Quote: The University of Houston System Board of Regents has approved the creation of the College of Medicine, the university announced Thursday.

According to a press release, the UH College of Medicine would admit its first class in 2020.

http://abc13.com/education/uh-approves-c...-/2658509/

Who cares?

Rice is getting an Opera House.

Get your priorities straight or you'll never make the BOT. Just sayin'

One thing that I have never understood is why, after the BCM disaster, we did not explore opening a medical school on our own. There was a big rift at BCM at the time, and we could have put together a pretty impressive faculty with the disaffected ones, and with the St. Luke's/Methodist tangle we could have found a hospital home. A fresh start without some of BCM's legacy issues might have been an attractive way to do it.

(11-17-2017 09:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One thing that I have never understood is why, after of the BCM disaster, we did not explore opening a medical school on our own. There was a big rift at BCM at the time, and we could have put together a pretty impressive faculty with the disaffected ones, and with the St. Luke's/Methodist tangle we could have found a hospital home. A fresh start without some of BCM's legacy issues might have been an attractive way to do it.

I think it's pretty clear. We have a University to build an endowment, not an endowment to build a University.

Waste of state money. The state should be worried about opening up more residency programs so the amount of med school grads leaving the state for residency goes down, not bucketing funds so every university in the state can have a medical school.

(11-17-2017 08:58 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  Who cares?

Rice is getting an Opera House.

Get your priorities straight or you'll never make the BOT. Just sayin'

And with no change to either the number of faculty nor students. Hey, its all using OPM to build capex (and your resume).

Guy running for State rep in East Texas wanting Med school in Tyler. Probably all politics, but folks are listening.

Ditto to that.

(11-17-2017 09:11 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 09:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One thing that I have never understood is why, after of the BCM disaster, we did not explore opening a medical school on our own. There was a big rift at BCM at the time, and we could have put together a pretty impressive faculty with the disaffected ones, and with the St. Luke's/Methodist tangle we could have found a hospital home. A fresh start without some of BCM's legacy issues might have been an attractive way to do it.

I think it's pretty clear. We have a University to build an endowment, not an endowment to build a University.

And might be facing an excise tax on the endowment with the new tax bill.

quote='mebehutchi' pid='14791288' dateline='1510927909']

(11-17-2017 09:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One thing that I have never understood is why, after of the BCM disaster, we did not explore opening a medical school on our own. There was a big rift at BCM at the time, and we could have put together a pretty impressive faculty with the disaffected ones, and with the St. Luke's/Methodist tangle we could have found a hospital home. A fresh start without some of BCM's legacy issues might have been an attractive way to do it.

I think it's pretty clear. We have a University to build an endowment, not an endowment to build a University.
[/quote]

(11-17-2017 09:11 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 09:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One thing that I have never understood is why, after of the BCM disaster, we did not explore opening a medical school on our own. There was a big rift at BCM at the time, and we could have put together a pretty impressive faculty with the disaffected ones, and with the St. Luke's/Methodist tangle we could have found a hospital home. A fresh start without some of BCM's legacy issues might have been an attractive way to do it.

I think it's pretty clear. We have a University to build an endowment, not an endowment to build a University.

Afraid you are correct, Hutch.

(11-17-2017 02:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 09:11 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 09:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One thing that I have never understood is why, after of the BCM disaster, we did not explore opening a medical school on our own. There was a big rift at BCM at the time, and we could have put together a pretty impressive faculty with the disaffected ones, and with the St. Luke's/Methodist tangle we could have found a hospital home. A fresh start without some of BCM's legacy issues might have been an attractive way to do it.

I think it's pretty clear. We have a University to build an endowment, not an endowment to build a University.

Afraid you are correct, Hutch.

I’ve wondered if it would make sense to start a medical school aimed primarily at producing medical researchers. If we want to be a first rate university, we need a medical school.

(11-17-2017 02:26 PM)ranfin Wrote:  I’ve wondered if it would make sense to start a medical school aimed primarily at producing medical researchers. If we want to be a first rate university, we need a medical school.

The amount of investment required to build a medical school for producing researchers (essentially PhDs) is probably more significant than the amount of investment required to build a medical school. One would need a significant amount of space for laboratories - which cost a significant amount of overhead to run. Students who come do PhDs in the sciences usually get full tuition + stipend paid for by laboratory startup funds (and later on, using federal or private funding via competitive calls). The latest tax plan, if passed, may probably reduce the number of grad students because it becomes more unaffordable to do a MS/PhD.

If the goal is to produce graduates, one can expect maybe a class size of <50 MS / <20 PhDs a year from such a department, which is, I would think, much smaller than a medical school class.

isn't that essentially what the BRC is?

(11-17-2017 02:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  isn't that essentially what the BRC is?

True - I'm not clear on its occupancy rate but I understand it houses mainly bioengineering labs + some labs from biochemistry, biophysics, and chemistry. These are not disciplines traditionally found as PhD programs or MS programs attached to medical schools, and so I'd imagine that for Rice to address what ranfin mentioned above, a number of new departments and graduate degree programs will have to be designed from scratch.

I had seen a plan before about how the BRC was designed to easily allow for expansion - building a second tower on the other side of that cylindrical building section from the current 8-10-story rectangular structure.. Its location makes it amenable to this sort of thing, but again, it really requires Rice to create new degree programs and recruit new faculty members that address more medical school-like scopes of research and teaching.

It's not as if the BRC is fully occupied.
14 September 2017 - 9th floor
Half of 9 is/was empty, and the NSBRI was downsizing from 16,000 to 4000 sq ft.

(11-18-2017 07:16 AM)Grungy Wrote:  It's not as if the BRC is fully occupied.
14 September 2017 - 9th floor
Half of 9 is/was empty, and the NSBRI was downsizing from 16,000 to 4000 sq ft.

Wow.

(11-17-2017 09:34 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Waste of state money. The state should be worried about opening up more residency programs so the amount of med school grads leaving the state for residency goes down, not bucketing funds so every university in the state can have a medical school.

Bingo

According to what I read UH claims to have lined up an amazing number of new residencies with HCA I believe

(11-18-2017 01:14 PM)Barney Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 09:34 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Waste of state money. The state should be worried about opening up more residency programs so the amount of med school grads leaving the state for residency goes down, not bucketing funds so every university in the state can have a medical school.

Bingo

(11-18-2017 05:52 PM)Owl75 Wrote:  According to what I read UH claims to have lined up an amazing number of new residencies with HCA I believe

Westside is absolutely correct. The state leg. is very concerned that they are subsidizing a huge number of medical students who get educated in Texas and then leave because there’s no residency slot for them in the state. But adding residency slots is tricky, since the feds have not meaningfully increased federally funded graduate medical education (residency slots) in
MORE THAN A QUARTER OF A CENTURY.
So, if you want to have more residency programs, then they are going to have to be funded locally, ie, state funding, hospital funding, or university funding. These are HUGE dollars and represent massive ongoing annual expenses to these local entities.
The state actually made significant financial commitments 3-4 years ago to fund more residencies in surgery, psychiatry and some primary care... but reneged a year later when oil dropped off a cliff.
In West Texas, we have been able to finance our new residents with a combination of university funds and support from local hospitals. Especially rural hospitals. But as soon as oil drops again we are back to square one. A terrible stale of affairs for the US and national health care policy.
I’d be interested to know where UH is getting their funds for their residencies.

(11-18-2017 06:05 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  [quote='Barney' pid='14795250' dateline='1511028884']
[quote='westsidewolf1989' pid='14791358' dateline='1510929266']
Waste of state money. The state should be worried about opening up more residency programs so the amount of med school grads leaving the state for residency goes down, not bucketing funds so every university in the state can have a medical school.
[/quotequote='Owl75' pid='14797548' dateline='1511045540']
According to what I read UH claims to have lined up an amazing number of new residencies with HCA

Westside is absolutely correct. The state leg. is very concerned that they are subsidizing a huge number of medical students who get educated in Texas and then leave because there’s no residency slot for them in the state. But adding residency slots is tricky, since the feds have not meaningfully increased federally funded graduate medical education (residency slots) in
MORE THAN A QUARTER OF A CENTURY.
So, if you want to have more residency programs, then they are going to have to be funded locally, ie, state funding, hospital funding, or university funding. These are HUGE dollars and represent massive ongoing annual expenses to these local entities.
The state actually made significant financial commitments 3-4 years ago to fund more residencies in surgery, psychiatry and some primary care... but reneged a year later when oil dropped off a cliff.
In West Texas, we have been able to finance our new residents with a combination of university funds and support from local hospitals. Especially rural hospitals. But as soon as oil drops again we are back to square one. A terrible stale of affairs for the US and national health care policy.
I’d be interested to know where UH is getting their funds for their residencies.

Agree. Chronicle article stated funding through HCA, similar to funding through Sanford Health, a large health care system based in North and South Dakota, very prevalent when I was practicing in western Minnesota.