Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Brief ReportPolicy Brief

Sponsoring Institutions with Five or Fewer Residency Programs Produce a Larger Proportion of General Internists and Family Physicians

Sarah Hemeida, Kathleen Klink, Andrew Bazemore, Stephen Petterson and Lars Peterson
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine May 2016, 29 (3) 301-302; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2016.03.150108
Sarah Hemeida
From the Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado, Denver (SH); the Robert Graham Center, Washington, DC (KK, AB, SP); and American Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, KY (LP).
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kathleen Klink
From the Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado, Denver (SH); the Robert Graham Center, Washington, DC (KK, AB, SP); and American Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, KY (LP).
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew Bazemore
From the Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado, Denver (SH); the Robert Graham Center, Washington, DC (KK, AB, SP); and American Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, KY (LP).
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephen Petterson
From the Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado, Denver (SH); the Robert Graham Center, Washington, DC (KK, AB, SP); and American Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, KY (LP).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lars Peterson
From the Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado, Denver (SH); the Robert Graham Center, Washington, DC (KK, AB, SP); and American Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, KY (LP).
MD, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site

Abstract

Policymakers are increasingly interested in addressing the US primary care physician shortage and achieving measurable accountability for the products of the nation's $15 billion investment in graduate medical education (GME). Using one such measure, we found that sponsoring institutions (SIs) with ≤5 residency programs produce a higher percentage of general internists and family physicians than larger SIs.

  • Family Practice
  • Health Policy
  • Primary Health Care

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 restricted Centers for Medicare and Medicaid–funded positions for existing SIs, known as “the cap.”1 Despite federal cost containment, the number of positions has expanded,2 favoring subspecialty expansion at a significantly higher rate than primary care.3

Since smaller SIs provide limited exposure to specialty medicine and a potentially wider scope of practice during residency training, we hypothesized that they might also produce more primary care physicians. Practicing general internists and family physicians were matched with the size of the SI where they trained, and the SIs were grouped by the number of residencies they sponsor.4 Physicians were identified through the American Medical Association Masterfile and its GME historic supplement. We included those who completed a residency between 2006 and 2008 and determined whether they practiced primary care in 2014, intentionally allowing time for graduates who pursued fellowships to complete subspecialty training.

SIs with ≤5 residencies produce nearly 40% the national primary care workforce. While small SIs vastly outnumber larger institutions, only 14% of all residents graduated from small SIs. Thus the key finding is that a significantly higher percentage of internal medicine (IM) graduates will remain working in primary care if they trained at a small SI. Over 56% of IM graduates from small SIs (1–5 residencies) pursue generalist careers compared with graduates from large SIs (with ≥41 residencies), where only 28% practice primary care (P < .01). Figure 1.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Residents eventually practicing in primary care by number of training specialties within a sponsoring institution.

This simple association reminds us that the majority of our primary care workforce comes not from the more traditional behemoths of GME, but smaller, often community-based hospital training sites, and that these sites produce disproportionate numbers of general internists, whose numbers are steeply declining nationally. It is understood that residents who plan to subspecialize often intentionally attend large SIs where they will benefit from exposure to the fellowship of their choice. These same large institutions often provide primary care training tracks. Despite this, small SIs continue to produce a larger percentage of IM graduates who practice primary care. The majority of GME funding goes to large SIs, yet they yield the smallest numbers of family physicians and an even smaller number of general internists. It is crucial to understand the influences that may encourage undecided IM residents to remain in primary care. Secure and sufficient funding for small SIs is a key opportunity to increase the national primary care workforce.

Notes

  • This article was externally peer reviewed.

  • Funding: none.

  • Conflict of interest: LP is affiliated with the American Board of Family Medicine.

  • Received for publication March 27, 2015.
  • Revision received February 29, 2016.
  • Accepted for publication March 8, 2016.

References

  1. 1.
    Balanced Budget Act of 1997, HR 2015, 105th Cong, 1st Sess (1997), §4623.
  2. 2.
    Council on Graduate Medical Education. Council on Graduate Medical Education twentieth report. Advancing primary care. Rockville, MD: Health Resources and Services Administration; 2010. Available from: http://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/bhpradvisory/cogme/reports/twentiethreport.pdf. Accessed March 22, 2016.
  3. 3.
    1. Salsberg E,
    2. Rockey PH,
    3. Rivers KL,
    4. Brotherton S,
    5. Jackson G
    . US residency training before and after the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. JAMA 2008;300:1174–80.
  4. 4.
    1. Chen C,
    2. Petterson S,
    3. Phillips RL,
    4. Mullan F,
    5. Bazemore A,
    6. O'Donnell SD
    . Toward graduate medical education (GME) accountability: measuring the outcomes of GME institutions. Acad Med 2013;88:1267–80.

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire