You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 278 No. 9, September 3, 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Special Communications
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

US Graduate Medical Education, 1996-1997

Marvin R. Dunn, MD; Rebecca S. Miller, MS

JAMA. 1997;278(9):750-754.


Abstract

Workforce planners continue to be concerned that unlimited growth in graduate medical education (GME)—principally fueled by unrestrained federal support—will lead to a physician surplus. Because of this concern, in 1996 six major professional organizations called for a reduction in Medicare support of GME to bring residency training programs into more rational alignment with population needs. As of July 1, 1997, no final action had been taken by Congress to limit GME funding, although extensive discussions are under way. Even without governmental restrictions, the American Medical Association's annual survey of GME programs showed a reduction in the numbers of first-year residents in most major specialties and subspecialties. Minor reductions were initially noticed last year; now, the decreases are significant. Nearly all the specialties that had difficulty placing their graduates for 2 consecutive years also reported at least 10% fewer first-year residents than in 1994. More importantly, disciplines without employment difficulties also reported downsizing. The overall effect of these first-year reductions is easily masked by the addition of programs in new disciplines and some residents staying in the GME system longer. Entry-level reductions appear to be broader and more extensive than can be explained by market forces alone.



Author Affiliations

From the Division of Graduate Medical Education, American Medical Association, Chicago, Ill.


Footnotes

Reprints: Marvin R. Dunn, MD, Division of Graduate Medical Education, American Medical Association, 515 N State St, Chicago, IL 60610.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The quality of medical care at the end-of-life in the USA: existing barriers and examples of process and outcome measures
Yabroff et al.
Palliat Med 2004;18:202-216.
ABSTRACT  

Stress in Medical Residency: Status Quo after a Decade of Reform?
Collier et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2002;136:384-390.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

US Graduate Medical Education, 1999-2000
Brotherton et al.
JAMA 2000;284:1121-1126.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Graduate Medical Education, 1998-1999: A Closer Look
Miller et al.
JAMA 1999;282:855-860.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Reframing the Geriatric Patient
Schroeder-Mullen
JAMA 1998;279:1034-1034.
FULL TEXT  

Graduate Medical Education and Government Oversight
Balaklaw
JAMA 1997;278:1571-1571.
ABSTRACT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1997 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.