ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT: To better understand the amount of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding received by U.S. medical schools with Liaison Committee on Medical Education-accredited medical education programs, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) developed a new methodology that crosswalks faculty NIH grants with medical schools and their affiliated organizations (e.g., teaching hospitals). This approach offers a more comprehensive and methodologically transparent accounting of NIH extramural funding to academic medicine than existing processes.The AAMC Crosswalk utilized publicly available grants data from the NIH and resources unique to the AAMC, such as the Faculty Roster and Council of Teaching Hospitals and Health Systems records. Using a multi-step algorithm, the AAMC Crosswalk linked individual faculty with NIH grants, their organizations, and partner medical schools, aggregated at the level of the medical school and its affiliated organizations for fiscal year (FY) 2017-2021.The AAMC Crosswalk attributed on average $3.7 billion more per year in NIH funding to U.S. medical schools, representing a 24% increase compared to the NIH and Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research (BRIMR) methodologies. In FY 2021, the AAMC Crosswalk attributed 60% of NIH funding to U.S. medical schools compared with 47% by NIH and 50% by BRIMR. An exploration of limitations showed no medical school affiliations were missed by the AAMC Crosswalk among 90 randomly sampled organizations, and medical school affiliations for 30 randomly sampled principal investigator faculty members were attributed correctly.These findings indicate that academic medicine's contribution to biomedical research may be greater than historically reported. Systematically accounting for grants awarded to faculty across medical schools and their affiliated organizations provides a more comprehensive understanding of NIH funding to U.S. medical schools. The AAMC Crosswalk provides a new tool to better estimate the true investment and role of academic medicine in advancing biomedical research.
ABSTRACT
In 2022, the Association of American Medical Colleges published data from its annual Dean's Office Staff Compensation and Dean's Compensation Surveys in a new report addressing salary equity among medical school leadership. These data, disaggregated by gender and race/ethnicity, represent earnings of the senior most leaders in the dean suite and have historically been shared only with medical school Deans and principal business officers. The report shows that the highest-ranking decanal positions in U.S. medical schools are filled along the lines of traditional gender stereotypes (with men in clinical affairs and research affairs deanships and women in admissions, diversity affairs, faculty affairs, and student affairs deanships) and that the roles held mostly by men carry grander titles (e.g., senior associate dean vs assistant dean) and significantly higher salaries than those typically held by women. Additionally, within the same decanal positions, women earn lower median compensation than men. In this commentary, the authors describe limited advancement and lower compensation as foregone conclusions for women in medicine and science due to a professional model that places a premium on activities traditionally pursued by men. They define and characterize the impact of this occupational gender segregation in the dean suite and offer a roadmap for an alternative value system that recognizes complementary leadership activities across the mission areas of academic medicine and ensures that the contributions of women in the profession are appropriately recognized, valued, and rewarded.
