WVRHEP/AHEC
Restructuring Task Force
Executive
Council Meeting
John E. Jones
Conference Center Room B
Attendance: Voting members: Helen Baker, Dan Brody, Bobby Brown, David Hughes, Imogene Foster, Dennis McCutcheon, JoAnn Raines. Alternate members: Chuck Conner, Tom Hefner, Barry Linger. Others: Georgianna Tillis, Parr Thacker, Jill Cochran. Staff: Hilda R. Heady, Margaret Novacich, Sandra Pope, Alicia Tyler, April Vestal.
The meeting was called to order at
The expected outcomes for today's meeting are:
1. Agree on a Framework for discussion
2. Identify data needs
3. List very early and preliminary elements of solutions
4. Establish meeting dates
The council discussed
issues identified by the task force yesterday.
Heady sought clarification from the members on some items she heard at
the task force meeting which have implications for the staff in the areas of
communications within the partnership. These are the need for improved and more
communication between communities and schools specifically in these areas:
1.
How do schools define a quality-training site? What
are the criteria?
2.
How do communities identify areas of need and
priorities in:
a.
Health professions recruitment
b.
community service needs in the various rural
communities
c.
How can these needs be effectively communicated to the
schools
d.
How can role of OSCD assist in these areas
Council members agreed that these issues needed to be
addressed by the central administrative staff.
Various Council members articulated the Council's goals and expected outcomes of its work. Members agreed that the goals are:
1. To make specific recommendations to the Task Force and the Panel on reducing the expenses of the partnership statewide.
2. To make specific recommendations to the Task Force and the Panel on consolidations, mergers, and other changes to the current RHEP consortia as a means for improved efficiency and quality of the program.
Heady challenged the
Council to develop their ground rules and agreements to guide this work. The Council developed and agreed upon these:
· Quality of Education
· Provide quality of service to all community and citizens
· Distribution based on need
· Overall program will take precedence over individual
· Listen for understanding
· Principal of quality
· Act on data not innuendo
· Discuss issues not individual
· Be aware of changes in all areas of the partnership
· Operate within our values of WVRHEP
Brown suggested that one
area that might lend greater efficiencies and improvements to the program
statewide would be to implement a more standardized approach for site
coordinators in terms of conduct of meetings and issues communicated to the
board. He stated that the
professionalism of meetings and the site coordinators' role needs to be
improved. At a minimum, he suggested, all site coordinators should share the quarterly
student evaluation reports with their board members. Conner suggested that exit interviews with
students were helpful, but not always possible.
Brown suggested that the Council review the RHEP site coordinator job
description and make recommendations specifically concerning their role with
board communications.
Members expressed the need to develop a strategy for reauthorization, and our need to get specifics from the legislature on what needed to happen to receive longer years of reauthorization. Brody cautioned the members to not over react to the one year's reauthorization, and that his understanding is that the budget needs to be reduced by 10%. Heady stated that in meetings with the Chancellor and Sen. Plymale that consolidation and mergers were expected. Brown stated that in his conversation with the Chancellor the message was the same. Brody asked why the urgency in the schedule to get this plan in place. Heady responded that Sen. Plymale had said that this has to be done now.
Heady facilitated a discussion to develop the Council and Task Force framework for their work and discussions. The following framework was approved by all voting members of the Council:
1. What amount do we have to cut and what is the expected community side of the RHI budget?
2. Identify and resolve the perception issue of what is not working within the program. How do we deal with the perceptions of the legislature on our mission and impact?
3. What can we do to strengthen the program in:
a. Faculty Development
b. Quality of Rotations
c. Number and distribution of rotations
d. Merging and working with AHEC as an alternative model?
4. We have one year; what do we need to do to increase our reauthorization years? What do we need to do for the next PERD report ?
5. Given this work it is important to stay grounded in the mandate
6. Why are we only dealing with the community side of the funding; why is the community side of the funding scrutinized to this degree?
Heady asked members to discuss their data needs for their work.
1.
Alicia Tyler volunteered to look
at changes in HSPAs over time. She will look at 1991 HPSA's with Linda Atkins
and compare this to 2004.
2. Members also discussed the cost of providing training for students from private schools. Heady stated that the RHI Act has a provision for this training to be available for state and private college students and that these schools do not receive RHI funding.
3. One supportive effort needed from the private schools is to verify alumni practice locations as part of our recruitment and retention tracking system.
4. Consortia Maps (GIS) by Community Service, HPSA and R&R.
5. Community Service by legislative district HPSA
6. Information about variable expenses for each consortium on one page.
7. Policy information about variable costs of IDS, etc.
8. Explanation of fund current balances from consortium on one page
9. HPSA designations over time.
10. Number of students doing more than required three months of rotations.
11. Summary of HPSA status by discipline of recruits on one page.
12. List of names and titles of community service projects by consortium/county, include SEARCH projects.
13. Financial
impact of dropping
14. David Hughes to provide tax analysis to determine tax status of CCCHC relative to provision of uncompensated community services.
15. Cost of out of state and private school students to RHEP consortia.
The Council also developed a preliminary list of elements to discuss further in developing their recommendations. This list is not exhaustive rather represents discussions from the meetings of the Task Force and the Council over these past two days:
1.
Create an RHEP/AHEC financial incentive program that
would be flexible to change geography and discipline and would be reflective of
identified R & R needs in the rural training site areas.
2. Central staff is to look at potential areas of consolidation and develop various scenarios in over heads-or some other easily changed format for the next meeting.
3. Explore caps for rotations at sites by disciplines student teams
4. HPSA graduated recruitment costs
5. Across the board cuts
6. Recruitment fairs
7. Unencumbered fund balances be pooled for whole program use
8. Mandate RHI Law
9. Explore Eastern Panhandle Issue
10. Enhance communication among the partnership entities
11. The Council requests a 2 page issue paper from EWVRHEP and ED-WVU on impact of removing Jefferson and Berkeley counties from RHEP.
Next meetings of Executive Council: April 20 at
Meeting adjourned at