0

The full content of Annals is available to subscribers

Subscribe/Learn More  >
Position Papers |

Training in Subspecialty Internal Medicine: On the Chessboard of Health Care Reform

Association of Subspecialty Professors
[+] Article and Author Information

The principles outlined in this position paper were prepared and approved by the governing Council on 17 June 1994. Council members include N. Franklin Adkinson, Jr., MD (Allergy/Immunology); Joseph S. Alpert, MD (Cardiology); D. Lynn Loriaux, MD, PhD, and Paul W. Ladenson, MD (Endocrinology); Lawrence S. Friedman, MD (Gastroenterology); Peter A. Cassileth, MD and Russel E. Kaufman, MD (Hematology); John G. Bartlett, MD and Mark S. Klempner, MD (Infectious Disease); Eric G. Neilson, MD (Nephrology); John H. Glick, MD and Robert J. Mayer, MD (Oncology); Spencer K. Koerner, MD and Edward D. Crandall, MD (Pulmonary/Critical Care); and William P. Arend, MD (Rheumatology). Requests for Reprints: Eric G. Neilson, MD, President, Association of Subspecialty Professors, C. Mahlon Kline Professor of Medicine, 700 Clinical Research Building, University of Pennsylvania, 422 Curie Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6144.


Copyright ©2004 by the American College of Physicians


Ann Intern Med. 1994;121(10):810-813. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-121-10-199411150-00014
Text Size: A A A

Many reform-minded observers of the U.S. health care system have asked recently whether we are training too many subspecialists in internal medicine. Of course, the answer to this question may not be the same for all subspecialties or all manners of professional career, but any proposed answer has extended consequences for the entire health care system and the patients it serves. Some have even begun to advocate a firm ceiling on the numbers of subspecialty training positions in the future. Who, in fact, should be deciding such matters? These decisions are complex and not easily made by government, consumers, or insurance companies on their own, nor should they. These decisions are best made by a profession willing to examine and regulate itself where necessary. Recent legislative initiatives have made it abundantly clear that others are more than willing to act on our behalf, if we cannot. Whatever process is adopted for making such decisions, it needs to be fair, efficient, flexible, and responsive to unexpected demands in the future, including new practice economics, the availability of research funds, and medical innovation.

Figures

Tables

References

Letters

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Comments

Submit a Comment
Submit a Comment

Summary for Patients

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.

Toolkit

Buy Now

to gain full access to the content and tools.

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Advertisement
Related Articles
Journal Club
Topic Collections
PubMed Articles
[The Ulm Medical Collegium]. Sudhoffs Arch 2014;98(1):109-20.
The Future of OBGYN in 2020: A Clearer Vision - Why is Change Needed? Am J Obstet Gynecol Published online Aug 27, 2014.;
Forgot your password?
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.
(Required)
(Required)