how they
compare with typical applicants to graduate programs in the
disciplines from which health services research draws.
The third question might be best addressed through a survey
of alumni of these interdisciplinary training programs. Because
these programs are relatively new, it is unlikely that one could
piece together a career history (e.g., one that follows
individuals from graduation through retirement), but early career
paths could be documented. It is important to note that a
variety of career opportunities are available to individuals
trained in interdisciplinary research. Because many research
results may suggest needed changes in policy, there are benefits
to having trained individuals who are responsible for policy
formulation and implementation.
POST~CTO"L TWINING PROGRESS
Individuals trained in either disciplinary or
interdisciplinary programs may require additional career
development such as that offered in postdoctoral training
programs. These programs may serve different purposes, depending
upon the background of the individuals entering the program, but
all should enhance the qualify of research produced and provide
research experience that will advance the careers of these
persons. For those with professional degrees (e.g., medicine,
law), the postdoctoral program may serve to introduce the
individual to research methods. For persons with doctoral
training in a specific discipline, the postdoctoral training
program may provide an opportunity to specialize in health
services research. For those with interdisciplinary degrees, the
postdoctoral program may offer additional experience in designing
and managing research projects. Each of these functions is
important, and because of the multiple pathways into health
services research, each will continue to serve a purpose in the
future. The issues in this area are:
0 What are the key components of successful postdoctoral
training in health services research?
O What is the demand for positions in these programs
relative to the availability?
o
Do such programs influence the career paths of their
graduates?
81
OCR for page 82
Despite the multiple pathways into health services research
and the variety of disciplines that participate, there may be a
basic set of skills necessary in order to have a successful
career in this field. Two important components in many health
services research projects are a clinical perspective and
methodologic expertise. These reflect the two levels at which
analysis generally is conducted in such projects: at the doctor-
patient level (clinical) and at the level of a particular group
(policy).
Physicians, by virtue of their medical training and
experiences, can bring a clinical perspective to health services
research, but, in order to contribute to the formulation of
research questions and study design, they also must be trained in
research methods. Physicians are trained to approach each
patient as a unique case, rather than to take the aggregate
approach to formulating questions and collecting data that are
required for conducting research. Thus, most physicians require
training in research methods to acculturate them to the language
and framework for problem solving.
Methodologic experts, on the other hand, provide a
perspective on the design and conduct of research projects, but
they may require socialization or training about the important
clinical issues. For example, much interest has been expressed
by Congress and others in devoting additional resources to
patient-outcome research. A methodologic expert might be able
frame the questions but would require assistance in designing a
medical records abstraction form, including making decisions
about the critical values (e.g., what diagnostic test result
justifies performing coronary artery bypass surgery).
Alternatively, a cardiologist could suggest the key outcomes of
bypass surgery that might indicate whether high-quality care was
being delivered, but he or she might require assistance from an
epidemiologist or statistician to design a study to estimate the
prevalence of quality problems.
Estimating the demand for entry to postdoctoral programs
should be approached in a manner similar to that suggested for
interdisciplinary training programs. A comprehensive list of the
postdoctoral programs and a survey of program directors that
included information from admissions records would provide
information on, for example, the number of qualified applicants
turned down each year. It would also be useful to know what
alternatives applicants to these programs are considering.
Finally, although there seems to be logic in developing
postdoctoral training programs, it would be useful to know the
outcomes of these programs and whether they have any substantial
influence on the quality and success of graduates:
o Does postdoctoral training improve the ability of
individuals to obtain research funding?
82
OCR for page 83
o Are researchers who have been through such programs
more likely to have articles accepted for publication?
o
o
Are they able to publish in higher-quality journals?
Are they more likely to stay in research careers?
Answering these questions would require a survey of alumni and an
examination of the backgrounds of successful and unsuccessful
applicants for health services research funds.
ON-THE-JOB TRAINING
The final pathway into health services research is on-the-
job training. Probably anyone who is conducting health services
research has had some on-the-job training because it is a common
means of career development. In the university setting such
opportunities are provided through research assistantships or
internships. Students may form mentor relationships with
research supervisors, who in turn take responsibility for
schooling the student in the methods and knowledge central to the
chosen field of study. In all research settings this may be the
method by which disciplinary-trained individuals are socialized
into health services research (e.g., by serving as the economist
on a health services research project). Reliance on this method
of producing health services researchers is risky at best because
the success of the approach depends upon the quality and
commitment of those serving in a supervisory capacity. If the
supervisor perceives his or her role as a teacher or mentor and
is capable in either of those capacities, then the individual in
training is more likely to have a successful experience. Many
research projects, however, are constrained by tight budgets that
may not allow for adequate learning opportunities. Motivated
individuals may be able to learn even under such circumstances,
but we would hardly want to depend upon this approach as the sole
means by which such researchers are produced.
HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS
The field of health services research would be advanced by
establishing some guiding principles about the requirements to
become a health services researcher. From the taxonomy proposed
in Figure 1, a first step could be taken to recommend areas of
exposure. While there is no one pathway that should be required,
it is reasonable to consider how we would want to train the next
generation of researchers in this area. A proposed curriculum is
outlined in Table 5 as an example of the areas of study
recommended for those in health services research. Presumably,
some researchers would be experts in one of the fields listed in
the table, but they would also have been exposed through a
83
OCR for page 84
combination of formal course work and research experience in some
proportion (say two-thirds) of the other disciplines that
contribute to leading health services research projects. The
knowledge of these other fields is important both in formulating
research strategies and managing projects that utilize multiple
disciplines.
8OPPORT FOR HEALTH 8ERVICE8 ~SE~CE T"INTNG
From the above discussion, it should come as no surprise
that the field of health services research draws upon a variety
of sources of funding for training. These sources include both
public and private support. Those more easily identified are the
sources dedicated to health services research training
fellowships; clearly, this does not capture all of the funding
sources for training those who become health services
researchers. The AHSR maintains a directory of Health Services
Research Organizations e The 1988 directory provides profiles on
more than 80 health services research centers, including
information on the number and funding for training fellowships.
The appendix to this paper contains a listing of the predoctoral,
postdoctoral, and other training support based on information
provided in the directory.
As can be seen from Table 6, the number of fellowships
available for training in health services research is quite
small. Although this number most likely underestimates the true
number, it probably captures the majority of available
fellowships in major institutions. It also should be emphasized
that these numbers represent fellowships specific to health
services research and do not include individuals receiving
disciplinary training who may eventually enter health services
research through other channels. It is also worth noting that
these programs exist in only a few states (15 or 16), which
suggests that access to these programs is limited geographically.
California and Massachusetts have the largest number of
institutions offering predoctoral and postdoctoral training
programs. Financial support for these training programs comes
from both government and private sources.
FEDERAL SUPPORT
A number of agencies within the federal government provide
funding for both research and training activities. The most
prominent agencies are within the Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) and include the National Center for Health
Services Research and Health Care Technology Assessment, the
Health Care Financing Administration, the National Institute of
Mental Health, and the National Institutes of Health. Outside
DHHS, health-related research activities (although not
necessarily health services research) are funded by the
84
OCR for page 85
Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy,
Interior, Labor, and Transportation, as well as the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, Environmental Protection Agency,
Agency for International Development, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, and the
Veterans Administration. It is difficult to estimate what
proportion of the health-related research conducted by these
other agencies falls into the category of health services
research. Such an estimate would require a separate study that
has not yet been done, although it was recommended in the last
report to Congress.
The National Center for Health Services Research and Health
Care Technology Assessment (NCHSR-HCTA) is one of the two
agencies primarily responsible for funding health services
research. Table 7 shows the allocation of funding for NCHSR-
HCTA since 1986. Although current dollars remain stable, the
real dollars available for such research have been declining
since the inception of the center. Further, new money is being
added in specific research areas (e.g., patient outcomes and AIDS
research) rather than being made available for general research
funding. In fiscal year 1988 NCHSR-HCTA funded 40 new grants in
the following areas:
o patient outcomes research;
o AIDS-related projects;
a
rural hospitals;
0 emergency medical and intensive care;
0 prenatal care;
0 technology assessment;
o role of market forces;
o home health care; and
o other policy concerns.
Grants were awarded for periods of 1 to 5 years, although most
grants were for 2 years. The total amount obligated was $8.6
million.
NCHSR-HCTA also provides support for predoctoral and
postdoctoral training. The agency has authority to award 10 to
20 dissertation grants annually to support individuals pursuing
degrees in fields related to health services research while they
write dissertations. The grants may be up to $20,000 annually
and must be related to the current funding priorities of the
agency. NCHSR-HCTA also has authority to award individual
85
OCR for page 96
TABLE 3: Institutional Affiliation of AHSR Members, May 1988
Institutional
Affiliation
Proportion
of Members
(n = 1042)
University
Health care delivery
Health industry
Private organization
Government
Private
Other
foundation
46.5
15.6
11.3
10.8
8.2
1.2
6.4
SOURCE: AHSR,
personal communication.
96
OCR for page 97
TABLE 4: 1988 Nominations
for AHSR Article of the Year
First
Author
Title
Degree and
Discipline Journal
Luft, H. S.* The Volume-Outcome Rela- Ph.D. Health
tionship: Does Practice Economics Serv. Res.
Make Perfect?
Shortell, S. M. The Effect of Regulation, Ph.D. N. EngI.
Competition, and Ownership Management J. Med.
On Hospital Mortality
Dubois, R. W. Hospital Inpatient Mor- M.D./Ph.D. N. EngI.
tality: Is It a Predictor Public J. Med.
Of Quality? Policy
Chassin, M. R.
Wennberg, J. E.
Goldberg, H. I.
Jencks, S. F.
Does Inappropriate Use
Explain Geographic Varia-
tions in the Use of Health
Care Services?
Use of Claims Data
Systems to Evaluate Health
Care Outcomes: Mortality
and Reoperation Following
Prostatectomy
A Randomized Controlled
Trial of Academic Group
Practice: Improving the
Operation of the Medicine
C] inic
Bringing Excluded Psychi-
atric Facilities Under
the Medicare Prospective
Payment System
M.D. JAM A
M.D. JAMA
M.D. JAMA
M.D. Med. Care
*Winner of 1988 Article of the Year
97
OCR for page 98
1
First
Author
Title
Degree and
Discipline Journal
Soumerai, S. B.
Feder, J. F.
Shy, K. K.
Sacks, H. S.
Verbrugge,
Young, M. J.
Rossi, P. H.
Warner, K. E.
Payment Restrictions for
Prescription Drugs Under
Medicaid: Effects on
Therapy, Cost, and Equity
How Did Medicare's Pro-
spective Payment System
Affect Hospitals?
Evaluating a New Technol-
ogy: The Effectiveness
Electronic Fetal Heart
Rate Monitoring
Meta-Analyses of
Randomized Controlled
Trials
L. M. Exploring the Iceberg:
Common Symptoms and How
People Care for Them
Do Cardiologists Have
Higher Thresholds for
Recommending Coronary
Arteriography than
Family Physicians?
The Urban Homeless:
Estimating Composition
and Size
Health and Economic
Implications
Tobacco-Free
of a
Society
Sc.D. N. Engl.
J. Med.
Economics N. Engl.
J. Med.
Ph.D.
Ann. Rev.
Of Pub.
Health
Ph.D. N. EngI.
J. Med.
Ph.D. Med. Care
M.D.
Health
Serv.
Res.
Ph.D., Science
Sociology
Ph.D., JAMA
Economics
SOURCE: Brook, R. H.,
Good for You and Me?",
1989. "Health Services Research:
Academic Medicine.
98
Is It
OCR for page 99
TABLE 5: Proposed Curriculum for Health Service
Training
Research
Methods
Substantive Knowledge
Economics
Quantitative methods (statistics,
econometrics, operations research)
Social science research methods
(survey research,
Epidemiology
Demography
psychometrics)
Technology assessment
Health professions
training and supply
Quality of care
Health care financing
Organization and service
delivery
Outcomes assessment
99
OCR for page 100
TABLE 6: Institutions Participating in Health Services Research
Training
Category of Number of Number of Number of
Training Fellowships Institutions States
Predoctoral 216~ 26 15
Postdoctoral 80~ 23 16
Other2 __ 24 15
lithe number shown is a minimum; some programs indicate that the
actual number varies from year to year.
2 Includes internships, midcareer training, master's level
programs, ad hoc fellowships, research assistantships,
independent study, and visiting scholars.
100
OCR for page 101
TABLE 7: Funding for NCHSR-HCTA (in thousands of dollars)
Category
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990*
. .
Research
Federal funds $15,740 $17,277 $16,624 $17,112 $12,153
Trust funds 1,050 1,070 1,005 1,037 1,037
Program support 1,050 1,568 1,632 1,600 1,693
Outcomes research
AIDS-related research
-- 1,945 5,879 28,000
6,859
8,576
One-percent funds (NMES) 16,000 15,318 10,033 11,154
NRSA 1,296 1,323 1,300
Total $17,840 $35,915 $37,820 $43,843 $63,913
* Presiclent's budget.
SOURCE: AHSR
101
OCR for page 102
TABLE 8: Funding for the HCFA-ORD (in thousands of dollars)
Category
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990i
Federal funds2 $15,310 $10,000 $9,574 $9,880 $14,000
Trust funds3 14,370 18,000 18,000 17,233 19,760
Total $29,680 $28,000 $27,574 $27,113 $33,760
President's budget.
Appropriated by Congress.
3 Set aside from trust fund collections by congressional action.
SOURCE: AHSR.
102
OCR for page 103
TABLE 9: VA Health Services Research and Development Field
Programs, 1987
Region
Projected
Spending,
1987
Research
Staff
(FTEs)
Affiliated VA Medical
Universities Centers
(no.) (no.)
Northeast
Mid-Atlantic
Southeast and
Southwest (3, 7)
Great Lakes (4)
Medical District 17
Medical District 22
Medical District 23
Far West t6)
Northwest (6)
$1,500,000
1,078,603
846,794
1,116,500
1,263,893
690,027
220,776
1,600,000
544,414
22.4
8.0
18.6
15.5
16.2
10.2
2.0
9.5
5.1
3
2
5
4
5
2
3
2
5
23
1
4
5
3
4
1
3
6
Total $8,861,007 123.0 31 50
SOURCE: AHSR,
1988 Directory
.
103
OCR for page 104
TABLE 10: Robert Wood;Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars
Program, 1987
- Number of Number of Year
Program Funding Scholars Alumni Began
UCLA $~9,29g 8 54 Ig75
UCSF/Stanford 274,223 11i 72 1969
UNC-Chapel Hill 256,370 7 53 1974
University of
Pennsylvania 575,818 112 54 1974
University of
Washington 374,187 93 i 61 1975
Yale University 137,123 73 47 1974
Total $1,890,020 53 341
Includes four VA fellows.
2 Includes one VA fellow.
Includes two VA fellows.
SOURCE: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation,
104
personal communication
OCR for page 105
TABLE 11: The Pew Charitable Trusts Health Policy Program,
1987-1991
Current
Program Grant Current Number of Program
(millions of $) Fellows Alumni Type*
Boston University/
Brandeis $2.3 13 25 1,3,4
Michigan 1.9 23 9 l
RAND/UCLA 1.6 19 28 1,5
UC-San Francisco 1.6 9 39 2
Total 7.4 64 101
* 1 = predoctoral; 2 = postdoctoral; 3 = corporate fellows;
4 = associate; and 5 = midcareer.
105
OCR for page 106
Representative terms from entire chapter:
postdoctoral training
