Government and Regulations

Are states doing enough to discipline problem doctors? The sensitive question has flared again with the release of an annual report by Washington, D.C.-based consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.

The report analyzed statistics released by the Federation of State Medical Boards on serious disciplinary actions taken by the boards of all 50 states and the District of Columbia in 2009. Those actions include revocations, surrenders, suspensions, and probations or restrictions. Public Citizen used a three-year average (2007 to 2009) to arrive at its rate of actions per 1,000 physicians licensed in each state.

For the fourth year in a row, Alaska had the most actions, 7.89 per 1,000 doctors. Meanwhile, Minnesota had the fewest actions (1.07 per 1,000 doctors) for the second year running. For the record, the numbers aren’t broken down by specialty (see Table 1, p. 5).

So what does it all mean? Do Alaska’s doctors really require more punitive measures than those in other states, or is the state board simply more vigilant? Are Minnesota doctors that much better, or is that state failing in its duty to provide adequate oversight? Is such a ranking system even warranted?

Nearly everyone agrees on the importance of protecting the public and the integrity of the medical profession. But the aggressive jousting over what the new numbers do or do not mean suggests just how difficult it can be to come up with a metric for medical accountability that everyone agrees is both fair and reliable.

Sidney Wolfe, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group and the lead author of the new report, dismisses the notion that Minnesota’s doctors are so good that they don’t require as many disciplinary actions. “There is not a shred of evidence for that,” he says. Instead, he calls out what he views as an ineffective board.

In turn, Robert Leach, executive director of the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice, dismisses the significance of the report’s findings. “It’s a fair ranking the way their formula applies. It’s the formula we disagree with,” he says. “It’s fairly simplistic and indicative of nothing.”

And Lisa Robin, senior vice president for advocacy and member services at the Federation of State Medical Boards, says the federation doesn’t even encourage rankings because of the variable laws and sanctions from state to state. “It doesn’t give you a true picture of what boards do, to rank them,” she says.

click for large version

A Row Over Rankings

Minnesota’s Leach has a detailed list of grievances against the report. But his biggest beef is with the fact that it ranks medical boards on the number of serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 physicians licensed by the state. “The more precise number should be the number of licensed physicians who are actually practicing in the state,” he says.

From 2008 to 2009, for example, more than 19,000 physicians were licensed in Minnesota. Yet Leach says that only a little more than 14,000 were actually practicing within the state, which he describes as a large exporter of trained doctors. “So we had 5,000 physicians who weren’t even practicing here that were counted against our one disciplinary action per thousand physicians,” he says.

Public Citizen, he says, also doesn’t recognize other interventions, such as Minnesota’s “agreements for corrective action,” that normally include training or remedial coursework for doctors with an identified weakness in subject areas such as prescribing or chronic-pain management. “Not every doctor needs to be hit over the head with a hammer of serious disciplinary action to address a problem,” Leach says.

And then there’s the sticky matter of peer review. In Minnesota, “virtually every physician now practicing works for a large health plan or a facility,” he says. “We have virtually no solo practice or isolated practice in Minnesota, and those are the physicians who get in trouble: the ones who don’t have the advantage of periodic peer review, who don’t have the advantage of adequate supervision to help keep them out of trouble.”

Doctors like those in Alaska? “You always see Alaska is rated real high,” Leach says. “You have a bunch of people out there practicing in the wilderness, out in solo practice. Physicians need to have that ability to have peer review, to be able to address problem cases with their colleagues. In Minnesota, a lot of these facilities and health plans address these problems at the practice level before they even reach the board.”

A Call To Action

Dr. Wolfe isn’t buying the notion that Minnesota doctors require less formal discipline while their colleagues in Alaska need more. Whenever other low-ranking states have provided sufficient funding, replaced ineffective leadership, granted more independence, and met the other conditions necessary for a better medical board, he notes, their rate of disciplinary actions often “rockets up.”

The medical boards of North Carolina and Washington, D.C., have risen dramatically in the rankings in recent years, and Dr. Wolfe cites effective intervention in both cases. In formerly low-ranking Arizona, he says, similar corrective action in the late 1990s led to a tripling of the rate of serious disciplinary action within three years. “That’s obviously not a period of time that’s long enough to be explained by some inward migration of bad doctors or outward migration of good doctors,” he says. “It’s because the board started functioning better.”

Meanwhile, boards in South Carolina and Massachusetts have slumped in the ratings—a decline he attributes to the loss of leadership and funds.

“One area I can agree with Dr. Wolfe on is that medical boards need resources; they need adequate structure, resources, and authority to do their job and be able to protect the public,” says Robin, of the Federation of State Medical Boards. “If they’re in a big umbrella agency and they’re just one of many and share their pool of investigators with everyone, as you can imagine, that’s probably not as efficient.”

Hospitals also share in the blame, according to a separate Public Citizen report released last year that cites a chronic underreporting of doctor misconduct or incompetence to the National Practitioner Data Bank by hospitals. Robin agrees that more diligence is needed to ensure that medical boards have the information they need to properly do their jobs. As one of her board members told her, “They can’t gain information by osmosis.”

Hospitalists, however, might be well suited for addressing the underreporting issue. HM is in a “really good position to observe behavior that needs to be brought to the attention of hospital medical staff,” Dr. Wolfe says.

He recommends that one or more hospitalists should sit on each hospital’s medical peer review committee, where they can put their expertise to good use. “Hospitalists really need to get more active in this,” he says. “It’s for the betterment of the patients in the hospital, it’s for the betterment for the reputation of the hospital and the medical staff.” TH

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer based in Seattle.

Are states doing enough to discipline problem doctors? The sensitive question has flared again with the release of an annual report by Washington, D.C.-based consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.

The report analyzed statistics released by the Federation of State Medical Boards on serious disciplinary actions taken by the boards of all 50 states and the District of Columbia in 2009. Those actions include revocations, surrenders, suspensions, and probations or restrictions. Public Citizen used a three-year average (2007 to 2009) to arrive at its rate of actions per 1,000 physicians licensed in each state.

For the fourth year in a row, Alaska had the most actions, 7.89 per 1,000 doctors. Meanwhile, Minnesota had the fewest actions (1.07 per 1,000 doctors) for the second year running. For the record, the numbers aren’t broken down by specialty (see Table 1, p. 5).

So what does it all mean? Do Alaska’s doctors really require more punitive measures than those in other states, or is the state board simply more vigilant? Are Minnesota doctors that much better, or is that state failing in its duty to provide adequate oversight? Is such a ranking system even warranted?

Nearly everyone agrees on the importance of protecting the public and the integrity of the medical profession. But the aggressive jousting over what the new numbers do or do not mean suggests just how difficult it can be to come up with a metric for medical accountability that everyone agrees is both fair and reliable.

Sidney Wolfe, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group and the lead author of the new report, dismisses the notion that Minnesota’s doctors are so good that they don’t require as many disciplinary actions. “There is not a shred of evidence for that,” he says. Instead, he calls out what he views as an ineffective board.

In turn, Robert Leach, executive director of the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice, dismisses the significance of the report’s findings. “It’s a fair ranking the way their formula applies. It’s the formula we disagree with,” he says. “It’s fairly simplistic and indicative of nothing.”

And Lisa Robin, senior vice president for advocacy and member services at the Federation of State Medical Boards, says the federation doesn’t even encourage rankings because of the variable laws and sanctions from state to state. “It doesn’t give you a true picture of what boards do, to rank them,” she says.

click for large version

A Row Over Rankings

Minnesota’s Leach has a detailed list of grievances against the report. But his biggest beef is with the fact that it ranks medical boards on the number of serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 physicians licensed by the state. “The more precise number should be the number of licensed physicians who are actually practicing in the state,” he says.

From 2008 to 2009, for example, more than 19,000 physicians were licensed in Minnesota. Yet Leach says that only a little more than 14,000 were actually practicing within the state, which he describes as a large exporter of trained doctors. “So we had 5,000 physicians who weren’t even practicing here that were counted against our one disciplinary action per thousand physicians,” he says.

Public Citizen, he says, also doesn’t recognize other interventions, such as Minnesota’s “agreements for corrective action,” that normally include training or remedial coursework for doctors with an identified weakness in subject areas such as prescribing or chronic-pain management. “Not every doctor needs to be hit over the head with a hammer of serious disciplinary action to address a problem,” Leach says.

And then there’s the sticky matter of peer review. In Minnesota, “virtually every physician now practicing works for a large health plan or a facility,” he says. “We have virtually no solo practice or isolated practice in Minnesota, and those are the physicians who get in trouble: the ones who don’t have the advantage of periodic peer review, who don’t have the advantage of adequate supervision to help keep them out of trouble.”

Doctors like those in Alaska? “You always see Alaska is rated real high,” Leach says. “You have a bunch of people out there practicing in the wilderness, out in solo practice. Physicians need to have that ability to have peer review, to be able to address problem cases with their colleagues. In Minnesota, a lot of these facilities and health plans address these problems at the practice level before they even reach the board.”

A Call To Action

Dr. Wolfe isn’t buying the notion that Minnesota doctors require less formal discipline while their colleagues in Alaska need more. Whenever other low-ranking states have provided sufficient funding, replaced ineffective leadership, granted more independence, and met the other conditions necessary for a better medical board, he notes, their rate of disciplinary actions often “rockets up.”

The medical boards of North Carolina and Washington, D.C., have risen dramatically in the rankings in recent years, and Dr. Wolfe cites effective intervention in both cases. In formerly low-ranking Arizona, he says, similar corrective action in the late 1990s led to a tripling of the rate of serious disciplinary action within three years. “That’s obviously not a period of time that’s long enough to be explained by some inward migration of bad doctors or outward migration of good doctors,” he says. “It’s because the board started functioning better.”

Meanwhile, boards in South Carolina and Massachusetts have slumped in the ratings—a decline he attributes to the loss of leadership and funds.

“One area I can agree with Dr. Wolfe on is that medical boards need resources; they need adequate structure, resources, and authority to do their job and be able to protect the public,” says Robin, of the Federation of State Medical Boards. “If they’re in a big umbrella agency and they’re just one of many and share their pool of investigators with everyone, as you can imagine, that’s probably not as efficient.”

Hospitals also share in the blame, according to a separate Public Citizen report released last year that cites a chronic underreporting of doctor misconduct or incompetence to the National Practitioner Data Bank by hospitals. Robin agrees that more diligence is needed to ensure that medical boards have the information they need to properly do their jobs. As one of her board members told her, “They can’t gain information by osmosis.”

Hospitalists, however, might be well suited for addressing the underreporting issue. HM is in a “really good position to observe behavior that needs to be brought to the attention of hospital medical staff,” Dr. Wolfe says.

He recommends that one or more hospitalists should sit on each hospital’s medical peer review committee, where they can put their expertise to good use. “Hospitalists really need to get more active in this,” he says. “It’s for the betterment of the patients in the hospital, it’s for the betterment for the reputation of the hospital and the medical staff.” TH

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer based in Seattle.

Are states doing enough to discipline problem doctors? The sensitive question has flared again with the release of an annual report by Washington, D.C.-based consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.

The report analyzed statistics released by the Federation of State Medical Boards on serious disciplinary actions taken by the boards of all 50 states and the District of Columbia in 2009. Those actions include revocations, surrenders, suspensions, and probations or restrictions. Public Citizen used a three-year average (2007 to 2009) to arrive at its rate of actions per 1,000 physicians licensed in each state.

For the fourth year in a row, Alaska had the most actions, 7.89 per 1,000 doctors. Meanwhile, Minnesota had the fewest actions (1.07 per 1,000 doctors) for the second year running. For the record, the numbers aren’t broken down by specialty (see Table 1, p. 5).

So what does it all mean? Do Alaska’s doctors really require more punitive measures than those in other states, or is the state board simply more vigilant? Are Minnesota doctors that much better, or is that state failing in its duty to provide adequate oversight? Is such a ranking system even warranted?

Nearly everyone agrees on the importance of protecting the public and the integrity of the medical profession. But the aggressive jousting over what the new numbers do or do not mean suggests just how difficult it can be to come up with a metric for medical accountability that everyone agrees is both fair and reliable.

Sidney Wolfe, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group and the lead author of the new report, dismisses the notion that Minnesota’s doctors are so good that they don’t require as many disciplinary actions. “There is not a shred of evidence for that,” he says. Instead, he calls out what he views as an ineffective board.

In turn, Robert Leach, executive director of the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice, dismisses the significance of the report’s findings. “It’s a fair ranking the way their formula applies. It’s the formula we disagree with,” he says. “It’s fairly simplistic and indicative of nothing.”

And Lisa Robin, senior vice president for advocacy and member services at the Federation of State Medical Boards, says the federation doesn’t even encourage rankings because of the variable laws and sanctions from state to state. “It doesn’t give you a true picture of what boards do, to rank them,” she says.

click for large version

A Row Over Rankings

Minnesota’s Leach has a detailed list of grievances against the report. But his biggest beef is with the fact that it ranks medical boards on the number of serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 physicians licensed by the state. “The more precise number should be the number of licensed physicians who are actually practicing in the state,” he says.

From 2008 to 2009, for example, more than 19,000 physicians were licensed in Minnesota. Yet Leach says that only a little more than 14,000 were actually practicing within the state, which he describes as a large exporter of trained doctors. “So we had 5,000 physicians who weren’t even practicing here that were counted against our one disciplinary action per thousand physicians,” he says.

Public Citizen, he says, also doesn’t recognize other interventions, such as Minnesota’s “agreements for corrective action,” that normally include training or remedial coursework for doctors with an identified weakness in subject areas such as prescribing or chronic-pain management. “Not every doctor needs to be hit over the head with a hammer of serious disciplinary action to address a problem,” Leach says.

And then there’s the sticky matter of peer review. In Minnesota, “virtually every physician now practicing works for a large health plan or a facility,” he says. “We have virtually no solo practice or isolated practice in Minnesota, and those are the physicians who get in trouble: the ones who don’t have the advantage of periodic peer review, who don’t have the advantage of adequate supervision to help keep them out of trouble.”

Doctors like those in Alaska? “You always see Alaska is rated real high,” Leach says. “You have a bunch of people out there practicing in the wilderness, out in solo practice. Physicians need to have that ability to have peer review, to be able to address problem cases with their colleagues. In Minnesota, a lot of these facilities and health plans address these problems at the practice level before they even reach the board.”

A Call To Action

Dr. Wolfe isn’t buying the notion that Minnesota doctors require less formal discipline while their colleagues in Alaska need more. Whenever other low-ranking states have provided sufficient funding, replaced ineffective leadership, granted more independence, and met the other conditions necessary for a better medical board, he notes, their rate of disciplinary actions often “rockets up.”

The medical boards of North Carolina and Washington, D.C., have risen dramatically in the rankings in recent years, and Dr. Wolfe cites effective intervention in both cases. In formerly low-ranking Arizona, he says, similar corrective action in the late 1990s led to a tripling of the rate of serious disciplinary action within three years. “That’s obviously not a period of time that’s long enough to be explained by some inward migration of bad doctors or outward migration of good doctors,” he says. “It’s because the board started functioning better.”

Meanwhile, boards in South Carolina and Massachusetts have slumped in the ratings—a decline he attributes to the loss of leadership and funds.

“One area I can agree with Dr. Wolfe on is that medical boards need resources; they need adequate structure, resources, and authority to do their job and be able to protect the public,” says Robin, of the Federation of State Medical Boards. “If they’re in a big umbrella agency and they’re just one of many and share their pool of investigators with everyone, as you can imagine, that’s probably not as efficient.”

Hospitals also share in the blame, according to a separate Public Citizen report released last year that cites a chronic underreporting of doctor misconduct or incompetence to the National Practitioner Data Bank by hospitals. Robin agrees that more diligence is needed to ensure that medical boards have the information they need to properly do their jobs. As one of her board members told her, “They can’t gain information by osmosis.”

Hospitalists, however, might be well suited for addressing the underreporting issue. HM is in a “really good position to observe behavior that needs to be brought to the attention of hospital medical staff,” Dr. Wolfe says.

He recommends that one or more hospitalists should sit on each hospital’s medical peer review committee, where they can put their expertise to good use. “Hospitalists really need to get more active in this,” he says. “It’s for the betterment of the patients in the hospital, it’s for the betterment for the reputation of the hospital and the medical staff.” TH

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer based in Seattle.

The impact of last summer’s new restrictions from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) on how many hospitalized patients a first-year resident can treat on an internal-medicine (IM) rotation was as immediate as it was evident at Monmouth Medical Center, a 527-bed teaching hospital in Long Branch, N.J. The institution had a class of eight rookie residents whose caseloads were cut from 12 to the new threshold of 10.

Physicians “had to find some other way of getting attention . . . for 16 patients,” says Sarah Wallach, MD, FACP, director of Monmouth’s IM residency program and vice chair of the department of medicine at the hospital. At Monmouth, the solution came in the form of a new hire—a nurse practitioner (NP)—to handle the overflow. The NP service is used predominantly for referral patients from primary-care physicians (PCPs), as opposed to independent hospital admissions.

But because the NP service does not provide 24-hour coverage, the hospital can get away with only one person in the position. To extend coverage all day long, Dr. Wallach estimates she would need to hire two or three additional NPs, plus another one or two administrative positions to provide relief on holidays and vacations. “You would need five people,” she says. “I can’t afford that.”

Few hospitals or HM groups can afford new hires in today’s world of Medicare reimbursement cuts, shrinking budgets, and—courtesy of the newest rules—restricting patient caps for residents. The latest rules took hold about a year ago, but hospitalists in both academic and community settings say the impact already is noticeable.

Many hospitals have had to craft solutions, which have included burdening academic hospitals with more clinical responsibilities, turning to private HM groups (HMGs) to assume the patients residents can no longer care for, or hiring nonphysician providers (NPPs) to pick up the slack. As Dr. Wallach pointedly notes, the latter two solutions cost money at a time when hospitals have less to go around.

Already, teaching hospitals have begun discussions about how the newest rules—and the future changes they presage—will change the playing field. Will a wave of academics flee their classroom (the teaching hospital), as nonteaching duties become an intrusion? Will teaching hospitals face financial pressure as they struggle to replace the low-cost labor force that residents represent?

Perhaps most importantly from a medical perspective, will graduate trainees be as prepared as their predecessors when they enter practice?

Dr. Wallach

The answers will have a direct correlation to private HMGs, which are poised to see more patients in the wake of residency restrictions, particularly on overnight services. The cost of hospital care will increase for hospitals, putting more pressure on hospitalist groups that tout themselves to C-suites as engines for cost savings. Long-term implications, unfortunately, remain murky, as the newest rules have been in place for a relatively short time. Plus, ACGME is expected—at the end of this month, according to a recent memo to program directors—to announce more changes to residency guidelines.

“Hospitalists will always be involved in teaching—it will never go away,” says Julia Wright, MD, FHM, clinical professor of medicine and director of hospital medicine at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison and a member of Team Hospitalist. “But it will be a very different balance, a different kind of feel.”

The Past to the Future

To understand the concerns moving forward, it’s important to first look back. In July 2003, new ACGME rules went into place capping the workweeks of residents at 80 hours. Rules were put into place that regulated the number of patients that residents could be assigned, and those thresholds were further tightened on July 1, 2009. The most notable 2009 change: A first-year resident’s patient census must not exceed 10 patients. ACGME CEO Thomas J. Nasca, MD, MACP, sent a letter to program directors in early May announcing more changes to resident work hours. The letter indicates proposals will be announced by the end of this month, and public comment will follow. At the earliest, new rules changes would go into effect in 2011. “The board may adopt a modification to the duty-hours standard,” says Julie Jacob, a spokeswoman for Chicago-based ACGME. “Any proposed standards would get a public comment.”

Jacob declined further comment, but various hospitalists and academics say they wouldn’t be surprised if new rules reflect 2008 Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendations.1 The IOM report called for a maximum resident shift length of 30 hours, with admission of patients for up to 16 hours, plus a five-hour uninterrupted sleep period between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. It also suggested the remaining workweek hours be used for transitional and educational activities.

However those IOM recommendations are incorporated, one thing is clear: Any adoption of those standards will have a financial impact. In fact, a study published last year reported that annual labor costs from implementing the IOM standards was estimated to be $1.6 billion in 2006 dollars (see “The Cost of Progress,” p. 25).2

“Any replacement of a resident costs more than a resident, whether it’s an NP, a PA (physician assistant), an MD, or a DO,” says Kevin O’Leary, MD, MS, associate program director of the IM residency program at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago. “Everybody costs more.”

Dr. Wallach

The Fate of Teachers

Some of the largest academic centers, including the Feinberg School, the University of Michigan, and the teaching service at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital in New York City, reduced patient caseloads ahead of the 2009 round of residency rule changes. Hospitalists and educators at those institutions say the proactive approach helped them adjust to the newest rules, which by some estimates reduce resident productivity by 20%.

But the changes shift the workload to academic hospitalists, many of whom forego higher-paying positions to pursue teaching and research. According to the latest SHM survey data, academic hospitalists make about $50,000 less per year than the average community hospitalist. But as clinical work intrudes further, as residents are unable to assume the patient care they once did, educators are put into positions of having to balance the educational portion of their job with patient care, says John Del Valle, MD, professor and residency program director in the department of internal medicine at the University of Michigan Health System in Ann Arbor.

“This is where difficult decisions have to be made,” Dr. Del Valle says. “This is not the blend of activities that traditional academics signed up for.”

Solutions to relieve current and impending pressure on teaching hospitalists have presented themselves in different ways. In Dr. Del Valle’s hospital, there is a split between the hospitalist service and the house staff, which is aimed at keeping up with the growth in IM admissions. That tally has climbed an average of 4% per year for the past five years, reaching some 18,000 admissions last year. To handle that workload, the nonresident service last year added three clinical full-time equivalents (FTEs) to bring its total to nearly 30 FTEs.

Dr. Del Valle notes his institution has been fortunate to be able to afford growth, thanks in large part to a payor mix with a relatively low percentage of charity care and high level of activity.

At Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, the answer is a freestanding PA service that has been in place since 2005. Last summer, the program went to a 24-hour rotation to increase continuity for overnight services and to provide coverage on night shifts, an area most in the industry agree will be hit hardest by the resident caps. Physicians at Brigham’s, a teaching affiliate of Harvard Medical School, are now discussing an expansion of the PA service, or perhaps even an overhaul to a more cost-efficient solution, says Danielle Scheurer, MD, MSc, FHM, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard and director of Brigham’s general medicine service.

Dr. Frost

At Medical Center Hospital (MCH) in Odessa, Texas, the hospitalists were added to the ED call schedule once every five nights. The plan was under discussion before the new residency rules went into place; however, it was implemented to keep the IM residency program within the new limits, says Bruce Becker, MD, MCH’s chief medical officer.

And at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital, discussions are under way on how to best extend the nonteaching staff, says Ethan Fried, MD, MS, FACP, assistant professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University, vice chair for education in the department of medicine and director of graduate medical education at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt. “The adjustment has to come from the nonteaching side because the house staff at this point is saturated,” says Dr. Fried, president-elect of the Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine (APDIM). “You can’t be cheap about acquiring your nonteaching staff.”

The Fate of Students

Perhaps paramount to the fears of how teaching hospitalists will react to current or future restrictions is the effect those limits have on the residents they safeguard. Some physicians think the new rules will produce crops of ill-prepared residents because they have been coddled with limited patient censuses. Other physicians argue that the new thresholds will actually better prepare physicians when HM groups are hiring residents for full-time positions.

Dr. Del Valle acknowledges there is as yet no rigorous data to show the impact of the current restrictions, but he agrees it’s a simple equation of patient-care mathematics. “You can’t [easily] replace 100-110 hours [of care per week],” he says.

Others say patient caps and rules to limit how much work residents do are in line with the purpose of medical training programs. “I’ve bought into the fact that these programs exist to train residents, not to provide clinical care,” Dr. O’Leary says. “I’ve drunk that Kool-Aid. … I think there’s more variation, person to person, than ‘my era vs. the current era.’ Like any new hospitalist that you hire, you need to give an orientation and give enough support to them so when they begin to see patients that they are not overwhelmed.”

Shaun Frost, MD, FACP, FHM, might be best described as halfway between those two extremes. A regional director for the eastern U.S. for Cogent Healthcare, he says duty-hour restrictions have had deleterious impacts but also create learning opportunities.

“The residency work-hour restrictions have inhibited our ability to train people to work as efficiently as trainees who were taught in the past,” says Dr. Frost, an SHM board member. “That doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t teach people to work more efficiently . . . but in the future, my hope is that residency training programs will recognize the deficit that exists in personal work efficiencies between their completion and their responsibilities as a hospitalist.”

To that end, Dr. Frost works with others to develop both structured curriculum and classroom didactics that help new hospitalists make up for gaps in preparation that weren’t addressed in residency. In some cases, that can be practice management and billing issues, but often, according to Dr. Frost, it is addressing personal workflow and bridging the “unnatural discontinuity” in patient care from residency to the real world.

“There is a cost to this investment for the future,” Dr. Frost adds. “If people don’t recognize the potential return on investment as being critical to the development of an educated workforce—an efficient and competent workforce—and thus critical to the retention of high-performing hospitalists, they are selling themselves, unfortunately, significantly short.”

Caught in the Middle

One man’s trash is another man’s treasure, the axiom tells us. Well, in healthcare circles, that could just as easily read: The woes of academic hospitalists are the wealth of community hospitalists.

The new rules “may result in more opportunities for hospitalists to provide needed clinical services,” Dr. Wright says.

The long-term implications, though, remain to be seen. While academic hospitalists say they have seen preliminary increases in care-delivery costs because of the latest rules changes, many say it’s too soon to tell just how high those costs might climb and what ripple effect might follow.

Some physicians, including Dr. Del Valle, note that while the 2009 changes and the expectation of more changes in 2011 are cause for attention, that doesn’t translate to cause for concern. In 2003, months before the 80-hour workweek rules were first put in place by ACGME, many of the same debates were already under way: How will the faculty of IM residency programs cope? How will institutions pay the bills while putting money aside for other physicians picking up the slack?

“This is a pendulum,” Dr. Del Valle says. “I think it will come back to a balanced place.”

Dr. Fried, who is more optimistic that the residency rules can have a positive, long-term effect, agrees. He says residency caps and limits should not be viewed as “things that limit education. We [should] look at them as things that ensure education continues while patient care continues.” TH

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.

References

1. Institute of Medicine. Resident Duty Hours: Enhancing Sleep, Supervision, and Safety. Ulmer C, Wolman DM, Johns MM, eds. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press; 2008.
2. Nuckols TK, Bhattacharya J, Wolman DM, Ulmer C, Escarce JJ. Cost implications of reduced work hours and workloads for resident physicians. N Engl J Med. 2009:360(21):2202-2215.

The impact of last summer’s new restrictions from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) on how many hospitalized patients a first-year resident can treat on an internal-medicine (IM) rotation was as immediate as it was evident at Monmouth Medical Center, a 527-bed teaching hospital in Long Branch, N.J. The institution had a class of eight rookie residents whose caseloads were cut from 12 to the new threshold of 10.

Physicians “had to find some other way of getting attention . . . for 16 patients,” says Sarah Wallach, MD, FACP, director of Monmouth’s IM residency program and vice chair of the department of medicine at the hospital. At Monmouth, the solution came in the form of a new hire—a nurse practitioner (NP)—to handle the overflow. The NP service is used predominantly for referral patients from primary-care physicians (PCPs), as opposed to independent hospital admissions.

But because the NP service does not provide 24-hour coverage, the hospital can get away with only one person in the position. To extend coverage all day long, Dr. Wallach estimates she would need to hire two or three additional NPs, plus another one or two administrative positions to provide relief on holidays and vacations. “You would need five people,” she says. “I can’t afford that.”

Few hospitals or HM groups can afford new hires in today’s world of Medicare reimbursement cuts, shrinking budgets, and—courtesy of the newest rules—restricting patient caps for residents. The latest rules took hold about a year ago, but hospitalists in both academic and community settings say the impact already is noticeable.

Many hospitals have had to craft solutions, which have included burdening academic hospitals with more clinical responsibilities, turning to private HM groups (HMGs) to assume the patients residents can no longer care for, or hiring nonphysician providers (NPPs) to pick up the slack. As Dr. Wallach pointedly notes, the latter two solutions cost money at a time when hospitals have less to go around.

Already, teaching hospitals have begun discussions about how the newest rules—and the future changes they presage—will change the playing field. Will a wave of academics flee their classroom (the teaching hospital), as nonteaching duties become an intrusion? Will teaching hospitals face financial pressure as they struggle to replace the low-cost labor force that residents represent?

Perhaps most importantly from a medical perspective, will graduate trainees be as prepared as their predecessors when they enter practice?

Dr. Wallach

The answers will have a direct correlation to private HMGs, which are poised to see more patients in the wake of residency restrictions, particularly on overnight services. The cost of hospital care will increase for hospitals, putting more pressure on hospitalist groups that tout themselves to C-suites as engines for cost savings. Long-term implications, unfortunately, remain murky, as the newest rules have been in place for a relatively short time. Plus, ACGME is expected—at the end of this month, according to a recent memo to program directors—to announce more changes to residency guidelines.

“Hospitalists will always be involved in teaching—it will never go away,” says Julia Wright, MD, FHM, clinical professor of medicine and director of hospital medicine at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison and a member of Team Hospitalist. “But it will be a very different balance, a different kind of feel.”

The Past to the Future

To understand the concerns moving forward, it’s important to first look back. In July 2003, new ACGME rules went into place capping the workweeks of residents at 80 hours. Rules were put into place that regulated the number of patients that residents could be assigned, and those thresholds were further tightened on July 1, 2009. The most notable 2009 change: A first-year resident’s patient census must not exceed 10 patients. ACGME CEO Thomas J. Nasca, MD, MACP, sent a letter to program directors in early May announcing more changes to resident work hours. The letter indicates proposals will be announced by the end of this month, and public comment will follow. At the earliest, new rules changes would go into effect in 2011. “The board may adopt a modification to the duty-hours standard,” says Julie Jacob, a spokeswoman for Chicago-based ACGME. “Any proposed standards would get a public comment.”

Jacob declined further comment, but various hospitalists and academics say they wouldn’t be surprised if new rules reflect 2008 Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendations.1 The IOM report called for a maximum resident shift length of 30 hours, with admission of patients for up to 16 hours, plus a five-hour uninterrupted sleep period between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. It also suggested the remaining workweek hours be used for transitional and educational activities.

However those IOM recommendations are incorporated, one thing is clear: Any adoption of those standards will have a financial impact. In fact, a study published last year reported that annual labor costs from implementing the IOM standards was estimated to be $1.6 billion in 2006 dollars (see “The Cost of Progress,” p. 25).2

“Any replacement of a resident costs more than a resident, whether it’s an NP, a PA (physician assistant), an MD, or a DO,” says Kevin O’Leary, MD, MS, associate program director of the IM residency program at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago. “Everybody costs more.”

Dr. Wallach

The Fate of Teachers

Some of the largest academic centers, including the Feinberg School, the University of Michigan, and the teaching service at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital in New York City, reduced patient caseloads ahead of the 2009 round of residency rule changes. Hospitalists and educators at those institutions say the proactive approach helped them adjust to the newest rules, which by some estimates reduce resident productivity by 20%.

But the changes shift the workload to academic hospitalists, many of whom forego higher-paying positions to pursue teaching and research. According to the latest SHM survey data, academic hospitalists make about $50,000 less per year than the average community hospitalist. But as clinical work intrudes further, as residents are unable to assume the patient care they once did, educators are put into positions of having to balance the educational portion of their job with patient care, says John Del Valle, MD, professor and residency program director in the department of internal medicine at the University of Michigan Health System in Ann Arbor.

“This is where difficult decisions have to be made,” Dr. Del Valle says. “This is not the blend of activities that traditional academics signed up for.”

Solutions to relieve current and impending pressure on teaching hospitalists have presented themselves in different ways. In Dr. Del Valle’s hospital, there is a split between the hospitalist service and the house staff, which is aimed at keeping up with the growth in IM admissions. That tally has climbed an average of 4% per year for the past five years, reaching some 18,000 admissions last year. To handle that workload, the nonresident service last year added three clinical full-time equivalents (FTEs) to bring its total to nearly 30 FTEs.

Dr. Del Valle notes his institution has been fortunate to be able to afford growth, thanks in large part to a payor mix with a relatively low percentage of charity care and high level of activity.

At Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, the answer is a freestanding PA service that has been in place since 2005. Last summer, the program went to a 24-hour rotation to increase continuity for overnight services and to provide coverage on night shifts, an area most in the industry agree will be hit hardest by the resident caps. Physicians at Brigham’s, a teaching affiliate of Harvard Medical School, are now discussing an expansion of the PA service, or perhaps even an overhaul to a more cost-efficient solution, says Danielle Scheurer, MD, MSc, FHM, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard and director of Brigham’s general medicine service.

Dr. Frost

At Medical Center Hospital (MCH) in Odessa, Texas, the hospitalists were added to the ED call schedule once every five nights. The plan was under discussion before the new residency rules went into place; however, it was implemented to keep the IM residency program within the new limits, says Bruce Becker, MD, MCH’s chief medical officer.

And at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital, discussions are under way on how to best extend the nonteaching staff, says Ethan Fried, MD, MS, FACP, assistant professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University, vice chair for education in the department of medicine and director of graduate medical education at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt. “The adjustment has to come from the nonteaching side because the house staff at this point is saturated,” says Dr. Fried, president-elect of the Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine (APDIM). “You can’t be cheap about acquiring your nonteaching staff.”

The Fate of Students

Perhaps paramount to the fears of how teaching hospitalists will react to current or future restrictions is the effect those limits have on the residents they safeguard. Some physicians think the new rules will produce crops of ill-prepared residents because they have been coddled with limited patient censuses. Other physicians argue that the new thresholds will actually better prepare physicians when HM groups are hiring residents for full-time positions.

Dr. Del Valle acknowledges there is as yet no rigorous data to show the impact of the current restrictions, but he agrees it’s a simple equation of patient-care mathematics. “You can’t [easily] replace 100-110 hours [of care per week],” he says.

Others say patient caps and rules to limit how much work residents do are in line with the purpose of medical training programs. “I’ve bought into the fact that these programs exist to train residents, not to provide clinical care,” Dr. O’Leary says. “I’ve drunk that Kool-Aid. … I think there’s more variation, person to person, than ‘my era vs. the current era.’ Like any new hospitalist that you hire, you need to give an orientation and give enough support to them so when they begin to see patients that they are not overwhelmed.”

Shaun Frost, MD, FACP, FHM, might be best described as halfway between those two extremes. A regional director for the eastern U.S. for Cogent Healthcare, he says duty-hour restrictions have had deleterious impacts but also create learning opportunities.

“The residency work-hour restrictions have inhibited our ability to train people to work as efficiently as trainees who were taught in the past,” says Dr. Frost, an SHM board member. “That doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t teach people to work more efficiently . . . but in the future, my hope is that residency training programs will recognize the deficit that exists in personal work efficiencies between their completion and their responsibilities as a hospitalist.”

To that end, Dr. Frost works with others to develop both structured curriculum and classroom didactics that help new hospitalists make up for gaps in preparation that weren’t addressed in residency. In some cases, that can be practice management and billing issues, but often, according to Dr. Frost, it is addressing personal workflow and bridging the “unnatural discontinuity” in patient care from residency to the real world.

“There is a cost to this investment for the future,” Dr. Frost adds. “If people don’t recognize the potential return on investment as being critical to the development of an educated workforce—an efficient and competent workforce—and thus critical to the retention of high-performing hospitalists, they are selling themselves, unfortunately, significantly short.”

Caught in the Middle

One man’s trash is another man’s treasure, the axiom tells us. Well, in healthcare circles, that could just as easily read: The woes of academic hospitalists are the wealth of community hospitalists.

The new rules “may result in more opportunities for hospitalists to provide needed clinical services,” Dr. Wright says.

The long-term implications, though, remain to be seen. While academic hospitalists say they have seen preliminary increases in care-delivery costs because of the latest rules changes, many say it’s too soon to tell just how high those costs might climb and what ripple effect might follow.

Some physicians, including Dr. Del Valle, note that while the 2009 changes and the expectation of more changes in 2011 are cause for attention, that doesn’t translate to cause for concern. In 2003, months before the 80-hour workweek rules were first put in place by ACGME, many of the same debates were already under way: How will the faculty of IM residency programs cope? How will institutions pay the bills while putting money aside for other physicians picking up the slack?

“This is a pendulum,” Dr. Del Valle says. “I think it will come back to a balanced place.”

Dr. Fried, who is more optimistic that the residency rules can have a positive, long-term effect, agrees. He says residency caps and limits should not be viewed as “things that limit education. We [should] look at them as things that ensure education continues while patient care continues.” TH

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.

References

1. Institute of Medicine. Resident Duty Hours: Enhancing Sleep, Supervision, and Safety. Ulmer C, Wolman DM, Johns MM, eds. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press; 2008.
2. Nuckols TK, Bhattacharya J, Wolman DM, Ulmer C, Escarce JJ. Cost implications of reduced work hours and workloads for resident physicians. N Engl J Med. 2009:360(21):2202-2215.

The impact of last summer’s new restrictions from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) on how many hospitalized patients a first-year resident can treat on an internal-medicine (IM) rotation was as immediate as it was evident at Monmouth Medical Center, a 527-bed teaching hospital in Long Branch, N.J. The institution had a class of eight rookie residents whose caseloads were cut from 12 to the new threshold of 10.

Physicians “had to find some other way of getting attention . . . for 16 patients,” says Sarah Wallach, MD, FACP, director of Monmouth’s IM residency program and vice chair of the department of medicine at the hospital. At Monmouth, the solution came in the form of a new hire—a nurse practitioner (NP)—to handle the overflow. The NP service is used predominantly for referral patients from primary-care physicians (PCPs), as opposed to independent hospital admissions.

But because the NP service does not provide 24-hour coverage, the hospital can get away with only one person in the position. To extend coverage all day long, Dr. Wallach estimates she would need to hire two or three additional NPs, plus another one or two administrative positions to provide relief on holidays and vacations. “You would need five people,” she says. “I can’t afford that.”

Few hospitals or HM groups can afford new hires in today’s world of Medicare reimbursement cuts, shrinking budgets, and—courtesy of the newest rules—restricting patient caps for residents. The latest rules took hold about a year ago, but hospitalists in both academic and community settings say the impact already is noticeable.

Many hospitals have had to craft solutions, which have included burdening academic hospitals with more clinical responsibilities, turning to private HM groups (HMGs) to assume the patients residents can no longer care for, or hiring nonphysician providers (NPPs) to pick up the slack. As Dr. Wallach pointedly notes, the latter two solutions cost money at a time when hospitals have less to go around.

Already, teaching hospitals have begun discussions about how the newest rules—and the future changes they presage—will change the playing field. Will a wave of academics flee their classroom (the teaching hospital), as nonteaching duties become an intrusion? Will teaching hospitals face financial pressure as they struggle to replace the low-cost labor force that residents represent?

Perhaps most importantly from a medical perspective, will graduate trainees be as prepared as their predecessors when they enter practice?

Dr. Wallach

The answers will have a direct correlation to private HMGs, which are poised to see more patients in the wake of residency restrictions, particularly on overnight services. The cost of hospital care will increase for hospitals, putting more pressure on hospitalist groups that tout themselves to C-suites as engines for cost savings. Long-term implications, unfortunately, remain murky, as the newest rules have been in place for a relatively short time. Plus, ACGME is expected—at the end of this month, according to a recent memo to program directors—to announce more changes to residency guidelines.

“Hospitalists will always be involved in teaching—it will never go away,” says Julia Wright, MD, FHM, clinical professor of medicine and director of hospital medicine at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison and a member of Team Hospitalist. “But it will be a very different balance, a different kind of feel.”

The Past to the Future

To understand the concerns moving forward, it’s important to first look back. In July 2003, new ACGME rules went into place capping the workweeks of residents at 80 hours. Rules were put into place that regulated the number of patients that residents could be assigned, and those thresholds were further tightened on July 1, 2009. The most notable 2009 change: A first-year resident’s patient census must not exceed 10 patients. ACGME CEO Thomas J. Nasca, MD, MACP, sent a letter to program directors in early May announcing more changes to resident work hours. The letter indicates proposals will be announced by the end of this month, and public comment will follow. At the earliest, new rules changes would go into effect in 2011. “The board may adopt a modification to the duty-hours standard,” says Julie Jacob, a spokeswoman for Chicago-based ACGME. “Any proposed standards would get a public comment.”

Jacob declined further comment, but various hospitalists and academics say they wouldn’t be surprised if new rules reflect 2008 Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendations.1 The IOM report called for a maximum resident shift length of 30 hours, with admission of patients for up to 16 hours, plus a five-hour uninterrupted sleep period between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. It also suggested the remaining workweek hours be used for transitional and educational activities.

However those IOM recommendations are incorporated, one thing is clear: Any adoption of those standards will have a financial impact. In fact, a study published last year reported that annual labor costs from implementing the IOM standards was estimated to be $1.6 billion in 2006 dollars (see “The Cost of Progress,” p. 25).2

“Any replacement of a resident costs more than a resident, whether it’s an NP, a PA (physician assistant), an MD, or a DO,” says Kevin O’Leary, MD, MS, associate program director of the IM residency program at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago. “Everybody costs more.”

Dr. Wallach

The Fate of Teachers

Some of the largest academic centers, including the Feinberg School, the University of Michigan, and the teaching service at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital in New York City, reduced patient caseloads ahead of the 2009 round of residency rule changes. Hospitalists and educators at those institutions say the proactive approach helped them adjust to the newest rules, which by some estimates reduce resident productivity by 20%.

But the changes shift the workload to academic hospitalists, many of whom forego higher-paying positions to pursue teaching and research. According to the latest SHM survey data, academic hospitalists make about $50,000 less per year than the average community hospitalist. But as clinical work intrudes further, as residents are unable to assume the patient care they once did, educators are put into positions of having to balance the educational portion of their job with patient care, says John Del Valle, MD, professor and residency program director in the department of internal medicine at the University of Michigan Health System in Ann Arbor.

“This is where difficult decisions have to be made,” Dr. Del Valle says. “This is not the blend of activities that traditional academics signed up for.”

Solutions to relieve current and impending pressure on teaching hospitalists have presented themselves in different ways. In Dr. Del Valle’s hospital, there is a split between the hospitalist service and the house staff, which is aimed at keeping up with the growth in IM admissions. That tally has climbed an average of 4% per year for the past five years, reaching some 18,000 admissions last year. To handle that workload, the nonresident service last year added three clinical full-time equivalents (FTEs) to bring its total to nearly 30 FTEs.

Dr. Del Valle notes his institution has been fortunate to be able to afford growth, thanks in large part to a payor mix with a relatively low percentage of charity care and high level of activity.

At Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, the answer is a freestanding PA service that has been in place since 2005. Last summer, the program went to a 24-hour rotation to increase continuity for overnight services and to provide coverage on night shifts, an area most in the industry agree will be hit hardest by the resident caps. Physicians at Brigham’s, a teaching affiliate of Harvard Medical School, are now discussing an expansion of the PA service, or perhaps even an overhaul to a more cost-efficient solution, says Danielle Scheurer, MD, MSc, FHM, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard and director of Brigham’s general medicine service.

Dr. Frost

At Medical Center Hospital (MCH) in Odessa, Texas, the hospitalists were added to the ED call schedule once every five nights. The plan was under discussion before the new residency rules went into place; however, it was implemented to keep the IM residency program within the new limits, says Bruce Becker, MD, MCH’s chief medical officer.

And at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital, discussions are under way on how to best extend the nonteaching staff, says Ethan Fried, MD, MS, FACP, assistant professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University, vice chair for education in the department of medicine and director of graduate medical education at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt. “The adjustment has to come from the nonteaching side because the house staff at this point is saturated,” says Dr. Fried, president-elect of the Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine (APDIM). “You can’t be cheap about acquiring your nonteaching staff.”

The Fate of Students

Perhaps paramount to the fears of how teaching hospitalists will react to current or future restrictions is the effect those limits have on the residents they safeguard. Some physicians think the new rules will produce crops of ill-prepared residents because they have been coddled with limited patient censuses. Other physicians argue that the new thresholds will actually better prepare physicians when HM groups are hiring residents for full-time positions.

Dr. Del Valle acknowledges there is as yet no rigorous data to show the impact of the current restrictions, but he agrees it’s a simple equation of patient-care mathematics. “You can’t [easily] replace 100-110 hours [of care per week],” he says.

Others say patient caps and rules to limit how much work residents do are in line with the purpose of medical training programs. “I’ve bought into the fact that these programs exist to train residents, not to provide clinical care,” Dr. O’Leary says. “I’ve drunk that Kool-Aid. … I think there’s more variation, person to person, than ‘my era vs. the current era.’ Like any new hospitalist that you hire, you need to give an orientation and give enough support to them so when they begin to see patients that they are not overwhelmed.”

Shaun Frost, MD, FACP, FHM, might be best described as halfway between those two extremes. A regional director for the eastern U.S. for Cogent Healthcare, he says duty-hour restrictions have had deleterious impacts but also create learning opportunities.

“The residency work-hour restrictions have inhibited our ability to train people to work as efficiently as trainees who were taught in the past,” says Dr. Frost, an SHM board member. “That doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t teach people to work more efficiently . . . but in the future, my hope is that residency training programs will recognize the deficit that exists in personal work efficiencies between their completion and their responsibilities as a hospitalist.”

To that end, Dr. Frost works with others to develop both structured curriculum and classroom didactics that help new hospitalists make up for gaps in preparation that weren’t addressed in residency. In some cases, that can be practice management and billing issues, but often, according to Dr. Frost, it is addressing personal workflow and bridging the “unnatural discontinuity” in patient care from residency to the real world.

“There is a cost to this investment for the future,” Dr. Frost adds. “If people don’t recognize the potential return on investment as being critical to the development of an educated workforce—an efficient and competent workforce—and thus critical to the retention of high-performing hospitalists, they are selling themselves, unfortunately, significantly short.”

Caught in the Middle

One man’s trash is another man’s treasure, the axiom tells us. Well, in healthcare circles, that could just as easily read: The woes of academic hospitalists are the wealth of community hospitalists.

The new rules “may result in more opportunities for hospitalists to provide needed clinical services,” Dr. Wright says.

The long-term implications, though, remain to be seen. While academic hospitalists say they have seen preliminary increases in care-delivery costs because of the latest rules changes, many say it’s too soon to tell just how high those costs might climb and what ripple effect might follow.

Some physicians, including Dr. Del Valle, note that while the 2009 changes and the expectation of more changes in 2011 are cause for attention, that doesn’t translate to cause for concern. In 2003, months before the 80-hour workweek rules were first put in place by ACGME, many of the same debates were already under way: How will the faculty of IM residency programs cope? How will institutions pay the bills while putting money aside for other physicians picking up the slack?

“This is a pendulum,” Dr. Del Valle says. “I think it will come back to a balanced place.”

Dr. Fried, who is more optimistic that the residency rules can have a positive, long-term effect, agrees. He says residency caps and limits should not be viewed as “things that limit education. We [should] look at them as things that ensure education continues while patient care continues.” TH

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.

References

1. Institute of Medicine. Resident Duty Hours: Enhancing Sleep, Supervision, and Safety. Ulmer C, Wolman DM, Johns MM, eds. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press; 2008.
2. Nuckols TK, Bhattacharya J, Wolman DM, Ulmer C, Escarce JJ. Cost implications of reduced work hours and workloads for resident physicians. N Engl J Med. 2009:360(21):2202-2215.

Physicians Could Be Eligible to Receive IRS Refund

I heard the Internal Revenue Service is going to refund the employment taxes physicians paid when they were residents. Is this true? If so, how do I go about filing for this?

J. Byrne, MD

New YorkRe

Dr. Hospitalist responds: On March 2, the IRS announced that it had “made an administrative determination to accept the position that medical residents are excepted from FICA taxes based on the student exception for tax periods ending before April 1, 2005, when new IRS regulations went into effect.”¹ For folks like me, who have a hard time understanding the different numbers on my paycheck, here is an explanation. (I am neither an attorney nor an accountant; for any such counsel, I suggest you visit a professional.)

Federal Insurance Contributions Act, or FICA, taxes are the payroll taxes collected for Medicare and Social Security programs. These taxes fund insurance programs for the elderly, disabled, survivors (Social Security), and for healthcare (Medicare). This tax originated in 1935. Employees and employers are required to make regular contributions to FICA through payroll deductions. For 2010, the FICA tax rate is 7.65% (6.2% for Social Security and 1.45% for Medicare) on gross earnings (earnings before any deductions). The individual contribution limit for the Social Security program is 6.2% of wages up to $106,800 (a $6,621.60 cap per individual). Unlike Social Security, there is no cap on contributions to the Medicare program. Individuals and employers each contribute 1.45% of wages earned (for a total of 2.9%) to fund the Medicare program.

House staff traditionally participate in this government insurance program by contributing FICA taxes. But in the 1990s, employers and individuals began filing FICA refund claims to the IRS based on the student exception (Internal Revenue Code section 3121(b)(10)). It is my understanding that this section of the IRS code exempts students from the FICA tax.

So are house staff recognized as students under the eyes of the law? In the 1998 court case State of Minnesota vs. Apfel, the court opined that University of Minnesota house staff exist for the primary purpose of education, rather than for earning a livelihood. Based on that ruling, the IRS chief counsel issued a memorandum in July 2000 that stated house staff could meet the FICA student exemption if 1) the house staff’s employer is a school, and 2) the house staffer is considered a student by the employer.

So why has it taken so long for the IRS to decide to refund these dollars? Over the past decade, there have been other court cases with conflicting interpretations of the IRS code. In January 2005, the IRS implemented new regulations that did not require house staff to contribute FICA taxes. But this new regulation did nothing about past house-staff contributions. Last year, in another Minnesota case, Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research vs. the United States, the court again interpreted the IRS regulations as limiting the student FICA exception to students who are not full-time employees. Despite other ongoing lawsuits, the IRS has decided that individuals who were house staff prior to April 2005 and meet the criteria are excepted from FICA taxes.

So who is eligible to receive these FICA taxes refund? It is my understanding that if you are a house officer who contributed to FICA taxes prior to April 2005, you are eligible for a refund only if you or the institution where you trained filed a claim in a timely fashion. The period of limitation for filing a claim has expired. If you think that you are covered by a claim, the IRS states that you should expect to hear from the institution where you trained about the refund process. You will not be hearing from the IRS directly.

For more information, call 800-919-1703 or visit www.irs.gov/charities and click on “Medical Resident FICA Refund.”

Is the Economy Having a Negative Effect on Hospitalist Jobs?

I will start my senior year as a medical resident in a few months. I am interested in a career as a hospitalist. While I hear that there are a lot of hospitalists out there, one of my friends has been looking for a hospitalist job in the Northeast and has had some difficulty landing a position. Is the problem the area or the economy? Is there anything I can do to make myself a more attractive candidate?

Reza Mohan, MD

Seattle

Dr. Hospitalist responds: Congratul-ations on reaching this stage in your training as a physician; this is the time you can start thinking about your career as a hospitalist. While I understand your desire to land a plum job upon completion of training, I want to encourage you to focus your efforts during your last year of training. Becoming the best doctor possible might be the best preparation to land the ideal HM job.

It is true that since 1996, when the term “hospitalist” was first coined, it has been easy to land HM jobs. The field exploded out of nowhere, and now boasts more than 30,000 hospitalists after little more than a decade. Atlanta, Boston, San Diego, Seattle … hospitalist jobs were plentiful.

While it has been good for physicians looking for jobs, I am not sure it has been ideal for patients. I would argue that the easy availability of jobs has attracted people to our profession who probably are not ideally suited to be hospitalists. From a quality perspective, wouldn’t we be better off if there were more competition for hospitalist jobs? In fact, I am hearing talk from colleagues around the country that there are a few places where it is increasingly more difficult to land a hospitalist job. Seattle and Boston are two such places.

That said, one only has to look at the job ads in the preceding pages of The Hospitalist and the SHM Career Center (www.hospitalmedicine.org/careers) to see that HM jobs are still plentiful in most parts of the country. I would not worry about not being able to land a job as a hospitalist when you finish training. However, you might not be able to find a great job in the city of your choice.

If you are interested in networking, I encourage you to speak with HM physicians at your hospital and in your community. Don’t pass up the opportunity to attend a local SHM chapter meeting or a regional conference; both are great for connecting with hospitalists and hiring managers. Another option is to sign up with an SHM e-mail listserv, so you have the opportunity to participate in online discussions with hospitalists. TH

Reference

1. IRS to honor medical resident FICA refund claims. IRS Web site. Available at www.irs.gov/charities/article/ 0,,id=219548,00.html. Published March 2, 2010. Accessed April 14, 2010.

Physicians Could Be Eligible to Receive IRS Refund

I heard the Internal Revenue Service is going to refund the employment taxes physicians paid when they were residents. Is this true? If so, how do I go about filing for this?

J. Byrne, MD

New YorkRe

Dr. Hospitalist responds: On March 2, the IRS announced that it had “made an administrative determination to accept the position that medical residents are excepted from FICA taxes based on the student exception for tax periods ending before April 1, 2005, when new IRS regulations went into effect.”¹ For folks like me, who have a hard time understanding the different numbers on my paycheck, here is an explanation. (I am neither an attorney nor an accountant; for any such counsel, I suggest you visit a professional.)

Federal Insurance Contributions Act, or FICA, taxes are the payroll taxes collected for Medicare and Social Security programs. These taxes fund insurance programs for the elderly, disabled, survivors (Social Security), and for healthcare (Medicare). This tax originated in 1935. Employees and employers are required to make regular contributions to FICA through payroll deductions. For 2010, the FICA tax rate is 7.65% (6.2% for Social Security and 1.45% for Medicare) on gross earnings (earnings before any deductions). The individual contribution limit for the Social Security program is 6.2% of wages up to $106,800 (a $6,621.60 cap per individual). Unlike Social Security, there is no cap on contributions to the Medicare program. Individuals and employers each contribute 1.45% of wages earned (for a total of 2.9%) to fund the Medicare program.

House staff traditionally participate in this government insurance program by contributing FICA taxes. But in the 1990s, employers and individuals began filing FICA refund claims to the IRS based on the student exception (Internal Revenue Code section 3121(b)(10)). It is my understanding that this section of the IRS code exempts students from the FICA tax.

So are house staff recognized as students under the eyes of the law? In the 1998 court case State of Minnesota vs. Apfel, the court opined that University of Minnesota house staff exist for the primary purpose of education, rather than for earning a livelihood. Based on that ruling, the IRS chief counsel issued a memorandum in July 2000 that stated house staff could meet the FICA student exemption if 1) the house staff’s employer is a school, and 2) the house staffer is considered a student by the employer.

So why has it taken so long for the IRS to decide to refund these dollars? Over the past decade, there have been other court cases with conflicting interpretations of the IRS code. In January 2005, the IRS implemented new regulations that did not require house staff to contribute FICA taxes. But this new regulation did nothing about past house-staff contributions. Last year, in another Minnesota case, Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research vs. the United States, the court again interpreted the IRS regulations as limiting the student FICA exception to students who are not full-time employees. Despite other ongoing lawsuits, the IRS has decided that individuals who were house staff prior to April 2005 and meet the criteria are excepted from FICA taxes.

So who is eligible to receive these FICA taxes refund? It is my understanding that if you are a house officer who contributed to FICA taxes prior to April 2005, you are eligible for a refund only if you or the institution where you trained filed a claim in a timely fashion. The period of limitation for filing a claim has expired. If you think that you are covered by a claim, the IRS states that you should expect to hear from the institution where you trained about the refund process. You will not be hearing from the IRS directly.

For more information, call 800-919-1703 or visit www.irs.gov/charities and click on “Medical Resident FICA Refund.”

Is the Economy Having a Negative Effect on Hospitalist Jobs?

I will start my senior year as a medical resident in a few months. I am interested in a career as a hospitalist. While I hear that there are a lot of hospitalists out there, one of my friends has been looking for a hospitalist job in the Northeast and has had some difficulty landing a position. Is the problem the area or the economy? Is there anything I can do to make myself a more attractive candidate?

Reza Mohan, MD

Seattle

Dr. Hospitalist responds: Congratul-ations on reaching this stage in your training as a physician; this is the time you can start thinking about your career as a hospitalist. While I understand your desire to land a plum job upon completion of training, I want to encourage you to focus your efforts during your last year of training. Becoming the best doctor possible might be the best preparation to land the ideal HM job.

It is true that since 1996, when the term “hospitalist” was first coined, it has been easy to land HM jobs. The field exploded out of nowhere, and now boasts more than 30,000 hospitalists after little more than a decade. Atlanta, Boston, San Diego, Seattle … hospitalist jobs were plentiful.

While it has been good for physicians looking for jobs, I am not sure it has been ideal for patients. I would argue that the easy availability of jobs has attracted people to our profession who probably are not ideally suited to be hospitalists. From a quality perspective, wouldn’t we be better off if there were more competition for hospitalist jobs? In fact, I am hearing talk from colleagues around the country that there are a few places where it is increasingly more difficult to land a hospitalist job. Seattle and Boston are two such places.

That said, one only has to look at the job ads in the preceding pages of The Hospitalist and the SHM Career Center (www.hospitalmedicine.org/careers) to see that HM jobs are still plentiful in most parts of the country. I would not worry about not being able to land a job as a hospitalist when you finish training. However, you might not be able to find a great job in the city of your choice.

If you are interested in networking, I encourage you to speak with HM physicians at your hospital and in your community. Don’t pass up the opportunity to attend a local SHM chapter meeting or a regional conference; both are great for connecting with hospitalists and hiring managers. Another option is to sign up with an SHM e-mail listserv, so you have the opportunity to participate in online discussions with hospitalists. TH

Reference

1. IRS to honor medical resident FICA refund claims. IRS Web site. Available at www.irs.gov/charities/article/ 0,,id=219548,00.html. Published March 2, 2010. Accessed April 14, 2010.

Physicians Could Be Eligible to Receive IRS Refund

I heard the Internal Revenue Service is going to refund the employment taxes physicians paid when they were residents. Is this true? If so, how do I go about filing for this?

J. Byrne, MD

New YorkRe

Dr. Hospitalist responds: On March 2, the IRS announced that it had “made an administrative determination to accept the position that medical residents are excepted from FICA taxes based on the student exception for tax periods ending before April 1, 2005, when new IRS regulations went into effect.”¹ For folks like me, who have a hard time understanding the different numbers on my paycheck, here is an explanation. (I am neither an attorney nor an accountant; for any such counsel, I suggest you visit a professional.)

Federal Insurance Contributions Act, or FICA, taxes are the payroll taxes collected for Medicare and Social Security programs. These taxes fund insurance programs for the elderly, disabled, survivors (Social Security), and for healthcare (Medicare). This tax originated in 1935. Employees and employers are required to make regular contributions to FICA through payroll deductions. For 2010, the FICA tax rate is 7.65% (6.2% for Social Security and 1.45% for Medicare) on gross earnings (earnings before any deductions). The individual contribution limit for the Social Security program is 6.2% of wages up to $106,800 (a $6,621.60 cap per individual). Unlike Social Security, there is no cap on contributions to the Medicare program. Individuals and employers each contribute 1.45% of wages earned (for a total of 2.9%) to fund the Medicare program.

House staff traditionally participate in this government insurance program by contributing FICA taxes. But in the 1990s, employers and individuals began filing FICA refund claims to the IRS based on the student exception (Internal Revenue Code section 3121(b)(10)). It is my understanding that this section of the IRS code exempts students from the FICA tax.

So are house staff recognized as students under the eyes of the law? In the 1998 court case State of Minnesota vs. Apfel, the court opined that University of Minnesota house staff exist for the primary purpose of education, rather than for earning a livelihood. Based on that ruling, the IRS chief counsel issued a memorandum in July 2000 that stated house staff could meet the FICA student exemption if 1) the house staff’s employer is a school, and 2) the house staffer is considered a student by the employer.

So why has it taken so long for the IRS to decide to refund these dollars? Over the past decade, there have been other court cases with conflicting interpretations of the IRS code. In January 2005, the IRS implemented new regulations that did not require house staff to contribute FICA taxes. But this new regulation did nothing about past house-staff contributions. Last year, in another Minnesota case, Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research vs. the United States, the court again interpreted the IRS regulations as limiting the student FICA exception to students who are not full-time employees. Despite other ongoing lawsuits, the IRS has decided that individuals who were house staff prior to April 2005 and meet the criteria are excepted from FICA taxes.

So who is eligible to receive these FICA taxes refund? It is my understanding that if you are a house officer who contributed to FICA taxes prior to April 2005, you are eligible for a refund only if you or the institution where you trained filed a claim in a timely fashion. The period of limitation for filing a claim has expired. If you think that you are covered by a claim, the IRS states that you should expect to hear from the institution where you trained about the refund process. You will not be hearing from the IRS directly.

For more information, call 800-919-1703 or visit www.irs.gov/charities and click on “Medical Resident FICA Refund.”

Is the Economy Having a Negative Effect on Hospitalist Jobs?

I will start my senior year as a medical resident in a few months. I am interested in a career as a hospitalist. While I hear that there are a lot of hospitalists out there, one of my friends has been looking for a hospitalist job in the Northeast and has had some difficulty landing a position. Is the problem the area or the economy? Is there anything I can do to make myself a more attractive candidate?

Reza Mohan, MD

Seattle

Dr. Hospitalist responds: Congratul-ations on reaching this stage in your training as a physician; this is the time you can start thinking about your career as a hospitalist. While I understand your desire to land a plum job upon completion of training, I want to encourage you to focus your efforts during your last year of training. Becoming the best doctor possible might be the best preparation to land the ideal HM job.

It is true that since 1996, when the term “hospitalist” was first coined, it has been easy to land HM jobs. The field exploded out of nowhere, and now boasts more than 30,000 hospitalists after little more than a decade. Atlanta, Boston, San Diego, Seattle … hospitalist jobs were plentiful.

While it has been good for physicians looking for jobs, I am not sure it has been ideal for patients. I would argue that the easy availability of jobs has attracted people to our profession who probably are not ideally suited to be hospitalists. From a quality perspective, wouldn’t we be better off if there were more competition for hospitalist jobs? In fact, I am hearing talk from colleagues around the country that there are a few places where it is increasingly more difficult to land a hospitalist job. Seattle and Boston are two such places.

That said, one only has to look at the job ads in the preceding pages of The Hospitalist and the SHM Career Center (www.hospitalmedicine.org/careers) to see that HM jobs are still plentiful in most parts of the country. I would not worry about not being able to land a job as a hospitalist when you finish training. However, you might not be able to find a great job in the city of your choice.

If you are interested in networking, I encourage you to speak with HM physicians at your hospital and in your community. Don’t pass up the opportunity to attend a local SHM chapter meeting or a regional conference; both are great for connecting with hospitalists and hiring managers. Another option is to sign up with an SHM e-mail listserv, so you have the opportunity to participate in online discussions with hospitalists. TH

Reference

1. IRS to honor medical resident FICA refund claims. IRS Web site. Available at www.irs.gov/charities/article/ 0,,id=219548,00.html. Published March 2, 2010. Accessed April 14, 2010.