TRENDS

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1951 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 848-850

BEFORE the first session of the 82d Congress adjourned in October, the bill for federal support of medical education came in for a final flurry of activity. It was trussed up with a debilitating amendment, interred in Committee, and at the last minute exhumed without the amendment and placed on the Senate calendar—for consideration on another day. The Senate bill (S.337), originally introduced by Senator Murray (Montana), had bipartisan support in the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare and was reported out of committee by unanimous consent of its members. In the hope of bringing it added support, its sponsors emphasized its importance as a measure to strengthen national defense through aid to medical, dental, nursing, public health, osteopathic and allied technical schools. Under provisions of the bill, money would be granted by formula to these schools based on the number of students normally enrolled, with additional money for those in excess of normal enrollment. As originally written, each medical school would receive $500 for each medical student through normal enrollment, and $1000 for each student in excess of normal enrollment. The bill also provided $10,000,000 annually for five years to enable the Surgeon General to make grants for construction and equipment of both existing and new schools.

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1948 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 426-428

A MONTH ago attention was called to the fact that the U. S. Public Health Service and the U. S. Children's Bureau have been urged to study the problem of medical education and make plans to subsidize medical schools. This recommendation fell on fertile soil, and may be expected to bear fruit in the near future. It is timely, therefore, to review the extent to which medical education is already supported financially by the federal government. The National Cancer Institute, a branch of the National Institute of Health of the U. S. Public Health Service, has been allowed a total appropriation of $14,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948. In addition to providing for cancer research, the act which establishes the Institute (Public Law 244 of the 75th Congress) authorizes the Surgeon General "to provide training and instruction in technical matters relating to the diagnosis and treatment of cancer; to provide fellowships in the Institute from funds appropriated or donated for such purpose." In accordance with this authorization, $1,500,000 has been allocated for the current fiscal year for "medical school education grants." Grants not to exceed $25,000 are allowed for four-year medical schools for teaching related to cancer; grants not to exceed $5,000 for the two-year schools; and grants not to exceed $5,000 for dental schools.


2011 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. S145-S148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rika Maeshiro ◽  
Denise Koo ◽  
C. William Keck

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1948 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 349-356
Author(s):  
PAUL HARPER

TWO letters are presented which take opposing views of federal aid for medical education and for pediatric education in particular. The first of these is from Alan Valentine, LL.D., President, University of Rochester, N.Y. Dr. Valentine read a paper on the financing of the privately endowed medical schools before the 1948 Annual Congress on Medical Education and Licensure. (J.A.M.A. 137:1, 1948.) He is eminently qualified to discuss this subject. His extraordinarily able and realistic presentation of the current and future financial needs of medical schools concludes with an answer to the contrary view of Dr. William C. Black. (Pediatrics 1:561, April, 1948.) The second letter is from Dr. Thomas O. Gamble, Professor of Obstetrics, Albany Medical College, Albany, N.Y. Certain aspects of Dr. Gamble's letter require comment. In his third paragraph, Dr. Gamble quotes incompletely from the ICH Committee Report (Pediatrics 1:524, 1948) as follows: "It was finally agreed (Ed. note: i.e., by the ICH Committee) that neither the U. S. Children's Bureau nor the U. S. Public Health Service should be the administrative agency, but that the matter should be determined by the Federal Security Administrator, whose agency includes both the U. S. Children's Bureau and the U. S. Public Health Service. The correct quotation is: "It was finally agreed that neither the U. S. Children's Bureau nor the U. S. Public Health Service should be named the administrative agency . . . (etc.)." The position of the ICH Committee was and is that the Federal Security Agency, which already administers grants-in-aid for study and training in several fields of medicine, would be the logical administrative agency; it was not considered within the province of the ICH Committee to recommend which branch of this agency should be designated by the administrator. There was no attempt at "camouflage," as suggested by Dr. Gamble. Dr. Gamble next attacks the recommended composition of the Council on Pediatric Education. He suggests that the Academy should say to the Federal Security Administrator:


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 93 (4) ◽  
pp. 655-655
Author(s):  
J. F. L.

The office of Surgeon General has off and on been slated for termination. But that was before Ronald Reagan's Surgeon General, the patriarchal, independent-minded C. Everett Koop, emerged from obscurity to become the telegenic evangelist of the AIDS crisis. Tolerated by the Reagan White House as a bargain-priced diversion from its own lassitude on AIDS, Koop demonstrated how the office could be used for mass education by a public health champion with a rhetorical flair. In TV parlance, the Surgeon General became the "nation's doctor." Koop's visibility was enhanced when he exercised the long-neglected right of Public Health Service officers to deck themselves out in navy-cut gold-braided uniforms.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document