New Opportunities for Expanding Rural Graduate Medical Education to Improve Rural Health Outcomes: Implications of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021.

Evidence shows that those living in rural communities experience consistently worse health outcomes than their urban and suburban counterparts. One proven strategy to address this disparity is to increase the physician supply in rural areas through graduate medical education (GME) training. However, rural hospitals have faced challenges developing training programs in these underserved areas, largely due to inadequate federal funding for rural GME. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (CAA) contains multiple provisions that seek to address disparities in Medicare funding for rural GME, including funding for an increase in rural GME positions or "slots" (Section 126), expansion of rural training opportunities (Section 127), and relief for hospitals that have very low resident payments and/or caps (Section 131). In this Invited Commentary, the authors describe historical factors that have impeded the growth of training programs in rural areas, summarize the implications of each CAA provision for rural GME, and provide guidance for institutions seeking to avail themselves of the opportunities presented by the CAA. These policy changes create new opportunities for rural hospitals and partnering urban medical centers to bolster rural GME training, and consequently the physician workforce in underserved communities.

Cancer prevention services and physician consensus in primary care group practices.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a randomized clinical trial of interventions to achieve physician consensus, practice changes, and patient activation designed to help primary care group practices enhance the delivery of cancer prevention and screening services. METHODS: In each of 42 primary care practices in 1991 to 1994, we studied approximately 60 patients per physician who were between the ages 53 and 64. Data sources included patient and physician questionnaires, medical record audits of consenting patients for evidence of 11 cancer prevention services during the previous 3 years, and telephone interviews with key practice personnel. RESULTS: None of the interventions was associated with significant changes in frequency of services or procedures received or provided. Increased frequencies of services overall and of specific activities were associated with HMO membership or insurance coverage for six screening procedures. Patient reports of clinic staff recommendations to have each of six screening procedures were specifically associated with higher frequencies of services (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Demonstration of intervention impact may have been limited because the rates of prevention services were significantly higher in this study than have been reported elsewhere. These results might be explained by selection biases inherent in studying patients with a regular provider, overall practice trends for changes in provision of the studied services, and the study methods.