Moy E, Mazzaschi A J, Levin R J, Blake D A, Griner P F
Center for the Assessment and Management of Change in Academic Medicine, Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC 20037-1127, USA.
JAMA. 1997 Jul 16;278(3):217-21.
Medical research conducted in academic medical centers is often dependent on support from clinical revenues generated in these institutions. Anecdotal evidence suggests that managed care has the potential to affect research conducted in academic medical centers by challenging these clinical revenues.
To examine whether empirical evidence supports a relationship between managed care and the ability of US medical schools to sustain biomedical research.
Data on annual extramural research grants awarded to US medical schools by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from fiscal years 1986 to 1995 were obtained, and each medical school was matched to a market for which information about health maintenance organization (HMO) penetration in 1995 was available.
Growth in total NIH awards, traditional research project (R01) awards, R01 awards to clinical and basic science departments, and changes in institutional ranking by NIH awards were compared among schools located in markets with low, medium, and high managed care penetration.
Medical schools in all markets had comparable rates of growth in NIH awards from 1986 to 1990. Thereafter, medical schools in markets with high managed care penetration had slower growth in the dollar amounts and numbers of NIH awards compared with schools in markets with low or medium managed care penetration. This slower growth for schools in high managed care markets was associated with loss of share of NIH awards, equal to $98 million in 1995, and lower institutional ranking by NIH awards. Much of this revenue loss can be explained by the slower growth of R01 awards to clinical departments in medical schools in high managed care markets.
These findings provide evidence of an inverse relationship between growth in NIH awards during the past decade and managed care penetration among US medical schools. Whether this association is causal remains to be determined.
在学术医疗中心进行的医学研究通常依赖于这些机构产生的临床收入的支持。轶事证据表明,管理式医疗有可能通过挑战这些临床收入来影响学术医疗中心进行的研究。
研究实证证据是否支持管理式医疗与美国医学院维持生物医学研究能力之间的关系。
获取了1986财年至1995财年美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)授予美国医学院的年度校外研究资助数据,并且将每所医学院与一个在1995年有健康维护组织(HMO)渗透率信息的市场进行匹配。
比较了位于管理式医疗渗透率低、中、高的市场中的学校在NIH总奖励、传统研究项目(R01)奖励、临床和基础科学部门的R01奖励方面的增长情况,以及NIH奖励导致的机构排名变化。
1986年至1990年,所有市场中的医学院在NIH奖励方面的增长率相当。此后,与管理式医疗渗透率低或中等的市场中的学校相比,管理式医疗渗透率高的市场中的医学院在NIH奖励的金额和数量方面增长较慢。管理式医疗渗透率高的市场中的学校增长较慢与NIH奖励份额的损失有关,1995年损失达9800万美元,并且NIH奖励导致的机构排名较低。这种收入损失的很大一部分可以通过管理式医疗渗透率高的市场中的医学院临床部门R01奖励增长较慢来解释。
这些发现提供了过去十年间NIH奖励增长与美国医学院管理式医疗渗透率之间呈负相关的证据。这种关联是否具有因果关系仍有待确定。