PURPOSE: To examine graduating medical students' perceptions of the adequacy of instruction in managed care and in 11 curricular content areas identified by experts as a necessary part of managed care education. This study sought to determine whether medical students perceived these content areas as relevant to managed care and to evaluate the extent to which students' perceptions of the adequacy of instruction varied as a function of managed care penetration in the locations of their respective medical schools. METHOD: Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges' 1999 Medical School Graduation Questionnaire (GQ) were analyzed. Students' ratings of adequacy of instruction were summarized. Correlations between ratings of instruction in managed care and 11 related content areas were calculated, as well as correlations between managed care penetration in the locations of the students' schools and the proportion of students rating instruction as inadequate. RESULTS: A majority of 1999 medical school graduates (60%) rated instruction in managed care as inadequate; other content areas to which majorities of graduates gave inadequate ratings were practice management (72%), quality assurance (57%), medical care cost control (57%), and cost-effective medical practice (56%). Ratings in these four content areas were highly correlated with ratings of instruction in managed care. The correlation between managed care penetration and rating of instruction in managed care was statistically significant (r = -.37); correlations between managed care penetration and instruction in the other content areas were not. CONCLUSIONS: On the 1999 GQ, a majority of medical students responded that they felt they had not received adequate instruction in managed care. Further, the responses suggest that these medical students defined managed care in terms of managing costs, rather than managing health care, or developing population-based approaches to the delivery of health care.
PURPOSE: To examine graduating medical students' perceptions of the adequacy of instruction in managed care and in 11 curricular content areas identified by experts as a necessary part of managed care education. This study sought to determine whether medical students perceived these content areas as relevant to managed care and to evaluate the extent to which students' perceptions of the adequacy of instruction varied as a function of managed care penetration in the locations of their respective medical schools. METHOD: Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges' 1999 Medical School Graduation Questionnaire (GQ) were analyzed. Students' ratings of adequacy of instruction were summarized. Correlations between ratings of instruction in managed care and 11 related content areas were calculated, as well as correlations between managed care penetration in the locations of the students' schools and the proportion of students rating instruction as inadequate. RESULTS: A majority of 1999 medical school graduates (60%) rated instruction in managed care as inadequate; other content areas to which majorities of graduates gave inadequate ratings were practice management (72%), quality assurance (57%), medical care cost control (57%), and cost-effective medical practice (56%). Ratings in these four content areas were highly correlated with ratings of instruction in managed care. The correlation between managed care penetration and rating of instruction in managed care was statistically significant (r = -.37); correlations between managed care penetration and instruction in the other content areas were not. CONCLUSIONS: On the 1999 GQ, a majority of medical students responded that they felt they had not received adequate instruction in managed care. Further, the responses suggest that these medical students defined managed care in terms of managing costs, rather than managing health care, or developing population-based approaches to the delivery of health care.
Authors: Kristin M Huntoon; Colin J McCluney; Christopher A Scannell; Elizabeth A Wiley; Richard Bruno; Allen Andrews; Paul Gorman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-09-13 Impact factor: 3.240