Clinical Revenue Investment in Biomedical ResearchLessons From Two Academic Medical Centers
Marjorie A. Bowman, MD, MPA;
Arthur H. Rubenstein, MBBCh;
Arthur S. Levine, MD
JAMA. 2007;297:2521-2524.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
Increasing an academic health system's research productivity is an institutional challenge that requires multiple complex actions over a sustained period of time. In this Commentary, we describe how 2 academic health systems with different organizational structures used similar models of investment of clinical income in the research enterprise to enhance their success. This strategy assumes enhanced urgency in the current climate of flat National Institutes of Health (NIH) budgets. In 2006, NIH experienced its first budget cut since 1970, resulting in a 13% loss of research purchasing power since 2003, while grant applications have doubled since 1998.1
The level of NIH support remains one of the few objective benchmarks by which an academic health system can evaluate its academic and research success. Unlike reputational rankings, the NIH process is the only nationally competitive, peer-reviewed metric available. By . . . [Full Text of this Article] Institutional Comparison
Author Affiliations: University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia (Drs Bowman and Rubenstein); and University of Pittsburgh Schools of the Health Sciences, Pittsburgh, Pa (Dr Levine).
RELATED LETTER
Clinical Revenue Investment in Biomedical Research
J. Christopher Post
JAMA. 2007;298(14):1637.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Clinical Revenue Investment in Biomedical Research
Post
JAMA 2007;298:1637-1637.
FULL TEXT
How to Run a Successful Academic Practice Plan
Detsky and Baker
JAMA 2007;298:799-801.
FULL TEXT
|
