Residency training in physiatry during a time of change: funding of graduate medical education and other issues.

Abstract

Decision makers at the federal and state level are considering, and some states have enacted, a reduction in total United States residency positions, a shift in emphasis from specialist to generalist training, a need for programs to join together in training consortia to determine local residency position allocation strategy, a reduction in funding of international medical graduates, and a reduction in funding beyond the first certificate or a total of five years. A 5-page, 24-item questionnaire was sent to all physiatry residency training directors. The objective was to discern a descriptive database of physiatry training programs and how their institutions might respond to cuts in graduate medical education funding. Fifty-eight (73%) of the questionnaires were returned. Most training directors believe that their primary mission is to train general physiatrists and, to a much lesser extent, to train subspecialty or research fellows. Directors were asked how they might handle reductions in house staff such as using physician extenders, shifting clinical workload to faculty, hiring additional faculty, and funding physiatry residents from practice plans and endowments. Physiatry has had little experience (29%; 17/58) with voluntary graduate medical education consortiums, but most (67%; 34/58) seem to feel that if a consortium system is mandated, they would favor a local or regional over a national body because they do not believe the specialty has a strong enough national stature. The major barriers to a consortium for graduate medical education allocation were governance, academic, fiscal, bureaucratic, and competition.