Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a system for measuring the teaching effort of medical school faculty and to implement a payment system that is based on it.
DESIGN: An interventional study with outcomes measured before and after the intervention.
SETTING: A department of internal medicine with a university hospital and an affiliated Veterans Administration hospital.
INTERVENTION: We assigned a value in teaching units to each teaching activity in proportion to the time expended by the faculty and the intensity of their effort. We then calculated total teaching units for each faculty member in the Division of General Internal Medicine and for combined faculty effort in each subspecialty division in the Department of Medicine. After determining the dollar value for a teaching unit, we distributed discretionary teaching dollars to each faculty member in the Division of General Internal Medicine and to each subspecialty division according to total teaching units.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The distribution of discretionary teaching dollars was determined. In the year after the intervention, there was a substantial redistribution of discretionary teaching dollars among divisions. Compared with an increase in total discretionary dollars of 11.4%, the change in allocation for individual divisions ranged from an increase of 78.2% to a decrease of −28.5%. Further changes in the second year after the intervention were modest. The distribution of teaching units among divisions was similar to the distribution of questions across subspecialties on the American College of Physicians In-Training Examination (r=.67) and the American Board of Internal Medicine Certifying Examination (r=.88).
CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to measure the value of teaching effort by medical school faculty and to distribute discretionary teaching funds among divisions according to the value of teaching effort. When this intervention was used at our institution, there were substantial changes in the amounts received by some divisions. We believe that the new distribution more closely approximates the desired distribution because it reflects the desired emphasis on knowledge as measured by two of the most experienced professional groups in internal medicine. We also believe that our method is flexible and adaptable to the needs of most clinical teaching departments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Jolly P, Krakower J, Beran R, Williams D. US medical school finances. JAMA. 1990;264:813–20.
Jones RF, Sanderson SC. Clinical revenues used to support the academic mission of medical schools, 1992–1993. Acad Med. 1996;71:299–307.
Kassirer JP. Tribulations and rewards of academic medicine—where does teaching fit? N Engl J Med. 1996;334:184–5.
Culliton B. Health research feels the chill. Nature. 1993;366:200–2.
Campbell EG, Weissman JS, Blumenthal D. Relationship between market competition and the activities and attitudes of medical school faculty. JAMA. 1997;278:222–6.
Hilton C, Fisher W Jr, Lopez A, Sanders C. A relative-value-based system for calculating faculty productivity in teaching, research, administration, and patient care. Acad Med. 1997;72:787–93.
Allcorn S, Winship DH. Restructuring medical schools to better manage their three missions in the face of financial scarcity. Acad Med. 1996;71:846–57.
Barzansky B, Jonas HS, Etzel SI. Education programs in US medical schools, 1995–1996. JAMA. 1996;276:714–9.
Harrison DC, Hutton JJ, Hillard JR. Funding for the colleges of medicine: integrated delivery systems to the rescue. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 1995;107:238–46.
Abdelhak SS. How one academic health center is successfully facing the future. Acad Med. 1996;71:329–36.
Culbertson RA. How successfully can academic faculty practices compete in developing managed care markets? Acad Med. 1996;71:858–70.
Johnston MAC, Gifford RH. A model for distributing teaching funds to faculty. Acad Med. 1996;71:138–41.
Shea S, Nickerson KG, Tenebaum J, et al. Compensation to a department of medicine and its faculty for the teaching of medical students and housestaff. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:162–8.
Goodwin MC, Gleason WM, Kontos HA. A pilot study of the cost of educating undergraduate medical students at Virginia Commonwealth University. Acad Med. 1997;72:211–7.
Bardes CL, Hayes JG. Are the teachers teaching? Measuring the educational activities of clinical faculty. Acad Med. 1995;70:111–4.
Sostok MA, Luke RG, Rouan GW. Confronting the costs of ambulatory-care training. Acad Med. 1995;70:949–50.
Knickman JR, Lipkin M, Fickler SA, Thompson WG, Kiel J. The potential for using non-physicians to compensate for the reduced availability of residents. Acad Med. 1992;67:429–38.
Korn D, Jones RF. More on compensation for teaching. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1537. Letter.
Rein MF, Randolph WJ, Short JG, Coolidge KG, Coates ML, Carey RM. Defining the cost of educating undergraduate medical students at the University of Virginia. Acad Med. 1997;72:218–27.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rouan, G.W., Wones, R.G., Tsevat, J. et al. Rewarding teaching faculty with a reimbursement plan. J GEN INTERN MED 14, 327–332 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.00350.x
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.00350.x