|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
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 19
chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
In the fall of 2001, the Institute of Medicine appointed a study commit-
tee to examine the roles of academic health centers (AHCs) in the coming
decades. While AHCs have made important contributions to health1
through their combined roles in education, research, and patient care,2 the
future will present a very different set of demands on those roles. The aging
of the population is shifting the burden of disease from acute to chronic
care. Continued advances in biomedical and information technology will
essentially redefine our concepts of medicine and health. Concerns regard-
ing the rising costs of health care, evidence of quality gaps, and worries for
many about access to care continue to challenge the health care system.
The goal of this committee was to consider how the environment in
which health care is provided is changing, what those changes mean for
future demands on the health care system, and implications for how AHCs
will carry out their roles in the future to continue to serve the public
interest. Other studies of AHCs have generally examined the challenges
they face and the implications for the future. Rather than starting with the
AHCs themselves, this committee began with the developments and trends
occurring in the external environment, focusing on the roles and activities
1 The term health is used broadly here to include both health and health care.
2 Patient care includes care for all people, including the poor and uninsured and other
vulnerable groups.
19
OCR for page 20
20 ACADEMIC HEALTH CENTERS
performed by AHCs rather than the institutions themselves. This is not a
study of clinical education or research or patient care, nor does it focus
primarily on any specific organizational component of the AHC, such as a
professional school or teaching hospital. Rather, the focus is on the AHC
itself and how it will carry out those roles in the future.
Definition of an Academic Health Center
There is no generally accepted definition of an AHC (Anderson et al.,
1994). According to the Association of Academic Health Centers, an AHC
consists of an allopathic or osteopathic medical school, at least one other
health professions school or program, and at least one affiliated or owned
teaching hospital (Association of Academic Health Centers, 2002a). The
work of the Commonwealth Task Force on Academic Health Centers rep-
resents one of the most comprehensive analyses undertaken to better under-
stand the functions of AHCs. That task force defined an AHC as the medi-
cal school and its affiliated or owned clinical facilities (The Commonwealth
Fund Task Force on Academic Health Centers, 2002). The Association of
American Medical Colleges does not explicitly define an AHC, but focuses
its efforts on medical schools and their teaching hospitals.
These definitions of an AHC typically start from its organizational
components, which consist most commonly of a medical school, other
health professions schools (e.g., nursing, pharmacy), and a clinical enter-
prise. However, the committee recognizes that the organization of AHCs
has and will continue to evolve, as it should, and we do not wish to limit
their definition to any particular organizational form, especially since the
changing environment and demands made on AHCs will likely foster inno-
vative organizational arrangements in the coming years. For example, all
AHCs have an owned or affiliated clinical enterprise. In today's environ-
ment, the clinical enterprise is most often a hospital, but in the future, it
may not have an institutional or hospital base. Similarly, an AHC that is
committed to improving the health of patients and populations will be
urged to establish relationships and integrate its activities with multiple
professional schools, forging linkages through common ownership under a
single university or through some other arrangement. Regardless of how
the components of any given AHC are assembled, however, the challenges
faced will be similar.
For this report, the committee views an AHC not as a single institution,
but as a constellation of functions and organizations committed to improv-
ing the health of patients and populations through the integration of their
roles in research, education, and patient care to produce the knowledge and
evidence base that become the foundation for both treating illness and
improving health. The core of the AHC constellation is its academic or
OCR for page 21
INTRODUCTION 21
university-related roles in education and research, which, in combination
with patient care, are ultimately aimed at improving the health of people.
Because the committee has defined an AHC by its purpose and function,
this report focuses on the roles and responsibilities of AHCs rather than
their organizational components.
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF AHCS
As noted in the definition presented above, today's AHCs link several
functions and responsibilities. These linkages came about through a series
of events during the 20th century that together produced the AHC we
recognize today. First, the Flexner Report of 1910 called for reform of
medical education to include a 4-year curriculum comprising 2 years of
basic sciences and 2 years of clinical teaching; university affiliation (instead
of proprietary schools); requirements for entrance to medical schools; en-
couragement of active learning, with limited use of lectures and learning by
memorization; and emphasis on problem solving and critical thinking
(Regan-Smith, 1998; Ludmerer, 1999). By the 1920s, medical education at
the hospital bedside had become mandatory (Rosenberg, 1987). Second,
during World War II, the federal government increased funding to univer-
sity research laboratories as a means of supporting the war effort (Korn,
1996). Funding expanded after the war, and increased funding from the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) provided support to individual re-
searchers at universities, a pattern that continues today. Third, the passage
of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 ensured revenues for a significant por-
tion of patient care services that had historically been provided as charity
care to patients who also helped students learn (Ludmerer, 1999). Signifi-
cantly, the Medicare program also included support for graduate medical
education (Korn, 1996).
The result of these three events is that AHCs found a steady revenue
stream for their primary activities and were able to grow their enterprise
during the decades that followed (Korn, 1996). Between 1960 and 2000,
the U.S. population grew by 54 percent (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2002). During the same period, the number of medical school
graduates grew by about 120 percent, the number of basic science faculty
grew by more than 330 percent, and the number of clinical faculty grew by
more than 1,000 percent (The Commonwealth Fund Task Force on Aca-
demic Health Centers, 1997b, 2002). Total funding support from the NIH
to medical schools grew by more than 1,500 percent between 1970 and
2000 (National Institutes of Health, 2001). The AHC, as recognized today,
then, is a relatively young organization that developed mainly in the latter
half of the 20th century.
AHCs have provided important benefits to both local communities and
OCR for page 22
22 ACADEMIC HEALTH CENTERS
the nation, benefits that accrue to diverse population groups. According to
The Commonwealth Task Force on Academic Health Centers, AHCs repre-
sent only 3 percent of nonfederal, acute care hospitals in the United States;
however, they:
· Care for almost one-third of uninsured patients in their hospitals
(The Commonwealth Fund Task Force on Academic Health Centers,
1997a).
· Account for a significant share of the nation's specialized services,
such as burn units, transplant programs, and neonatal units (see Appendix A).
· Account for almost one-third of national health-related research
and development funds (The Commonwealth Fund Task Force on Aca-
demic Health Centers, 1999).
· Produce approximately 16,000 medical school graduates and are
the dominant providers of graduate medical education (GME), sponsoring
58 percent of all GME programs (The Commonwealth Fund Task Force on
Academic Health Centers, 1997a).
· Graduate about 15,000 nursing school graduates (American Asso-
ciation of Colleges of Nursing, 2002). Each year, almost 40 percent of these
graduates are prepared at the master's and doctoral levels, representing an
important supply of faculty for all nursing schools (American Association
of Colleges of Nursing, 2002).
· Graduate about 6,000 public health professionals annually (Asso-
ciation of Schools of Public Health, 2001).
AHCs also contribute to their local economies. One medium-sized AHC
estimated an economic impact on its region of $3.05 billion in a single year
through the direct and indirect generation of jobs and spending in its local
area (University of Cincinnati Medical Center, 2002). It is estimated that
funding from extramural grants by NIH, much of which goes to AHCs, was
responsible for providing more than 330,000 jobs in 1999 (Association of
American Universities, 2000). Additionally, the development of biomedical
campuses by private industry often occurs around AHCs, as in Baltimore
and San Diego, for example.
Just over half of AHCs are publicly sponsored organizations; the re-
mainder are private (Osterweis, 1999). Most AHCs are located in urban
areas, although a few are rural. AHCs vary in the emphasis placed on each
of their roles (see Appendix A). The greatest variation among AHCs is in
the size of their research endeavors, in particular, the amount of support
they receive from NIH. AHCs also vary in how they combine their roles.
One analysis examining the amount of overlap among the top 100 hospitals
engaged in teaching, the top 100 hospitals engaged in research, and the top
100 hospitals serving low-income patients revealed that only 25 AHCs rank
OCR for page 23
INTRODUCTION 23
in the top 100 for all three activities. Of the top 100 hospitals serving low-
income patients, 53 are not among the top 100 hospitals in education or
research (Anderson, et al., 2001).
AHCs comprise many different organizational components. First, all
AHCs have a medical school, at a minimum. For some AHCs, that is the
only professional school they sponsor; however, the majority of medical
schools are located on campuses that have multiple health professions
schools and also train nurses, public health or allied health professionals.
Second, all AHCs contain one or more hospitals. Third, AHCs also typi-
cally have faculty practice plans. These are organizations that focus on
delivery of care, and provide a mechanism for structuring a financial rela-
tionship between the medical or nursing school and the hospital and be-
tween the clinical departments and their clinical faculty (Cohen and Fox,
2003; Rimar, 2000). Most faculty practice plans were developed over the
last decade, and their organization and functions continue to evolve. Some
AHCs may also have separate research centers (Magill et al., 1998).
These various organizational components come together to form an
AHC in a variety of ways. The various components can be independent
entities linked together contractually. Alternatively, all the components can
come under a single ownership umbrella. A number of AHCs fall in be-
tween these two forms, with two of the three components coming under
common ownership and contracting with the third component. Organiza-
tional variation is also found in the AHCs' governance structure. Individual
components may have their own governing boards (which may or may not
be linked through coordinating committees), or a single governing board
may oversee the entire AHC enterprise. It is not known how many AHCs
operate under various forms. Most are loosely affiliated arrangements, with
each entity having considerable independence and autonomy (Norlin, et al.,
1998). In many cases, the AHC functions rather like a holding company
(Zelman, et al., 1999).
Support for the activities of AHCs is not provided to the AHC itself,
but goes to its individual components to support specific activities. Support
for research generally comes from grants or other programs funded by
private industry as well as public agencies, predominantly NIH. Most of
these funds go to the medical or other professional school. Support for
educational activities and patient care services goes the AHC hospital(s).
Support for the direct costs of graduate medical education is provided
predominantly by Medicare and some Medicaid programs, as well as spe-
cial payments, that are made to support the higher patient care costs asso-
ciated with the sponsorship of training programs. Support for patient care
is provided through direct payment for services, as well as special payments
from public payers to support care for a disproportionate share of poor and
uninsured patients. Private payers usually do not differentiate their support
OCR for page 24
24 ACADEMIC HEALTH CENTERS
for specific AHC activities, but support the various activities through higher
prices paid to AHCs for patient care. Within the AHC, funds are disbursed
through a complex arrangement of cross-subsidies to support the particular
mix of activities undertaken. For most AHCs, revenues from patient care
activities subsidize activities in research and education (The Commonwealth
Fund Task Force on Academic Health Centers, 1997b). Funding issues are
discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6 of this report.
The committee believes the variability that currently exists among
AHCs is likely to continue into the future. The advantage of this situation is
the potential for AHCs to respond to varying local demands and to collec-
tively provide a breadth of resources for the nation. This variability, how-
ever, created a unique challenge for the committee. Few data are available
on the AHCs overall. Information can be obtained about the activities of an
AHC hospital or medical school, for example, but there is no data source
that provides an overall picture of the AHC enterprise. In conducting its
analysis and considering its recommendations, the committee had to recog-
nize that any single prescription would be unlikely to fit all AHCs. At the
same time, the committee needed to lay out a future vision and broad
direction that would be relevant for all AHCs.
As noted earlier, the committee chose to focus on the roles performed
by AHCs and how they fit together, rather than the AHCs' organizational
components. Furthermore, the committee chose to focus on how trends in
the external environment (as outlined in the next section) will alter expecta-
tions for the overall AHC enterprise in the coming decades, rather than on
the current pressures facing on the individual AHC organizations. The
committee sought further to balance a recognition of the contributions
made by AHCs in the past with an emphasis on the demands that will
require change in the future.
STUDY FRAMEWORK
The framework for this study assumes that a set of factors in the
external environment affects the expectations and demands placed on the
health care system overall (see Figure 1-1). These external factors are var-
ied, but the strongest of them can be grouped under three broad categories:
(1) people's health care needs are changing as a result of the aging of the
population and other demographic developments; (2) technology, including
both information and biomedical technologies, is advancing rapidly; and
(3) the organization and financing of health care are evolving.
These external factors affect people's health needs and their expecta-
tions for the health care system, as well as the capabilities of the system. As
the population ages, the burden of disease shifts from acute to chronic
illness, and as technology advances, peoples' expectations rise. In addition,
OCR for page 25
25
patients
Roles
for
populations
AHC Education Care and Research
is is care
the
care care provides
care
provided
Care Delivery What provided How provided Who the Where is
people system
Needs
preferences
System the
expectations offer
Public and Capabilities Services need; and What can AHCs.
of
Roles
are
and Changing
and
changing is advances care costs The
burden of
concerns
are uninsured
of 1-1
Environmental Changes People Disease· Demographics· labor
Technology advancing Biomedical· Information· technology Organization financing evolving Increasing· Quality· Size· population
FIGURE
OCR for page 26
26 ACADEMIC HEALTH CENTERS
technological advances, combined with changes in the organization and
financing of care, provide the health system with additional capabilities.
These changing needs, expectations, and capabilities have their most direct
impact on care delivery--what care is provided, how it is provided, by
whom, and where. For example, services that used to be provided only in a
hospital are now offered in ambulatory settings. Likewise, services that may
have been provided only by a physician may now be provided by nurse
practitioners or nurse anesthetists. The pressures on care delivery ultimately
affect the AHC roles in education, research, and patient care. The care
provided by AHCs also changes, and as that happens, health professionals
must be prepared differently, and research inevitably seeks to answer new
questions.
While external forces ultimately affect how AHCs carry out their roles,
the actions of AHCs also affect care delivery and peoples' needs and expec-
tations, and even interact with other factors in the external environment
(see Figure 1-1). The circular flow of the figure illustrates that AHCs can
interact with the external environment in both reactive and proactive ways.
For example, information technology affects how health professionals
should be trained for practice, but as health professionals receive more
training that incorporates information technology, changes can occur in
clinical care that affect future training needs. Similarly, genomics is ex-
pected to have a significant impact on the care delivered to patients, and
health professionals must therefore be trained to deliver the new forms of
care. At the same time, as health professionals learn more about the field
and gain more experience in applying the science of genomics to people, the
care they deliver will also evolve.
STUDY PROCESS
The committee's statement of task is presented in Box 1-1. The com-
mittee held six meetings during the course of the study. One meeting was a
2-day workshop at which input was received from AHC leadership, repre-
sentatives of key constituents served by AHCs (e.g., patients, low-income
populations, health plans), and experts in health policy and financing. The
workshop agenda is presented in Appendix B. The proceedings of this
workshop were published separately and are available at www.nap.edu/
catalog/10383.html.
The committee also heard from a number of experts at its other meet-
ings. Leaders from several universities, varying in size, ownership, and
organizational structure, offered their views on the risks and rewards of
sponsoring an AHC. Presentations were made by Judith Rodin, president,
University of Pennsylvania; Lee Bollinger, president, Columbia University
(formerly president, University of Michigan); Leonard Sandridge, executive
OCR for page 27
INTRODUCTION 27
BOX 1-1
Committee Statement of Task
This study will examine the current role and status of academic health centers
in American society, anticipate intermediate and long-term opportunities and chal-
lenges for these institutions, and recommend to the institutions themselves, to
policy makers, to the health professions, and to the public scenarios that might be
undertaken to maximize the public good associated with these institutions.
The committee will:
(1) Assess the development, contribution, and performance of AHCs in
teaching, research, and technology development, patient care including the pro-
vision of specialized care, and community service including caring for under-
served populations.
(2) Evaluate whether AHCs are prepared to meet societal needs and expec-
tations over the coming decades in the areas of a) an educated and trained profes-
sional work force; b) assessment of the value and cost effectiveness of new tech-
nologies and facilitation of their dispersion; c) provision of health care services to
populations dependent upon them (e.g., uninsured, poor); and d) provision of lead-
ership in relation to ethical and social aspects of health.
(3) Assess the capacity of AHCs to carry out their multiple functions in an
effective and efficient manner.
(4) Identify steps that can be taken by AHCs themselves, and by communi-
ties, policy makers, and others to maintain and enhance the performance of AHCs.
vice president, University of Virginia; and Stephen Joel Trachtenberg, presi-
dent, George Washington University.
Bill Gradison, vice chair of The Commonwealth Fund Task Force on
Academic Health Centers, provided his perspective on the policy issues
facing AHCs in the future. Robert Galvin from General Electric provided
the committee with a perspective on managing large, complex, and diversi-
fied organizations. Catherine Dower of the Center for Health Professions,
University of California, San Francisco, discussed with the committee how
the workforce is changing generally, as well as within the domain of health
care.
The committee relied on a variety of sources for data on the status of
AHCs. Requested data were provided by the Association of Academic
Health Centers, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. Gerard Anderson of Johns
Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, conducted an
analysis of the extent of variation among AHCs on selected dimensions of
their activities in education, research, and patient care. The tables he pro-
vided to the committee during its deliberations are included in Appendix A.
OCR for page 28
28 ACADEMIC HEALTH CENTERS
The committee also received an analysis conducted by Bruce Steinwald3 on
alternatives for financing the activities of AHCs. His analysis formed the
basis for Chapter 6 of this report. Finally, the committee was able to take
advantage of information produced by The Commonwealth Task Force on
Academic Health Centers. All of its reports that contained recommenda-
tions were provided to the committee for reference, serving as a body of
knowledge that enabled the committee to conduct its work efficiently with-
out duplicating previous efforts.
The work of this committee was funded through the generous support
of The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, with additional support from The Com-
monwealth Fund, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research
Council.
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
As noted earlier, this report starts not with the AHCs themselves, but
with the trends and developments in health care that will affect AHCs in the
years ahead. In Chapter 2, the key forces driving these changes are de-
scribed. This review is followed by chapters examining in turn each of the
main roles performed by AHCs, including the status of those activities and
the challenges the AHCs will face in carrying out that role in the future. In
Chapter 3, the education role is examined, with attention to the approaches
used today to educate health professionals for practice tomorrow. Of the
three roles performed by AHCs, the education role is expected to face the
most profound changes in the coming decades. In Chapter 4, the patient
care role is examined, with emphasis on the organizational innovation
needed to create better models and approaches for care and to design care
around an explicit goal of improving health. In Chapter 5, the research role
is examined, with a focus on the importance of spanning the continuum of
research--including basic, clinical, health services, and prevention re-
search--to make it possible to translate research findings into practice.
Chapter 6 examines how the AHC roles are currently financed and whether
those approaches will be able to support the types of changes that will be
needed in the future. Chapter 7 synthesizes the information from the prior
chapters to offer a set of recommendations for transforming the roles of
AHCs to meet the challenges of the changing environment of health care.
Chapter 8 considers the management and leadership challenges facing AHCs
as they contend with having to undergo that transformation.
3At the time that Mr. Steinwald prepared the analysis for the committee, he was working as
an independent consultant.
OCR for page 29
INTRODUCTION 29
Each of the topics considered by the committee could have been ad-
dressed by a separate study. For example, the challenges facing health
professions education or biomedical research have been and will continue
to be the subject of focused study. The goal of this committee was to
synthesize across these major issues and develop a broad future vision and
direction for the roles of AHCs in the 21st century. The challenges are
complex; thus it is inevitable that some issues will remain unaddressed in
any single report.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
health centers
