IBJNews

Q&A

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Threats to cut federal Medicare funds that pay for residency training for doctors have eased but not gone away since they were formally proposed by some members of the Congressional super committee last fall.

Dr. Peter Nalin, the associate dean of graduate medical education at the Indiana University School of Medicine—which funds more than 1,100 residents at any given time—said such cuts would be disastrous at a time when patient demands increasingly outstrip the supply of physicians.

IBJ: Some deficit-cutting plans called for reducing by as much as 30 percent the $10 billion in annual Medicare funding for the residencies that medical school graduates do in hospitals, before they practice on their own. What impact would those cuts have had here in Indiana?

A: It would have an immediate impact because the residents and fellows are a first source of access to care for many patients: emergency, family medicine, geriatrics. The residents and fellows deliver care in clinics and offices and the emergency room, so often it’s a resident or fellow—of course conducting clinical work under supervision—that helps the system see tens to hundreds of thousands of patients in a year. The replacement cost of all of that activity ... would far outstrip the savings and investment that occurs.

IBJ: Why couldn’t the IU medical school absorb those cuts and keep funding residency training?

A: This wasn’t going to be just trimming around the edges. This was going to be cuts to the core of the system. We’re in a decade of expansion of 30 percent nationally in enrollment in medical schools. There needs to be a 30-percent increase in [graduate medical education] funding, too, if we’re going to train more doctors.

IBJ: Has the IU medical school developed a contingency plan for dealing with such cuts, should they come to fruition?

A: Even the severest cuts that were proposed were going to be phased in over a number of years. If such severe cuts were to occur, we would have to inventory our deployment of every resource to figure out what that impact would be. It would have involved both the medical school and all the health systems with which we work. So far, we have had only preliminary discussions.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT