Are Time-Limited Grants Likely to Stimulate Sustained Growth in Primary Care Residency Training? A Study of the Primary Care Residency Expansion Program

Purpose To examine the perceived likelihood of sustaining new residency positions funded by five-year (2010-2015) Primary Care Residency Expansion (PCRE) grants from the Health Resources and Services Administration, which aimed to increase training output to address primary care workforce issues. Method During September-December 2013, the authors administered an online or telephone survey to program directors whose residency programs received PCRE grants. The main outcome measure was perceived likelihood of sustaining the expanded residency positions beyond the expiration of the grant, in the outlying years of 2016 and 2017 (when the positions will be partially supported) and after 2017 (when the positions will be unsupported). Results Of 78 eligible program directors, 62 responded (response rate = 79.5%). Twenty-eight (45.1%; 95% CI 32.9%-57.9%) reported that their programs were unlikely to, very unlikely to, or not planning to continue the expanded positions after the PCRE grant expires. Overall, 14 (22.5%) reported having secured full funding to support the expanded positions beyond 2017. Family medicine and pediatrics program directors were significantly less likely than internal medicine program directors to report having secured funding for the outlying years (P = .02). Conclusions This study suggests that an approach to primary care residency training expansion that relies on time-limited grants is unlikely to produce sustainable growth of the primary care pipeline. Policy makers should instead implement systemic reform of graduate medical education (GME) financing and designate reliable sources of funding, such as Medicare and Medicaid GME funds, for new primary care residency positions.