In April 2006, Massachusetts became the first state in the country to pass legislation for universal health care. In addition to covering more of the uninsured, businesses are required to provide care to their employees, along with an individual mandate for those who can afford health insurance to purchase it. As a result, the percentage of uninsured dropped from 13% in 2006 to 7% the following year but did not eliminate the uninsured population. However, with the same number of providers and an increased insured patient population, the wait times for new primary care visits ballooned to between four and ten months. One contributing factor is that there is one primary care provider for every three specialists in the state. The supply of providers did not increase, only the demand for their services. In response to this, in March 2008, legislation was introduced in the state to increase the primary care workforce. Only time will tell how effective this will be.
While other nations have made active efforts to build a primary care infrastructure, lifestyle and economic forces in the United States have dissuaded medical school graduates from selecting these specialties. No matter how noble one’s desire to enter medicine, the weight of massive debt can be overwhelming. Why choose general practice when there is another specialty that will pay you twice as much to work the same amount? As a result of these economic forces, many new physicians choose non-primary care specialties in urban areas, leading to an unequal dispersion of providers. The fall-out is that there are currently rural counties in the U.S. with zero physicians.
Where does emergency medicine fit in to this? ACEP Workforce studies in 1997 and 1999 demonstrated no change in the workforce of approximately 32,000 emergency physicians. Data for a third study is currently being reviewed to see if the workforce has kept up with the significant increase in patient volume nationwide.
What if we need to increase the overall numbers of physicians in the U.S., as many studies have suggested? Over the past quarter-century, we’ve turned to foreign doctors to fill the gaps, particularly in the primary care sector. While the U.S. has benefited from this in the short term, future market forces, including a weakening U.S. dollar, may pull these individuals back to their native countries. In the meantime, their native countries suffer as the drain of these resources depletes their respective health care capabilities. Using this workforce as part of a long-term solution makes us dependent upon others to provide the people and training. For better sustainable solutions, we must look within our own borders.
To address this, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) called for a 30% increase in medical school enrollment by 2015. In their 2006 position statement, the AAMC offered support to medical schools to help them increase their enrollment, but did not offer specifics as to how this could be accomplished. Only time will tell if this is a sufficient response, as the AAMC does not have a great record predicting physician workforce needs.
In addition to increasing the number of medical students, the number of residency slots must increase as well. Unfortunately, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 has kept fixed the number of allopathic and osteopathic residents for the past decade. Because of this, the workforce not only needs to increase to meet future demand but catch up for the past decade.
In the meantime, Baby Boomers are quickly entering the ages where health care consumption will increase. By 2030, the number of adults over the age of 65 will double to more than 70 million. With delays to receive longitudinal care, these patients will receive needed treatment later and present sicker and in greater numbers to our EDs. Not only will we be seeing more patients, but we will have more high acuity patients requiring admission, leading to increasing boarding times and periods of ambulance diversion.
How do we get Washington to accept this fact and move towards much needed reforms? Last May, SAEM invited the health care advisors for the presidential candidates to a town hall meeting. Upon questioning it became clear that they were unaware that a shortage of physicians was a major issue. “Train more doctors” isn’t as catchy a sound bite as “health care for all.” The proposed plans of both presidential candidates have promised to increase the number of insured in some fashion, increasing the amount of money in the health care system. The trade-off is likely to be increased physician accountability in terms of how this money is spent. To mitigate the increased costs, this is going to lead to an increased burden of reporting by providers to prove that quality, cost-effective care is being delivered in order to be reimbursed.
It is the responsibility of every emergency physician to review the platforms of the two candidates before voting. Will the candidate mandate health care coverage? If so, what provisions will be made to bolster the physician workforce? These details will likely have a significant impact on how we practice medicine over the next four years. The challenge is to look beneath the rhetoric to see what truly lies in store for the future of health care and the patients we serve.