An Exanimation of GME Funding: A Critical Look at Non-ACGME Surgical Fellowships

dc.contributor.advisorScott, Danielen
dc.contributor.committeeMemberSendelbach, Dorothyen
dc.contributor.committeeMemberPearson, Mary Janeen
dc.creatorLee, Joo Hyunen
dc.creator.orcid0000-0002-1886-2341 2020
dc.descriptionThe general metadata -- e.g., title, author, abstract, subject headings, etc. -- is publicly available, but access to the submitted files is restricted to UT Southwestern campus access and/or authorized UT Southwestern users.en
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Since 1997, the Fellowship Council (FC) has evolved into a robust organization that is responsible for the advanced training of nearly half of the U.S. residency graduates entering general surgery practice. While FC fellowships are competitive (55% match rate) and offer outstanding educational experiences, funding is arguably vulnerable as external support has diminished. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the current funding models of FC fellowships. METHODS: Under an IRB-approved protocol, an electronic survey was administered to 167 FC programs with subsequent phone interview follow-ups to collect data on total cost and sources of funding. De-identified data were also obtained via 2020-2021 Foundation for Surgical Fellowships (FSF) grant applications. Means and ranges are reported. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 59 programs (35% response rate) via the FC survey and 116 programs via FSF applications. The results from the FC and FSF data sets indicated that the average cost to train one fellow per year was USD 107,957 and USD 110,816, respectively. Similar averages were reported for the four components of cost. Programs received an average funding of USD 109,118 and USD 110,816, respectively. Most programs utilized departmental and grants funds. Additionally, 36% (FC data) to 39% (FSF data) of programs indicated that they billed for their fellow, generating USD 74,824 (range USD 15,000-USD 200,000) and USD 33,281 on average (range USD 11,500 - 66,259), respectively. 14% of programs via FC survey reported generating net positive revenue whereas 100% of programs from FSF application declared budget neutral. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicated similar findings in support of the overall accuracy of these data. Most programs seemed to rely heavily on subsidies from both internal and external sources, although some programs were able to generate a positive revenue stream. The most notable difference was the revenue amount generated from billing. Programs that generated a positive revenue often billed for fellows. Given the value of these fellowships and the inherent vulnerabilities associated with graduate medical education funding, new alternative grant funding models are encouraged. In addition, standardization of annual cost and funding reports would provide greater insights into funding models.en
dc.subjectEducation, Medical, Graduateen
dc.subjectFellowships and Scholarshipsen
dc.subjectFinancial Managementen
dc.subjectGeneral Surgeryen
dc.subjectInternship and Residencyen
dc.titleAn Exanimation of GME Funding: A Critical Look at Non-ACGME Surgical Fellowshipsen
dc.type.materialtexten Southwestern Medical Schoolen Educationen Southwestern Medical Centeren with Distinctionen