The threat of funding cuts for graduate medical education: survey of decision makers

OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential actions of medical school deans, graduate medical education (GME) committee chairs, and hospital chief executive officers (CEOs) regarding future funding reductions for residency training. Specifically, institutions with emergency medicine (EM) residencies were surveyed to see whether EM training was disproportionally at risk for reductions. METHODS: An anonymous 2-page survey was used. Ninety-eight EM residency programs were identified using the American Medical Association Graduate Medical Education Directory 1994-95. Seventy deans, 102 GME chairs, and 97 hospital CEOs were identified. The survey posed a hypothetical 25% forced reduction in residency positions and asked the decision makers for their responses. Options included: 1) proportional reductions of training positions from all residencies, 2) proportional reductions in either primary care or specialty residency positions, or 3) reduction or elimination of specific training programs. The survey asked for a first and second choice of residencies to be reduced or eliminated from an alphabetical list of 17. The survey elicited explanations for each program reduction. RESULTS: 200 (74%) of 269 surveys were returned. Eighty-four responders selected specific residencies to be reduced or eliminated. EM was selected 8 times, making EM the seventh most vulnerable residency to be targeted for reductions. The decision makers who selected proportional reductions chose to reduce across all residencies 32 times, among only the specialty residencies 129 times, and among only the primary care residencies 3 times. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of anticipated residency cuts, favored proportional reductions in specialty residencies would likely affect EM training. However, most GME decision makers with an existing EM residency program do not consider the EM residency a top choice to be reduced or eliminated.