HISTORY: Medical Education and Practice in the USA

Domestic Medical SCHOOL Education

Robert James Cimasi

Todd A. Zigrang

Health Capital Consultants - Healthcare Valuation

U.S. medical education began in the late eighteenth century as an apprenticeship program in which physicians taught their trade to a few pupils, a pedagogical learning style which relied heavily upon the capacity, skills, and knowledge of the individual physician.[1] However, as learning newly discovered information and utilizing new technologies became more necessary to the industry’s practice, many physicians found the apprenticeship system no longer adequate as a manner of educating the next generation of physicians.[2] As a result, the conventional concept of medical education that originated in the U.S. in the 1750s was manifested through informal courses and demonstrations by private individuals or for-profit institutions. Those individuals who were not satisfied with a typical U.S. medical education, consisting of two identical 16-week lecture terms, might venture to Europe for a more formalized and detailed manner of learning.[3]

One of these students who studied in Europe was William Shippen, who began teaching an informal course on midwifery when he returned to the American colonies in 1762.[4] He later addressed the limitations of what might be taught in one informal course when he began teaching a lecture series on anatomy to help educate those who wished to be a physician, but could not travel abroad. John Morgan, a classmate of Shippen, noticed the potential of his friend’s endeavor and proposed the idea to create a professorship for the practice of medicine to the board of trustees of the College of Philadelphia.[5] Just across town, Thomas Bond, who conceived the idea of, and successfully established, the Pennsylvania Hospital with Benjamin Franklin, recognized the value to allowing medical students to participate in bedside training.[6] When Bond agreed to a partnership with the College of Philadelphia, the University of Pennsylvania became home to America’s first medical school.[7]

In 1893, Johns Hopkins University also made history by housing the first medical school that was able to operate out of a university-owned hospital.[8] The medical school not only encouraged clinical research to be performed by every member of their faculty, but the program also included a clinical research clerkship for every student during their rotation.[9] This program quickly became the model to which schools aspired and set the foundation for national medical education by connecting science and medical research with clinical medicine.[10]

With these early examples of medical schools, America’s field of medical education and clinical medicine made monumental strides. However, the societal pressures, caused by the U.S.’s population growth and demand for educated physicians,[11] did not allow many other universities to build on Johns Hopkins’ or the University of Pennsylvania’s foundation model, and led to the development of medical schools that had their own unique set of entrance and graduation requirements. While some focused entirely on medicine, other schools (termed Studia Generalia) also incorporated law, theology, and philosophy in their curricula.[12] In an attempt to both understand and make uniform the field of medical education, the American Medical Association (AMA) founded the Council on Medical Education (CME) in 1904.[13] The CME created minimum national educational standards for training physicians, and subsequently found that many schools did not meet these established standards.[14] However, the CME did not share the ratings of any of these medical schools “outside the medical fraternity.”[15]

In 1910, the AMA commissioned the Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching to conduct a study of medical education and schools.[16] Abraham Flexner conducted the inquiry and detailed his findings in what became known as The Flexner Report.[17] In his review of the U.S. medical education system, Flexner found that many of the proprietary medical schools met the AMA’s educational goals, but an imbalance existed between the pursuit of science and medical education.[18]  Professors were focused solely on student throughput, and did not ensure a high level of medical training that reflected the developments in the medical industry.[19] As aptly noted by Dr. John Roberts in his book entitled The Doctor’s Duty to the State, “[m]any of you remember the struggle to wrest from medical teachers the power to create medical practitioners with almost no real knowledge of medicine. The medical schools of that day were, in many instances, conducted merely as money-makers for the professors.”[20] As the AMA gained more influence over the provision of healthcare in the U.S., the value and power of medical education also gained recognition. Notably, teaching hospitals had the power to influence the development of their disciplines through their research initiatives, the quality of care they provided, and their ability to operate as an economy of scale, allowing them to dictate the evolution of medical education.[21]

Since the establishment of the first medical school in the U.S., medical education has been the foundation for shaping standards of care in the practice of medicine and defining medical errors as deviations from the norms of clinical care.[22] When Thomas Bond helped establish the University of Pennsylvania medical school, he envisioned a normal day where the physician:

…meets his pupils at stated times in the Hospital, and when a case presents adapted to his purpose, he asks all those Questions which lead to a certain knowledge of the Disease and parts affected; and if the Disease baffles the power of Art and the Patient falls a Sacrifice to it, he then brings his Knowledge to the Test, and fixes Honour [sic] or discredit on his Reputation by exposing all the Morbid parts to View, and Demonstrates by what means it produced Death, and if perchance he finds something unexpected, which Betrays an Error in Judgement [sic], he like a great and good man immediately acknowledges the mistake, and, for the benefit of survivors, points out other methods by which it might have been more happily treated.[23]

Originally, students were to study and learn from medical errors and adverse events through medical education as a means of improving the quality of care. However, it is difficult to effectively implement any significant advancement learned through the research and investigation of prior errors in a timely and cost-effective manner. Additionally, physician supply shortages have only increased the amount of patients that a physician must see daily, while simultaneously decreasing the amount of time they can spend with each patient. Although medical education continues to be one of the central underpinnings to the development of the medical industry, outside pressures that shape the clinical practice of physicians continue to limit physician effectiveness in providing quality care to patients.[24]

While improving the quality and rigor of medical education has been a constant focus throughout the history of U.S. medical education, the challenges of replicating it on a scale that produces enough qualified physicians to meet the growing demands of the U.S. population, with constantly changing technologies, has consistently been a central issue. Notably, in the 13 years preceding 1980, the ratio of actively practicing physicians to patients increased by 50%.[25] This increased physician-to-patient ratio led to concerns over quality of care and cost-effectiveness, which in turn caused the creation of a government committee to evaluate physician manpower allocation and distribution. The Graduate Medical Education National Advisory Committee (GMENAC) was first chartered in April 1976, and later extended through September 1980.[26] Its purpose was to “analyze the distribution among specialties of physicians and medical students and to evaluate alternative approaches to ensure an appropriate balance,”as well as to“encourage bodies controlling the number, types, and geographic location of graduate training positions to provide leadership in achieving the recommended balance.”[27] GMENAC produced seven volumes of recommendations regarding physician manpower supply,[28]  through the development of several models by which to determine the projected number of physicians that would be needed in the future by different subspecialties to achieve “a better balance of physicians.”[29] Ignoring critics of the report, U.S. medical schools adjusted their enrollment numbers in response to the GMENAC’s recommendations, causing a significant decrease in the supply of new physicians going into the 21st century.

***

History of Conventional Medicine - 24 Hour Translation ...

[1]       “Healthcare Valuation: The Four Pillars of Healthcare Value,” Volume 1, Robert James Cimasi, MHA, ASA, FRRICS, MCBA, CVA, CM&AA, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ: 2014, p. 22-23.RR

[2]       “Before There Was Flexner,” American Medical Student Association, 2014,

         http://www.amsa.org/AMSA/Homepage/MemberCenter/Premeds/edRx/Before.aspx (Accessed 1/7/15).

[3]       “Time to Heal: American Medical Education from the Turn of the Century to the Era of Managed Care,” By Kenneth M. Ludmerer, New York, NY:

          Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 4.

[4]       “The Flexner Report on Medical Education in the United States and Canada in 1910,” By Abraham Flexner, Bethesda, MD: Science and Health

         Publications, Inc., p. 3-5.

[5]       “The Flexner Report on Medical Education in the United States and Canada in 1910,” By Abraham Flexner, Bethesda, MD: Science and Health

         Publications, Inc., p. 3-5.

[6]       “The Flexner Report on Medical Education in the United States and Canada in 1910,” By Abraham Flexner, Bethesda, MD: Science and Health

         Publications, Inc., p. 3-5.

[7]       “Before There Was Flexner,” American Medical Student Association, 2014,

         http://www.amsa.org/AMSA/Homepage/MemberCenter/Premeds/edRx/Before.aspx (Accessed 1/7/15).

[8]       “Time to Heal: American Medical Education from the Turn of the Century to the Era of Managed Care,” By Kenneth M. Ludmerer, New York, NY:

          Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 18-19.

[9]       “Time to Heal: American Medical Education from the Turn of the Century to the Era of Managed Care,” By Kenneth M. Ludmerer, New York, NY:

          Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 18-19.

[10]     “Science and Social Work:  A Critical Appraisal,” By Stuart A. Kirk, and William James Reid, New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2002, Chapter 1, p. 2-3.

[11]     “The Flexner Report on Medical Education in the United States and Canada in 1910,” By Abraham Flexner, Bethesda, MD: Science and Health

          Publications, Inc., p. 6-7.

[12]     “Western Medicine: An Illustrated History,” By Irvine Loudon, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 58.

[13]     “Western Medicine: An Illustrated History,” By Irvine Loudon, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 58.

[14]     “Western Medicine: An Illustrated History,” By Irvine Loudon, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 58.

[15]     “Western Medicine: An Illustrated History,” By Irvine Loudon, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 58.

[16]     “U.S. Health Policy and Politics: A Documentary History,” By Kevin Hillstrom, Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press, 2012, p. 141.

[17]     “The Flexner Report on Medical Education in the United States and Canada in 1910,” By Abraham Flexner, Bethesda, MD: Science and Health

         Publications, Inc., p. 3-19.

[18]     “The Flexner Report on Medical Education in the United States and Canada in 1910,” By Abraham Flexner, Bethesda, MD: Science and Health

         Publications, Inc., p. 3-19.

[19]     “The Flexner Report on Medical Education in the United States and Canada in 1910,” By Abraham Flexner, Bethesda, MD: Science and Health

         Publications, Inc., p. 3-19.

[20]     “The Doctor’s Duty to the State: Essays on The Public Relations of Physicians,” By John B. Roberts, AM, MD, Chicago, IL: American Medical Association Press, 1908, p. 23.

[21]     “Time to Heal: American Medical Education from the Turn of the Century to the Era of Managed Care,” By Kenneth M. Ludmerer, New York, NY:

          Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 19.

[22]     “Science and Social Work:  A Critical Appraisal,” By Stuart A. Kirk, and William James Reid, New York: Columbia University Press, 2002, Chapter 1, p. 2-3.

[23]     “Dr. Thomas Bond’s Essay on the Utility of Clinical Lectures,” By Carl Bridenbaugh, Journal of the History of Medicine (Winter 1947), p. 14; “The Flexner Report on Medical Education in the United States and Canada in 1910,” By Abraham Flexner, Bethesda, MD: Science and Health

         Publications, Inc., p. 4.

[24]     “Time to Heal: American Medical Education from the Turn of the Century to the Era of Managed Care,” By Kenneth M. Ludmerer, New York, NY:

          Oxford University Press, 1999, p. xxi.

[25]     “How many doctors are enough?” By J.E. Harris, Health Affairs, Vol. 5, No. 4 (1986), p.74.

[26]   “Report of the Graduate Medical Education National Advisory Committee to the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services – Volume VII,” Graduate Medical Education National Advisory Committee, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981, p. 5, 16.

[27]     “Report of the Graduate Medical Education National Advisory Committee to the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services – Volume VII,” Graduate Medical Education National Advisory Committee, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981, p. 73.

[28]     “Report of the Graduate Medical Education National Advisory Committee to the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services – Volume VII,” Graduate Medical Education National Advisory Committee, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981, p. 5-6.

[29]     “GMENAC: Its Manpower Forecasting Framework,” By D.R. McNutt, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 71, No. 10 (October 1981), p. 1119.

[30]     “Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century,” Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, 2001, front matter.

[31]     “Overview of Medical Errors and Adverse Events,” By Maité Garrouste-Orgeas, et al., Annals of Intensive Care, Vol. 2, No. 2 (2012), p. 6.

Your thoughts are appreciated.

Risk Management, Liability Insurance, and Asset Protection Strategies for Doctors and Advisors: Best Practices from Leading Consultants and Certified Medical Planners™

ORDER TEXTBOOK: https://www.routledge.com/Risk-Management-Liability-Insurance-and-Asset-Protection-Strategies-for/Marcinko-Hetico/p/book/9781498725989

THANK YOU

***

DAILY UPDATE: FQHCs Down and Healthcare Bankruptcies Up as the Markets Extend Gains

MEDICAL EXECUTIVE-POST TODAY’S NEWSLETTER BRIEFING

***

Essays, Opinions and Curated News in Health Economics, Investing, Business, Management and Financial Planning for Physician Entrepreneurs and their Savvy Advisors and Consultants

Serving Almost One Million Doctors, Financial Advisors and Medical Management Consultants Daily

A Partner of the Institute of Medical Business Advisors , Inc.

http://www.MedicalBusinessAdvisors.com

SPONSORED BY: Marcinko & Associates, Inc.

***

http://www.MarcinkoAssociates.com

Daily Update Provided By Staff Reporters Since 2007.
How May We Serve You?
© Copyright Institute of Medical Business Advisors, Inc. All rights reserved. 2024

REFER A COLLEAGUE: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com

SPONSORSHIPS AVAILABLE: https://medicalexecutivepost.com/sponsors/

ADVERTISE ON THE ME-P: https://tinyurl.com/ytb5955z

***

Low-income communities often struggle to access healthcare services, but a new analysis of federally qualified health centers (FQHCs)—which provide quality care to patients regardless of ability to pay—has helped nail down one reason. When it comes to screening for certain cancers, these nonprofit community health centers have fallen far behind the national average, according to a study led by cancer center researchers at the University of Texas MD Anderson and the University of New Mexico.

CITE: https://www.r2library.com/Resource

Healthcare bankruptcies surged in 2023, and it turns out many of the companies that went under had one thing in common: private equity (PE) ownership. At least 21% of the 80 healthcare companies that filed for bankruptcy last year were PE-owned, according to a report from the nonprofit Private Equity Stakeholder Project (PESP).

CITE: https://tinyurl.com/2h47urt5

Warren Buffett on contemplated his own mortality at Berkshire’s meeting. Succession was the topic du jour at the Berkshire Hathaway shareholder meeting in Omaha last week. After his longtime business partner Charlie Munger died last year at 99, CEO Warren Buffett—who turns 94 in August—revealed his heir apparent, Greg Abel, will have the final say on investment decisions in his absence. Buffett ended his Q&A portion with the quip, “I not only hope you come next year. I hope I come next year.” Adding to the ominous vibes, Buffett said AI is a genie that “scares the hell out of me.”

CITE: https://tinyurl.com/tj8smmes

Here’s where the major benchmarks ended:

  • The S&P 500 index climbed 52.95 points (1.0%) to 5,180.74; the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 176.59 points (0.5%) to 38,852.27; the NASDAQ Composite advanced 192.92 points (1.2%) to 16,349.25.
  • The 10-year Treasury note yield (TNX) fell about 1 basis  point to 4.491%.
  • The CBOE Volatility Index® (VIX) was little changed at 13.48.

Semiconductors were among the strongest performers Monday behind Micron Technology (MU), whose shares rallied 4.7% after Robert W. Baird upgraded the chipmaker to “outperform” from “neutral.” Micron Technology was the top gainer in the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index (SOX), which advanced 2.2% to near a four-week high.

Small-cap stocks also got out of the gate strong this week. The Russell 2000® Index (RUT) gained 1.2% to end at a four-week high but is still up just 1.7% for the year, while the S&P 500 has gained 8.6%.

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE: MarcinkoAdvisors@msns.com

Thank You

***

***

***

***

EDUCATIONAL TEXTBOOKS: https://tinyurl.com/4zdxuuwf

***

FINANCIAL AND HEALTH ECONOMICS BENCH MARKING

Understanding the operational and financial status of your organization or practice

[By Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™]

SPONSOR: http://www.MarcinkoAssociates.com

Dr. DEMFinancial benchmarking can assist healthcare managers and professional financial advisors in understanding the operational and financial status of their organization or practice.

The general process of financial benchmarking analysis may include three elements: (1) Historical subject benchmarking; (2) Benchmarking to industry norms; and, (3) Financial ratio analysis.

History

Historical subject benchmarking compares a healthcare organization’s most recent performance with its reported performance in the past in order to: examine performance over time; identify changes in performance within the organization (e.g., extraordinary and non-recurring events); and, to predict future performance.

As a form of internal benchmarking, historical subject benchmarking avoids issues such as: differences in data collection and use of measurement tools; and, benchmarking metrics that often cause problems in comparing two different organizations.

However, it is necessary to common size data in order to account for company differences over time that may skew results.

Benchmarking

Benchmarking to industry norms, analogous to Fong and colleagues’ concept of industry benchmarking,   involves comparing internal company-specific data to survey data from other organizations within the same industry. This method of benchmarking provides the basis for comparing the subject entity to similar entities, with the purpose of identifying its relative strengths, weaknesses, and related measures of risk.

***

Residents

***

Financial Ratio Analysis

The process of benchmarking against industry averages or norms will typically involve the following steps:

  1. Identification and selection of appropriate surveys to use as a benchmark, i.e., to compare with data from the organization of interest. This involves answering the question, “In which survey would this organization most likely be included?”;
  2. If appropriate, re-categorization and adjustment of the organization’s revenue and expense accounts to optimize data compatibility with the selected survey’s structure and definitions (e.g., common sizing); and,
  3. Calculation and articulation of observed differences of organization from the industry averages and norms, expressed either in terms of variance in ratio, dollar unit amounts, or percentages of variation.

Trends

Financial ratio analysis typically involves the calculation of ratios that are financial and operational measures representative of the financial status of an enterprise.  These ratios are evaluated in terms of their relative comparison to generally established industry norms, which may be expressed as positive or negative trends for that industry sector. The ratios selected may function as several different measures of operating performance or financial condition of the subject entity.

The Selected Ratios

Common types of financial indicators that are measured by ratio analysis include:

  1. Liquidity. Liquidity ratios measure the ability of an organization to meet cash obligations as they become due, i.e., to support operational goals. Ratios above the industry mean generally indicate that the organization is in an advantageous position to better support immediate goals. The current ratio, which quantifies the relationship between assets and liabilities, is an indicator of an organization’s ability to meet short-term obligations. Managers use this measure to determine how quickly assets are converted into cash.
  2. Activity. Activity ratios, also called efficiency ratios, indicate how efficiently the organization utilizes its resources or assets, including cash, accounts receivable, salaries, inventory, property, plant, and equipment. Lower ratios may indicate an inefficient use of those assets.
  3. Leverage. Leverage ratios, measured as the ratio of long-term debt to net fixed assets, are used to illustrate the proportion of funds, or capital, provided by shareholders (owners) and creditors to aid analysts in assessing the appropriateness of an organization’s current level of debt. When this ratio falls equal to or below the industry norm, the organization is typically not considered to be at significant risk.
  4. Profitability. Indicates the overall net effect of managerial efficiency of the enterprise. To determine the profitability of the enterprise for benchmarking purposes, the analyst should first review and make adjustments to the owner(s) compensation, if appropriate. Adjustments for the market value of the “replacement cost” of the professional services provided by the owner are particularly important in the valuation of professional medical practices for the purpose of arriving at an ”economic level” of profit.

Data Homogeneity

The selection of financial ratios for analysis and comparison to the organization’s performance requires careful attention to the homogeneity of data. Benchmarking of intra-organizational data (i.e., internal benchmarking) typically proves to be less variable across several different measurement periods.

However, the use of data from external facilities for comparison may introduce variation in measurement methodology and procedure. In the latter case, use of a standard chart of accounts for the organization or recasting the organization’s data to a standard format can effectively facilitate an appropriate comparison of the organization’s operating performance and financial status data to survey results.

***Financial Planning MDs 2015

BOOK: Comprehensive Financial Planning Strategies for Doctors and Advisors: Best Practices from Leading Consultants and Certified Medical Planners™

***

Operational Performance Benchmarking

Operational benchmarking is used to target non-central work or business processes for improvement.  It is conceptually similar to both process and performance benchmarking, but is generally classified by the application of the results, as opposed to what is being compared.  Operational benchmarking studies tend to be smaller in scope than other types of benchmarking, but, like many other types of benchmarking, are limited by the degree to which the definitions and performance measures used by comparing entities differ.  Common sizing is a technique used to reduce the variations in measures caused by differences (e.g., definition issues) between the organizations or processes being compared.

Common Sizing

Common sizing is a technique used to alter financial operating data prior to certain types of benchmarking analysis and may be useful for any type of benchmarking that requires the comparison of entities that differ on some level (e.g., scope of respective benchmarking measurements, definitions, business processes).  This is done by expressing the data for differing entities in relative (i.e., comparable) terms.

Example:

For example, common sizing is often used to compare financial statements of the same company over different periods of time (e.g., historical subject benchmarking), or of several companies of differing sizes (e.g., benchmarking to industry norms). The latter type may be used for benchmarking an organization to another in its industry, to industry averages, or to the best performing agency in its industry.  Some examples of common size measures utilized in healthcare include:

  1. Percent of revenue or per unit produced, e.g., relative value unit (RVU);
  2. Per provider, e.g., physician;
  3. Per capacity measurement, e.g., per square foot; or,
  4. Other standard units of comparison.

Assessment

As with any data, differences in how data is collected, stored, and analyzed over time or between different organizations may complicate the use of it at a later time.  Accordingly, appropriate adjustments must be made to account for such differences and provide an accurate and reliable dataset for benchmarking.

Conclusion

Your thoughts and comments on this ME-P are appreciated. Feel free to review our top-left column, and top-right sidebar materials, links, URLs and related websites, too. Then, subscribe to the ME-P. It is fast, free and secure.

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Medical Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com

OUR OTHER PRINT BOOKS AND RELATED INFORMATION SOURCES:

Product DetailsProduct Details

HEDGE FUNDS: History in Brief

ABOUT | DAVID EDWARD MARCINKO

BY DR. DAVID E. MARCINKO MBA MEd CMP®

SPONSOR: http://www.MarcinkoAssociates.com

CMP logo

SPONSOR: http://www.CertifiedMedicalPlanner.org

The investment profession has come a long way since the door-to-door stock salesmen of the 1920s sold a willing public on worthless stock certificates. The stock market crash of 1929 and ensuing Great Depression of the 1930s forever changed the way investment operations are run. A bewildering array of laws and regulations sprung up, all geared to protecting the individual investor from fraud. These laws also set out specific guidelines on what types of investment can be marketed to the general public – and allowed for the creation of a set of investment products specifically not marketed to the general public. These early-mid 20th century lawmakers specifically exempted from the definition of “general public,” for all practical purposes, those investors that meet certain minimum net worth guidelines.

The lawmakers decided that wealth brings the sophistication required to evaluate, either independently or together with wise counsel, investment options that fall outside the mainstream. Not surprisingly, an investment industry catering to such wealthy individuals, such as doctors and healthcare professionals, and qualifying institutions has sprung up.

EARLY DAYS

The original hedge fund was an investment partnership started by A.W. Jones in 1949. A financial writer prior to starting his investment management career, Mr. Jones is widely credited as being the prototypical hedge fund manager. His style of investment in fact gave the hedge fund its name – although Mr. Jones himself called his fund a “hedged fund.” Mr. Jones attempted to “hedge,” or protect, his investment partnership against market swings by selling short overvalued securities while at the same time buying undervalued securities. Leverage was an integral part of the strategy. Other managers followed in Mr. Jones’ footsteps, and the hedge fund industry was born.

In those early days, the hedge fund industry was defined by the types of investment operations undertaken – selling short securities, making liberal use of leverage, engaging in arbitrage and otherwise attempting to limit one’s exposure to market swings. Today, the hedge fund industry is defined more by the structure of the investment fund and the type of manager compensation employed.

The changing definition is largely a sign of the times. In 1949, the United States was in a unique state. With the memory of Great Depression still massively influencing common wisdom on stocks, the post-war euphoria sparked an interest in the securities markets not seen in several decades. Perhaps it is not so surprising that at such a time a particularly reflective financial writer such as A.W. Jones would start an investment operation featuring most prominently the protection against market swings rather than participation in them. 

Citation: https://www.r2library.com/Resource/Title/0826102549

Apart from a few significant hiccups – 1972-73, 1987 and 2006-07 being most prominent – the U.S. stock markets have been on quite a roll for quite a long time now. So today, hedge funds come in all flavors – many not hedged at all. Instead, the concept of a private investment fund structured as a partnership, with performance incentive compensation for the manager, has come to dominate the mindscape when hedge funds are discussed. Hence, we now have a term in “hedge fund” that is not always accurate in its description of the underlying activity. In fact, several recent events have contributed to an even more distorted general understanding of hedge funds.

During 1998, the high profile Long Term Capital Management crisis and the spectacular currency losses experienced by the George Soros organization both contributed to a drastic reversal of fortune in the court of public opinion for hedge funds. Most hedge fund managers, who spend much of their time attempting to limit risk in one way or another, were appalled at the manner with which the press used the highest profile cases to vilify the industry as dangerous risk-takers. At one point during late 1998, hedge funds were even blamed in the lay press for the currency collapses of several developing nations; whether this was even possible got short thrift in the press.

Needless to say, more than a few managers have decided they did not much appreciate being painted with the same “hedge fund” brush. Alternative investment fund, private investment fund, and several other terms have been promoted but inadequately adopted. As the memory of 1998 and 2007 fades, “hedge fund” may once again become a term embraced by all private investment managers.

Photo by Alexander Mils

ASSESSMENT: Physicians, and all investors, should be aware, however, that several different terms defining the same basic structure might be used. Investors should therefore become familiar with the structure of such funds, independent of the label. The Securities Exchange Commission calls such funds “privately offered investment companies” and the Internal Revenue Service calls them “securities partnerships.”

Your thoughts are appreciated.

Comprehensive Financial Planning Strategies for Doctors and Advisors: Best Practices from Leading Consultants and Certified Medical Planners™

ORDER TEXTBOOK: https://www.routledge.com/Comprehensive-Financial-Planning-Strategies-for-Doctors-and-Advisors-Best/Marcinko-Hetico/p/book/9781482240283

INVITE DR. MARCINKO: https://medicalexecutivepost.com/dr-david-marcinkos-

THANK YOU

***

PODCAST: “Payvider” Health Insurance Payer and Providers Combined

By Eric Bricker MD

***

***

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

Please Subscribe

***

***