Everyone, um, welcome to our graduate medical education board, our final meeting of 2025. Good to see everyone. We're I think we're waiting on a couple more board members to join virtually. Um, but I'll go ahead and call the meeting to order and uh, good l if you've been called,
please. Dr. Jennifer Choy here. Dr. Becker expected to be virtual. Dr. Cliff Knight here waiting on our fourth appointment. Dr. Rachel Shockley here.
Right. And Sagel Canon >> here. Right. >> Dr. Kevin Gy expected to be virtual. Yes. Rob Mlenn here. Right. Dr. Grace Grace >> here. >> Dr. Trisha Hearn >> here. >> And then our student members McLaren
Tobin >> here. at Kaylee Ryan. >> Okay, wonderful. Let's go ahead and get started then. Um uh so the first order of business uh that we'll focus on today is just uh running through our minutes from our
July meeting. So hopefully you had a chance to review those uh and we want to take a moment to confirm they're on page one of the packet and I'll take a motion to approve those minutes. And just a note on those minutes um in the printed packets it says October 30th that's been
updated to reflect October 24th today. So >> okay that means already today. >> Yeah. So it's already been >> clarification. Thank you. Second. Thank you. Uh all in favor of approvement the minutes say I or raise your hand if I
>> All right. Any opposed? Okay, our our minutes have been approved. Um, okay, let's uh move forward. We're going to um follow our more new, you know, calendar cadence that we have. Not that new. I guess it's been more than a year
now that we've been doing this. Uh, but Lucas has done some great work to uh allow us to get our uh updated progress reports from each of the recipients of our residency expansion grants. And so, he included those in your packets. hopefully you've had a chance to review
some of that, but I'd like to turn it over to Lucas to just kind of give us a summary of all those programs and um uh the updates that they provided us. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um so the board has nearly 100% um a response rate from the programs. There is one program that has
not responded yet. That is the Northwestern Indiana um psychiatry program in Gary. We have had contact with them. Small world Linda Brancher actually works with them now. Uh so that report is forthcoming just not present today. When I have it, I'll update this
document and distribute it all to you. Um starting with the overview, these are sorted by um specialty first. The number to the right indicates if there is more than one grant that's been awarded. You'll see that at the individual profiles. Um then sorted by institution.
The only note with that is that Porter Hospital LLC is the same as Northwest Health Porter and your residency expansion scoring for today. So just to avoid any confusion, those are the same granty and then the ACGME code in case you would like to do a deeper dive
beyond what is in the report today. Um this has been formatted and um you know edited. If you would like the raw reports, please let me know. The only difference would be that those include uh NPI or resident rosters, graduate rosters, and budgets. So, if you'd like
to see that, please let me know. Um, we are looking at 20 grants today spread across 11 grantees totaling just over 20 million. Um, you know, some of those are for one resident and some of them are up for about 16, right? So, there's a large range. I really would go by average for
that. Um the small map on the left uh is for this reporting grant period which is uh indicated on the next page. Um but there is no program development, no feasibility. This is purely residency expansion for this report. Um and then a graphic kind of depicting spending
across the specialties. So pretty straightforward on that. We will look at the key takeaways. I'll read through those and then um board members can, you know, review the rest of the document at their leisure.
Key takeaways, the top funded counties, Knox County, Allen County, and Vanderberg County respectively, um received the most funding, uh nearly $5 million. Recent program growth, I would look at this more as metriculation. Um of the 11
programs, six have received invisible accreditation uh in 2022 or later. So I think that's showing you know the next stage of those program development grants the board funded years ago. Um so you know some pretty rapid expansion exciting to see funding by specialty no
surprises internal medicine has received the most funding due to class size. Um and then the two specialties that are not present in this report are emergency medicine and the outpatient community- based pediatrics. Emergency medicine has been funded previously just not in this
grant. Uh, yep. The grant periods that we're looking at today, 2021 to present. So, a bit of context. What we're talking about resident volume by specialty. Uh, internal medicine has training the largest number of residents with 91 spread across six grants. Uh, in this
report, uh, I thought this was particularly um, interesting five because maybe we haven't had great oversight on it previously. Um, but grantees reported 31 residents over the CMS CAT out of the 177 in this report. Nearly half of those came from the
southwestern Indiana GME Consortium outpatient community-based internal medicine program. That's a mouthful. Um, and there is the ACGME code if you would like to look at that as well. Um, I will read through and >> this is just by self-report whether they're over the cap or
>> That's right. Yeah. Um, I will read through points six and seven. Uh, there's summaries of all the written responses that were collected. If you think they're good, I take credit for it. If you think they're less than good, AI assisted you with it. All right. Point six, curriculum exposure to
underserved areas. Residency programs are deeply embedded in communities with significant health disparities. Residents train in federally designated rural zones, health professional shortage areas, and medically underserved areas, including central Fort Wayne, Grant County, and Marian County. continuity clinics and inpatient
rotations serve lowincome, uninsured, and high need populations. Programs also incorporate community- based experiences such as volunteering at free clinics and rotating through federally qualified health centers. These settings provide daily engagement with social determinance of health and complex
patient needs. Through interdisciplinary collaboration and hands-on care, residents develop the skills and commitment to serve vulnerable populations, many continuing to practice in underserved areas after graduation. Seven, impact of the new residency expansion grants. The grant has been
instrumental in launching, expanding, and stabilizing residency programs across Indiana. By covering resident salaries and offsetting operational costs, it enabled institutions to invest in curriculum development, faculty recruitment, and educational infrastructure. Programs grew in size, added leadership roles, and strengthened
research. Strengthened research and career development pathways. Achievements include increased scholarly activity, strong ACGME survey results, and high retention of graduates within Indiana, especially in underserved areas. Programs also
reported enhanced diversity and resident cohorts, and expanded clinical partnerships. Challenges such as faculty engagement, leadership transitions, and financial pressures were addressed through strategic planning. A key lesson learned is the importance of early investment in retention strategies, and educational quality to build a resilient
physician workforce. Um so each of the profiles that follow in this report have the verbatim response as just a summary. And point eight um future funding intentions. Franciscan Health Indianapolis is the only program that notified that they do not plan to apply
for residency expansion um next year and the next page will explain why. So moving on to our first profile, Franciscan Health Indianapolis. Um the top is uh you know gathered from the report or the response and or ACGME. The
small map on the right only indicates location nothing about resident volume or funding. Um the PO is meant to indicate if there is more than one grant that's been awarded. So if you look at that first page um you know family medicine sigmeck uh heartview general
surgery you'll see more than one entry on those pages. Um I'll explain a bit more about that later. The approved positions, filled positions, and positions funded by expansion grants. Um that third box will be important um to
understand in conjunction with the two following sections. You'll see some discrepancies. Um a couple of these programs only had one resident funded and to get a better idea of what was actually happening at that program, we asked them to report on the full program. So, um, you know, the for GMAT
purposes, you'll want to look at that that second box, but the demographics just for context. Um, and then, yeah, like I said, the point that I found the most, you know, interesting would be the CMS cap. Uh, you'll see those on some of the profiles, but not all of them. Okay.
And then, uh, at the bottom is the rotating sites or the participating sites. So, kind of give an idea of, you know, what do these programs actually look like? Is it all one building or is it spread across the state? Okay. Um, so
let's look at go to the next page. Sigma family medicine. That will be page 11 in the individual report and on page and our large agenda
page 13, the large agenda. Um, so this one has multiple grants that have been awarded. you will see a decrease in 2024 and board members will recall uh the board voted to approve grants for each
applicant at uh a limited term of two years rather than the full training cycle. So you'll see some decreases in the 2024 year um like I said those written responses those are the ver verbatim you know answers that we were given from the
applicants. Uh so you know free to read those at your convenience and then you know a final point then I'm happy to take questions is the uh the residents um so you know it's been a discussion since I came to the commission and began
working with the board and gez I was February of 24 um when I started we had you know insight you know I guess beginning insight to around 90 residents um as a result of you know these expansion grant reports and the work that Greg
Herald did and Eugene Johnson our our I guess inventory of residents has grown to 392 right and we will continue to increase that it's not at a point today where it can be reported um you know I I would recommend staff would recommend um
engaging a third party vendor one to provide credibility to accuracy and to not reinvent the wheel um but you know I think we're pretty close to being the point where some great insights have come you'll hear from me. Um, I promise probably more than once we have that.
So, with that, it's a lot. There any questions about how to read this report? Anyone online as well? Um, yeah, this report starts on page I
think it was 13 of the overall agenda. Everyone has access to this. And remind me look if we had some questions around like maybe it's in the text too like they're they're oh yeah they're all have continued accreditation and initial they're all like standing there no big
financial issues that came up as you reviewed their financial reports or budgets that they >> any other comments or questions or clarification if we can just optimize this because I think this Is this the first year we've done this
report for this particular grant? I can't remember. >> We've developed it a bit more. Um >> last last year's was a bit superficial and just just numbers. So those demographics is kind of what we had last year. Now we have a bit more of that narrative base that we discussed.
>> I found it very useful. the format of lots of questions we ask responses are very helpful as being >> well and if if board members have you know um recommendations on questions to include uh we will start collecting
these um I believe this around July time um next year we'll start reaching out to these institutions again >> I think this is great it it helps us uh just you have line of sight to where all the grant funds have gone, how they're
being used, make sure we have close that loop. Um whereas earlier on in our journey, I think we sometimes have these reports and not only this consistent, but now Lucas has really developed, I think, a welloiled process that's consistent and the programs now know what to expect and we're getting the
feedback that we, you know, just to know that we're continuing to provide these funds to strong programs that are good. Thank you. Yeah. And then question. I'm sorry. So, um, some of the demographic data that you like male, female, and then race. Um, that's great. I'm just
curious, is that just an FYI or was there some directive or initiative to use the funds a certain way with regards to this? >> No, just an FYI. >> Okay. Just for for insight. Um, and then uh Dr. Beckard has joined us. So, we
have one more one more member. Wonderful. >> Okay. Fantastic. Any other comments on this before I move us on to the next agenda item? Okay. Well, thank you, Lucas. This is uh great work. I bet this took a lot of time behind the scenes. So, uh you
really did a nice job creating the summaries of clear and you know, crisp reports. I I appreciate that very much. Thank you for us. Um okay. So now we're going to move to our old business. And this was uh you know the focus of our
last board meeting in July where we um had a motion at that meeting as we all know to table uh the the voting and on the approving these grants because we were hoping that we would be able to
obtain additional funds from the state. Um at this time we do not have uh additional funds that we have procured for these grants. So we are left with the balance of uh is it 6.2 million there? Yes, 6.2 million. Uh
unfortunately we had hoped we would get another 6 millionish from from the state or or anywhere really. they would have considered any sort. However, um we are we are back to our
agenda from the July meeting essentially and so we will u be needing to review each of these grants that um that were submitted. What page do I need to be on here to guide us through this? Um
at least page 30 it looks like. >> Okay. Yeah, page 30. So on page 30 you can see the uh this the grants that had applied for the expansion grants that were due in July or that that we reviewed in July. We had scored the
grants based as a board. This is all of our scores and they're totaled and prioritized based on the highest score being at Marian and then Ascension and Northwest quarter um all you know all the way down to the the lowest one here on based on score southwest uh family
medicine. So uh we will uh we are going to have to vote on these today. um we will vote on them one by one and when we run out of funding uh then we won't be able to continue to vote. There will be
no more funding to allocate to those ranks. Madam Chair, um just you know a reminder from the discussion at the previous meeting uh the Northwest Health Quarter unique application with a score of 51.8 8 has been marks down $540,000
to avoid retroactive funding. That is the same program that uh the Northwest Health Porter family medicine 45.3 same ACGME code um one is for a cohort that started last year. The other um is
following the same protocol as the rest of the applications. So just a reminder that is the difference between the two. So there's the I see the 540 up at the in the third position and then there's the 810 >> 810 down
>> the same same program same ACG code same program two separate cohorts um and so that was a developed understanding on that grant's behalf they did not know they could apply for more than one grant at one or consecutively so they had just
missed that window last year to apply So essentially it's starting the top one is starting >> during for to do PGY2 and beyond because they missed the PGY1,000 PG1 >> pick up that PGY1 that's behind them
follow all the way through. Yes, >> Madam Chair. So, as we go through and vote, are we going to combine those two together? And are we considering them in the order they're listed here or are we going to have that discussion with
Northwest combined together? >> Staff would recommend against combining them. >> Okay. >> Um the the reason for the higher score is it was established, you know, one year prior. Um, so that's that's the only difference between those two. Um,
but staff would recommend looking at them as two separate grants. >> Any other questions before we >> And today we have the full 6.2. There's no reason for us to reserve any other dollars for anything else the remaining this year. Correct.
>> Correct. Yep. And this is through June 30th, 2026. Um the next day board will receive the next round of appropriations and the state's fiscal year 27 begins >> and and we do the program
new program development grants in April >> April. Previously the board has approved those grants with the understanding they will not be signed until July >> July one >> and so those will be the first you know dollars taken out
>> in April. >> Okay. >> So it won't preclude us from funding new program development and that's what we've done this past >> that's what brought us to the six 236
that we have today. >> Yeah. Um there was one program development and feasibility approved earlier this year and yeah and the feasibility can come at any time but the big um the they're about 500,000 ones that we entertain in April those
those we can fund with the funds that come after and for the board's awareness um I have at least one program development potential applicant that has communicated they they plan to apply um I believe it's two I'd have to go back and check my files, but one reach out to
go. So, we expect to have some business there. >> Okay. Yeah. I have the DI for three of these and so I'm just kind of curious how we want to handle conflicts. Then you did have several members involved, right?
>> Yes, it's a good question. >> So, we will need to invoke the rule of necessity today. Um, so board members, you know, do have the ability to vote. Um, >> yeah. Do we need to go through them one by one or not necessarily because some
some programs would have more conflicts maybe than others, >> right? But >> or do we need >> just a whole lot of conflict? >> There's a lot. >> We we know that this is always the you know this is always the case because we
have so many of us in our home roles have this um you know are involved in these programs. So typically, so we need six uh votes to to uh so if there's there's how many of us on right now? Eight. >> Eight.
>> So if people recuse or recuse themselves due to a conflict, we could vote. If three people, we have to vote. Do I have that? >> And this is Michael Mosset, our general counsel.
So I apologize. >> Sorry for the strange face here. So forgot >> he will be our north stars. >> Yes, we yeah Josh we worked with Josh Gerson in planning for this meeting but something came up. So we u we
for so but I'm very familiar with you morning. Uh some of you may hopefully don't remember me but I I may be the reason why some of you are here. Uh I used to do appointments for Governor Hulcom. So uh apologies uh for for any of that process but thank you for your
service too. Um but no certainly happy to answer any questions and yeah service as general counsel to secretary of education agender education. So happy to be with you all today. This is this is the nature of do I will
admit a little bit work on the rule of necessity just in terms of the way this is all set up you've all there is inherently conflicts in this process. So, uh, that's something we may need to going forward probably for you all just so you do feel comfortable and the ethics commission
and that. So, uh, we'll we'll go ahead and move forward today and then be looking for some paperwork from me in the future once we paper this over a little bit better. But there's just inherently so many conflicts in this process that uh, we'll get all that straight out. >> Yeah. But some there may be no no
conflicts and some there may be several. So should we go through each of these grants and discern individually how many conflicts we have? I want to make sure I understand the right process versus uniformly saying we have to invoke rule necessity.
>> That would be do one at a time. Okay. All right. So uh any conflicts that anyone wants to report on Mary and helping uh ascension densel um I do
>> that. Okay. Northwest border conflicts uh southwest Indiana uh internal medicine. >> I do Southwest Psychiatry three.
>> Yep. Okay. Then we'll invoke Rule of Necessity. Uh Northwest Porter, any conflicts? We already did that. Parkview Health, any conflicts in the room on the board and the board members? No.
Northwest Porter. No conflicts and then front view no conflicts no conflicts and then the final southwest family medicine same three will vote everyone will be voting for all
and then for the board's uh awareness Dr. Yeah, he is on the call now. So, okay, we have our nine. >> Well, ju just to I'm sorry, just to clarify, I've been on the call. I had I was on the phone and I just switched over to my computer. So, I've been on
the whole time. >> Thank you, sir. All right. Okay. That that changes. So, now we have Sorry, we have nine board members and if we have three people recusing, we actually have six to vote. Dr.
>> I think that was how much we had. >> Dr. Gky, do you have conflicts on all the same ones? Uh, Southwest, I mean, do you do you want to share with us which ones you feel you have conflict about? >> Um, I don't have a conflict because technically I'm IU Health. I'm not IU
School of Medicine. >> Okay. So in this case ascension the three folks who wanted to recuse to recuse and south and then the southwest also there's three uh three southwest
grants and those folks also should recuse that vote that brings us to >> that's right okay this is complicated but I think we got it okay wonderful So, we've got clarity. Um, do we have to have them
step out during the um the the best practice or >> I mean refrain from discussions. You can certainly do by have folks step out or just refrain from participating in discussions. >> Okay. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. I think I think we'll do refrain from discussion if that's okay. >> Okay. can't vote, retrain them from vote. >> Oh, I guess I'm struggling with refrain from discussion versus just not voting. I I
feel like they may have information that's really important for us to hear about their organizations and things >> and so I I would prefer not to exclude people from a discussion, >> but they just wouldn't be able to vote.
>> Yes. Yeah. I I guess um once we call the may want to well trying to think how what I what I was thinking please guide me is that we'll um we'll discuss these as they come up right and then we'll do a motion a second and then discussion
that discussion I think should not be >> you know to answer questions >> correct >> I think we'll have a discussion like an open discussion about each grant and if there's questions So then once we get to the formal business then it'll be you
know the motion the second and then a discussion and then and then about >> I think it's why if I could please the what the what the code says on these matters is that u if an appointee has let's see here an
appointee may not participate in any decision or vote or matter relating to that decision or vote in if you have knowledge of a financial interest essentially conflict of interest because of your employer status. So, so I would say maybe to answer questions but decision
>> by introducing one >> in terms of contributing voluntarily contributing to the discussion or being part of the decision then just >> so I'll invite people to the to add information if needed if we have our discussion of that >> that's that's wise
>> before the for the motion >> again apologies to you all this is the nature of many of not only your entity but but so many other boards of across state government want you here around the table, but by virtue of you being here at the table, what the reason why you're here is because of your
affiliations and experience and sometimes just just getting money. So, uh, shoot the lawyer. Uh, you're you're welcome. Uh, but but again, thank you for muddling through this process. And I'm just going to ask one more question for my own guidance of the chair because
we have this situation happen where there is no one on the board who is representing one of these entities and then they might be on the call or visiting as a public member today. I can invite them if there's a point of
clarification we want from that program. We can ask that. I can invite that. That's right. Okay. I'll get your honorary JD. >> I'm learning a lot. Okay. All right. Excellent. So then we are going to uh
and these scores were all compiled based on you know just as a reminder the pre-populated scores because there was a section if you remember how Lucas has done this for us. We all went in um some of them were pre-populated, right? the
objective ones, the ones that were perceived as being very objective like the you know ratio of primary care physicians in that area and the and then we went ahead and um as as board members put in our scores for the strength of
application, the collaboration and I think maybe one other but there was that pre-populated section at the beginning because it was based on very objective measures. >> Yep. uh the residency program uh involving a
collaborative approach such as consortium, F2HC, hospital systems, etc. um you know five to well I guess 0 to 15 points to be awarded and then the strength of application 0 to 20 points yeah be awarded >> and we had those more objective uh
guidelines for board members based on our recent scoring. So, just to kind of refresh everyone on how we got to all these scores. Um, and they were all, you know, filed prior to our last board meeting. Okay. So, um, let's go ahead. We're
going to go through these one by one. I'll start at the top. Yeah. I think that, um, wait money all the way down to Northwest Health Order Internal Medicine. And so just from a like that would get
us to 6.75 million if my calculator works correctly. So I just wanted to >> and then I have a talent here so I after each vote I can we have 6.2 6.236 525
on I believe page three of the minutes. >> Okay. So if we get when we run out of funds, we would not have based on what you're saying, we wouldn't have full funds to get all of the Northwest Health Quarter. Is that am I understanding that right? >> We would be able to get family medicine,
the first family medicine and most of the internal medicine, but not the second family medicine >> and staff recommends um fully approving these programs rather than partial funding. Yeah. So
>> and because what >> you know just for you know sake of contracts the state is also the commission's going through updated financial processes uh so we're moving to centralized accounting and so you know to avoid further delays confusion at this point state you know recommends
full funding but I think you know last year the board provided partial funding and that was in hopes of securing additional dollars and but in general that was sort of a stop gap approach And we we want at least from um to be
faithful to this process and the RFPs and how they work, we want to just fund them in full down to when we brought it out and that will be Yeah. The rest will will go unfunded based on how we are positioned today. >> Yeah. And a bit behind the scenes. Um
the the board is is due about I think it's around $230,000 in unused funds from previous grantees, but um that's delayed as we move to centralized accounting. So I'll have an update for you I I hope by July. Um and so you'll you'll see our number bump up a little bit more beyond that 7 million.
>> Perfect. >> Okay. Any other questions or clarifications before we move through the programs one by one? >> Okay. Marian Health, we have no uh conflicts on this grant family medicine grant um scored 66.2.
Um, we had our chance to review this, you know, a few a few months ago. Uh, any discussion, questions that we want to raise on this particular grants before we entertain a motion.
Okay. Oh, entertain a motion to approve this grant. I'll move to approve. >> Thank. >> All right. Thank you. All in favor of approving approving Marian Health family medicine grant say I raise your hand. I >> I >> any opposed?
Okay. The Mary Health uh family medicine grant is approved. Second grant is Ascension St. events at uh Evansville and they are an internal medicine program 1.755 1.7
you know 1.755 a th00and uh score of 63.9 we have um uh three folks who are going to recuse themselves u but I want to just open it up for any discussions or clarifications on this grant before I
entertain a motion Yeah. >> Oh yeah. >> Okay. Protocol. Thank you guys. We got some folks online and also just adopt the fact we got some roll call. Oh, a roll call. Okay,
Lucas, can you help me with that? Yes. >> Um, so our recusals, Dr. Jennifer Choy, Yay. And let's see, Dr. Cliff Knight. Yay.
Dr. Richard Shockley. >> Yay. Edgel. >> Yay. >> Dr. Kevin Gy. >> Sorry, you you cut out. What What is the question here? >> We're doing a roll call vote for the
ascension um application. So, uh yes or no. >> Yeah. Okay. Uh, Dr. Trisha, want me to be my Okay. Okay. Uh, yay.
That's six. That should be approved. Okay. Wonderful. All right. Uh, second one. Uh, the vention St. Vincent Evansville Hospital internal medicine program is approved. >> The board maintains $3,671,000
in billing funds. >> Okay, perfect. Uh thank you, Lucas. Uh Northwest Health Order Family Medicine. This is the PGY2 start year. Um any comments, questions, clarifications on this grant? >> So just so this is for 540,000 right
through the 810. So it's 540. Okay. All right. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to approve this grant. Motion to approve. Second. Thank you. Um I think this one has no recusal, so we'll just do a standard vote. >> Technically, they all have to be roll call. Well, unless they're unless
there's not. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. All in favor of approving the Northwest Family Grant, say I. I. I. Thank you. Any opposed?
>> Okay, that one also approved. >> Southwest Indiana uh internal medicine for 810,000 for 51.7. Any questions, clarifications, discussions on this grant and let me uh I'll entertain a motion
for this one. >> Second. Thank you. Uh, any discussion? All right. All in favor? Roll call. Sorry, I forgot. Sorry. Three recusals as I understand it. So, we will do a roll call vote. Lucas.
>> Uh, Dr. Jennifer Choy. >> Yep. See Dr. Clint. >> Yes. >> Dr. Rachel Shockley. >> Yes. >> Angie Zagel. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Dr. Kevin Gy. >> Was that a yes, sir? >> Yes. Correct. Dr. Grace Christ. >> Yes. >> Dr. Trisha Hurt. >> Yes.
>> That is six. Okay. Approved. Perfect. That one is approved. We are now at the Southwest Psychiatry. Correct. I am right. Yes. Okay. All right. um 1 1 million8 80,000
score of 51.7. Uh any questions clarification on this grant or we entertain a motion? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh any further discussion
chair? One moment. I need to reorder my sheets. Just one moment. Okay. And this one also has recusal. So this will be another full vote. And which which um I'm talking about again >> uh Southwest uh psychiatry for 1
million80,000. >> Okay. 1.7 and the board has 2.3 billion to spend right now. Okay. Um who made the motion? and second. >> And we have our three recusals. Okay.
So, let's go our votes. Dr. Cliff Knight, yes. Dr. Rachel Shockley, yes. And Selan, >> yes. Dr. Kevin Gy. >> Yes.
>> Dr. Grace Christ. >> Yes. >> And Dr. Trisha. >> Yes. According to my account, the board maintains 1.2 million after that 1.2. 241 >> 1.241.
Yes. >> And our next grant is 1.7. Correct. So based on sufficient bonds, court will not be able to approve that grant. >> So we can't partial funding. >> It's not recommended against it.
So are you recommending we drop down one that you can sign or because of the scoring you got to stop that that's the board the board does have that ability but I I can't provide facts on either way
about this I didn't I didn't think about this okay so if there's It's all or nothing. >> That's their recommendation, right? >> The board could uh approve funding up to the amount that we have available. Is that
>> That's correct. Um, so that's important that folks suspend it. They can or it can roll over until our next fiscal year till the next request on this is my I would recommend
the board vote do one of two things. Either give a partial to the next deadline voting or don't do anything. And that's skipping one doesn't seem right. If you have relying on the scorecard, put a score out there, jumping one
because it happens to be the dollar amount because it's spending equally. >> And some behind the scenes, um, this was disclosed to the grantees that there would be, you know, PIP funds and so it was communicated that, you know, previously programs had applied for
partial cohorts. Um and so this was a decision on the behalf of the applicant to apply for a smaller number of individuals or the local cohort. Um so every every party was uh privy to the constraints
>> that there may be insufficient funds and they may not that get their full grant award. >> Correct. >> A motion on the table for discussion. I would move that we um approve funding the Northwest Porter Internal Medicine
to the amount of funds available. And similar to how we did things last year, then additional funds would become available then fund to the full amount requested. That's like if money showed up this week out of the blue.
>> But am I understanding your recommendation correctly before we move forward that we that's not what you're wanting us? >> That's not what that's the staff recommendation. >> I'm making a motion invite >> but at least to get something out there to officially have a motion to discuss.
That would be my motion would be to fund uh to the up to the amount that we have available. >> Question the staff partial. Thank you. And now
>> thank you. >> So the question is what what is the reasoning behind the staff not partial? what's been communicated to me, consistency and clarity among all grants. That's, you know, last year was communicated to me as,
you know, for lack of a better term, a band-aid. Um, and so, you know, there's someone above me that >> assess these privacy. I think the in my mind well it's a little different situation I think because back then we
were trying to figure out how to take all of our fonts and spread the mayonnaise all >> and in this situation I think we're just out of out of bread or out of mayonnaise I'm not sure which >> we're just out so we're just going to
stop you know this it's a little different than if we said let's take this uh remaining balance and try to give everybody left on the a little money. I think that's that feels different to me. >> Um if this was to be approved, um I
would reach out to that applicant, ask them to update their application and provide that to all of you. Um you know, to reflect that the budget, everything else. I mean, I do think the idea that you tell the applicants you might not get
anything. So, be careful what you ask for maybe kind of thing is a little unfair because they have no idea where they're going to end up on the scorecard. Who else is applying and what is a reasonable amount to ask them for. So, I feel like it's a little unfair to think that they could have predicted,
oh, I should only ask for 1.2 million here. That was just to say that everybody had the same information that we started with. >> Be cleaner if rather than say we're we're approving up to 1.2 two for one
say figure out as far as how many of their positions we would actually fund and then approve funding that many positions and and say so I yeah with that in front of me say we can fund we're funding
basically u well more than half of the positions that >> yeah if they've got 24 positions and maybe 21 positions or whatever it is, >> whatever the 1.24 would be 27. You
divide that by 45. Is that what we're like to do? That's 27 positions that you're >> in and an effort to maintain consistency. Um that is one option staff would recommend perhaps approving years instead of individual residents at that
point. Um because that is how Northwest Health Quarter is listed on here. That third place score is two years of funding. Um and that is how we handled the voting last year. Um so the board does have the ability to do that. But in
terms of consistency and continuity for future years since that projecting years rather than individual residents, >> but it could be is there would there be is there a concern with doing like seven out of nine of their positions over the
three years? >> The board has the ability to do it. Um just trying to >> indicate the the continuity consistency. Um >> it looks like they have 13 a year. Is that what they have their program
>> for Northwest Health order? >> Yep. That's three years 13 residents is what's being requested on this application. And >> so we actually have money for 27 of the 39 requested. So we could fund 26 which would be two even years whichever years
we decided that's >> uh each year is 585,000. So like what 1.6 million let me pull my calculator if >> should be right around 1.2 December.
>> Yeah you you should get that be two years. Correct. >> So you can get two years. So that would make even if I give this a little change >> and the board would have a bit more data operate with at that point but that's that would be staff recommendation
to amend my motion like pay for how many we say >> 26 position >> yeah 26 positions >> versus the 39 yeah of the 39 requested we I think my motion would need it but
26 of the 39 requested Okay, I'll second. >> Thank you. Any further discussion that clarify that we're saying two two years like PGY1 PGY2 or
that be helpful? They would be PG Y1 and PGY2 uh just and the contract terms start and the who made those motions. Sorry. Okay. Uh Dr. Any other discussion?
Okay. All in favor of the funding Northwest Porter Internal Medicine 26 of the 39 positions for the first two years of the grant cycle. I >> I
opposed. Okay, that is approved. We have spent nearly all of our funds. I think we got to the mission we wanted to achieve today. This is good. I will give you that updated one second.
Okay. The board um uh the general fund is now at $71,525 to be at this point carried on into the next fiscal year July. >> Perfect. Okay. Well done everyone. We
did um and you know I know it's uh disappointing because we have some very deserving programs. lower down on that list that are um unable to obtain the funding that they were hoping they'd received. And uh you know, this is a part of the the journey that that we've
we've been on knowing that we would at some point hit this crossroad. This is really where the the rubber uh bent the road most, you know, most acutely for us. We tried last year to to do that sort of workaround approach and now we're really at this place. we uh but
you know I think we have been faithful to our process and and the RFP and how we designed it. Um but it is uh would always be better if we had more funding to continue to support all of these programs. So but thank you for the hard work that we're just done and all of
these programs that are uh because I know there's many people here or virtually these programs. And in a fashion similar to last year, uh I will reach out to the board board members. Um again to review the scoring
process and any updates that might be made to the RF prior to being published. Um so that will happen likely in a month or so. I'll reach out to board members. Okay. Um all right. Well, let's uh move move
on if that's okay to our next agenda item which is um sort of clarifying question. So for the ones that aren't being funded, we hold on to those in the very unlikely event that we do end up getting additional funding for this
fiscal year that we could go back to um revisit those at that time. said said what the thought would be that >> I would I would reach out to those programs and ask if that if they're interested in that um you know the board
has the ability to to call a meeting um funds were to arrive and I just at some point you know just want to kind of keep that on the radar that if in the very very unlikely event that more money was available that we
could go back to uh recons to recon consider these that at that point. Sorry. >> I think for educational purposes too in the future when there is I hope that there will be additional funding that you also keep tabs on the number of
slots that did not approve >> in the state of Indiana. >> That's true. Yeah. >> And made note of that to as many people as we can >> and perhaps even the geographic location. >> Yeah. Yeah, I' I'd have a map, right?
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Sounds like a dash. >> Yeah. And if they're above or below the cap might be in, you know, some various pieces of who's unfunded by this process and where are
they? What's what's their status? And are they under the cap or over the cap of that institution? I'm afraid there there will ultimately be decisions made financially that will dictate a reduction in the number of slots in Indiana because of the lack of
funding. So I think to our benefit to educate the legislators decided not to fund it could ask I think that's very fair. Thank you. That's a good suggestion. Thank you.
Um okay. Um well, let's move on to our next agenda item then, and that's to talk about um a few different presentations and opportunities. that very uh in line with what we've been working on as a
board for those of us to um to advocate uh board members to advocate when they have the opportunities to uh and I know people did this individually and some of us did this a little bit more in a structured way uh to try to
ask uh people who have influence on the legislature to consider are the needs that we have described and so Dr. Knight and I were able to we were invited to the Indiana uh business health collaborative in early September and
that's a a group of business leaders across the state who are very interested in advancing health outcomes and what can they do and uh how can they be influential led by Luke Messer and others uh but there representatives from different industry and different sectors
and all very um have that's the second time Lucas And I had actually gone to that presentation I think maybe January I guess it was uh trying to explain this conundrum that we're in and how we need more funding and how um
difficult positioned Indiana is in terms of the ratio of doctor residency slots in our state compared to other states and how what the return on investment is and the gap that we were trying to close and then people could leverage relationships and and influence and they
had the opportunity to these talking points that they um could, you know, would be able to uh use their influence and and and help us in this cause. And I think that group was very receptive. I'll have you chime in on any insights you had from that meeting. People uh
really engage with this conversation every time we brought it forward. People are very interested. They want to help. Um and we're trying to figure out the right avenues in terms of how do we get this in front of the right people at the right time without um you know in a in a
wise manner in a wise and and measured manner but but getting the right audiences where you can >> yeah again exactly what the group was very engaged and very you know they are all trying to figure out
so we call we talked to you know so I think as we look had sort of two upcoming horizons. One is for the next fiscal year, even though the state budget has already been set. Is there any opportunity to try and increase what
the board is given right for the next fiscal year? Again, very unlikely with budget already set, but um worth trying at least to get the word out there so that then a year from now as they're going into the next budget cycle in the
legislation legislature that um that again we have a strong and visible task of increasing it uh increasing the funding so that we can move forward successfully than we've been able to
this And so, yeah, that's that's kind of the message that we continue to to get out there as looking at a broader a longer horizon trying to find something. And I know that that everybody's trying to figure
this out. And anytime I meet with an individual legislator, they're like, "Well, this is a slam dunk. I don't know what the problem is." Well, okay. But still didn't get it done. So, you know, I it's it's one of those things. Uh but I we'll just have to get to a critical mass at some point. And I
really appreciate your your uh suggestion basically that we make sure that those who didn't get funded, especially the legislators in those areas that they're aware because I think that's what it's really going to take is somebody behind closed doors when the
legislature is leaving legislators see this as something they want to champion. And so that I think we all need to continue with the community relationships we have with our local legislators, but especially in these
areas that um representing the programs that didn't get funded. So yeah, so we're we're out knocking on doors and answering any questions that people have. But you know, GME is just a it's not something that people really
understand because vocabulary is weird, funding's weird, and so just trying to help people understand that continues to be something that just all need to be doing, I think. >> Yeah. But I I think the receptivity of
that group was excellent. And so >> we just have to continue those opportunities and board members when we are able to. So, um, Lucas and Fine provided some background slides for us and then Dr. Knight and I went to those meetings. But if there's other opportunities like that that come up,
you know, we we've got the decks sort of ready to go if people have other opportunity to help spread that message. Um, you know, be happy to share that or Lucas can adapt our some of the background information that we have with the audience depending on their needs.
Well, I sit on IPHC and I will commend Dr. Hearn and Dr. Knight guys and you guys have did an exceptional job and and they do have nothing but positive to say about why wouldn't we do this? Why wouldn't we grow slots in the state of
Indiana to be able to keep those residents and keep the brain drain down? I just have to somehow figure out how to get it translated into actual funding. So, yeah. Um well so just want to yeah bring that
to awareness for this for the board and know that we need to you know continue and and up these efforts wherever we have the opportunity uh as board members uh and as individuals. So thank thank you to Lucas for the support >> to pull on that thread. If you have an opportunity to present and you'd like
slides please let me know and two days those would be great and I'll tell you what I can do. Happy to do them. Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. I was curious um you know we have $70,000 um um we had talked a
little bit about re-engaging um um you know either bumbok or some other consultants to sort of look at our landscape and what the next set of needs are because I think we are maybe sort of >> at capacity for some specialties maybe
not like we have needs in other specialties that were you know that are going to take a lot of strategy actually to figure out how to do them. But I wonder if it's time for that. Yes. >> But how how do we go about that? I guess
maybe that's out of our out of us or is that out of somebody else or? >> No. Yeah. So um we just had an update from commission financial leadership this week. Um we have to have requests for proposals published for at least 30 days. So um and then you know approved
by commission finance leadership. Um, and so at any point I, you know, members have points that they're interested in, I'm happy to gather those, compile some kind of a a document, one for board members to react to, and then my
leadership. Um, it it can't be just trip on block. It needs to be a public solicitation, but whoever would apply, right, and and be considered. >> Yeah. I only mentioned trip. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. But I think this came up at I think it was our last board meeting as
well and and when Hannah Maxi came and presented from the Bowen Center it you know it's come up through many threads. Are we in the right disciplines? Uh what's what you know do we need to change the disciplines on our RFP? We could do that potentially if if a report or data showed that we needed something
different. we could um deemphasize certain regions potentially if you know there's just lots that we could do if we had more granular information about the density of of um shortages in certain areas of service specialties. So I think
we would like that. >> Yep. Now that I have the direction from our chief financial officer, I can start to put something. >> Okay. Do you need a motion from us today or just you'll start something? I can just draft something for members to react to and >> bring it to a future future meeting.
Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah, that'd be great. That would be a great use of uh the potentially that remaining fund balance if it works out to help guide us in this sort of 2.0 version or 3 whatever version we're in of the board because it is a different
um environment right now with the solicited funding. Thank you. Thanks for the suggestion. Okay. Um uh Lucas, the other thing we wanted to talk about was um uh the uh RHP. >> Yes, thank you.
>> Um so uh not a whole lot of details to share other than um a an application was submitted for the rural health transformation project on October 3rd. Um that uh application asked for funding over 5 years. Um, it's going through uh
FSSA, so I won't really share the dollar amount because I'm sure it'll be manipulated at some point later down the road. Um, and so I'm waiting for an update on that, but there Yep. October 3rd that was submitted. Uh, that is federal funding. Yeah,
we're hopeful. Thank you to uh Lucas and others for pulling together that report on fairly short uh real short notice, but thank you to Jen for pointing us towards it because I think it it could be, you know, if we were able to to obtain some of those spots, it would be
huge in terms of that support. The other thing we had asked um you or your you know team to look at was the opportunity with Medicaid with federal match dollars. Do you have an update on that? I know. Um yeah. Well, yeah. Um perhaps Brooke, would you want to take a seat on
that? >> Sure. Broke Colin, Idoh, executive director of the Health Workforce Council. Yes. Lucas and I had a wonderful meeting with um some individuals from the Office of Medicaid Policy and Planning as well as their contractors. So, I feel like we finally got the right after asking lots and lots
of questions, got the right people in the room. And what was the quote, Lucas? every time federal or every time state dollars go unmatched, Secretary Rogue sheds a tear. So, he would like to see as many state dollars matched as possible. So, there are a lot of um
constraints that we're working up against. There is a max number that they can um match dollars with alto together and lots of other programs are cobbling together these matches, but they are amendable to looking into this as a potential solution. It is not a double I
think that what they said but it is a certain percentage um that they could provide match. So this is something that Lucas and I are working together on and we're really excited about the opportunity. So we will keep our fingers crossed and stay engaged. Um there's a
lot going on with Medicaid right now. So we just hope to be one of a part of that. >> That's great news. So, thank you for taking the initiative to get that connection made and hopefully we'll have some good information come out of that. Um, could you also provide some update
about the our relationship with the >> Yeah. Um, so it's been communicated uh to me that um at some point in the future the graduate medical education board will have a new home at the department of health. Um, timelines,
details is still being clarified. Um and it's not just GME, it's several other um you know programs that are housed under commission that will be moving. Um so no update other than at some point in the future. Yeah, that will happen. But I think that that there is it it is had
been people were aware of something or some some of our members were aware of this and I just wanted to yeah just have us share that that is likely the direction we'll be going and uh we expect that they have been not sure on the time frame but I think uh it's been great to have uh the the time the past
10 years I guess it's been under the commission of higher education but that there may be some really wonderful alignment in the IDO that we can have with the other workforce groups that are engaged over there and the support and rook and I know that's already I think
you know helpful very helpful for Lucas in many regards. So you know we're this could be I think a really good thing for our board. Uh but you know details are work I mean work done but at least directionally that is where we expect uh
our to live forward at some point next year probably to to say including >> including that's right absolutely absolutely so um but I think that yeah it'll be real I
think it will be center this actually right. Okay. Um well I did you know I I wanted to just bring up one thing because I we I know there's many in the room on our board who uh
well I had some conversations with before this meeting. I just want to sort of bring up one issue that I think we may want to consider for the future. um and that is how we score um how we define in our in our um in our scoring
rubric what a new program is. I think to the point that um has been made today, it is financially really challenging for health systems right now and there are going to be partnerships that change in healthcare and sponsoring institutions
can change and residency programs can find new homes in different ways. because I think you know that's happened in our state to some degree it probably will continue to happen. I have no doubt because of the the challenging landscape and partnerships that are occurring and so what was ra has been raised to me as
an issue and I think the board I'd like at least for us to start to consider it. There's no urgency because we have a whole another year until we're scoring some of the same types of grants. Well, it would be I guess next July 39 months away uh till we're uh scoring the same
types of grants that we scored today and awarding grants. But what is, you know, sort of defining when you look at um our RSP, what is a new program and what constitutes a new program. And um I just wanted to, you know, bring that up for
our board to think about and we may need to consider amending or updating our RFP so that um we take into consideration things that we maybe didn't think about when we built these RFPs early on in our journey um as a board. So, I just wanted
to raise that and um see if there's any comments or questions on that and we can we can convene a small group to to maybe consider working on that um and if if that's something that the board is interested in
and kind of on starting point um you know education vertical leadership has also indicated that they would like to review these RFPs to ensure just another layer of making sure that everything is covered everything's clear everything's very clear and that that that people
understand um that we give clear guidance in the RFPs the programs that you know because right now our definitions are not only you know they're they're new it's new but there's no what is new and but you know I can think of my own health system how
something could happen where a program could change sponsoring institution and you know it's there could be things that happen in in in organizations and and I think it will continue to happen because of exactly to Rob some of Rob's points that you've been very passionate about
making with this board that u the health systems have to make tough decisions and consider the financial implications of these programs and without this funding especially then you know that that may force even more issues around um shift
shift shifting of positions shifting of programs shifting of um different elements of of the programs or splitting cloth or you know whatever happen that seems like a healthy step to me is to kind of step back and look at how
we're defining things and and that sort of thing and as it as it's become very evident and we have limited funds part of the definition of the new program we may need to put like a limit
that we would consider grants up until the first cohort has completed and Then then they're once they're fully filled with if it's a four-year program, they've now got a full four-year class. They're no longer a new program. They
And do we want to look at then proposing a s sustainability grant on top of the three we already have? because it feels like that's where we've run into a brick wall here recently is those programs that need something to help them from
sustainability and that one the metric the the rubric may be totally different. It may be based on the fact that they just don't have those programs funded at all for CMS now that they up and they're up and going. So, we may want to look at a fourth type
of grant, a sustainability grant that then has more of a need-based approach to it. that that would just be a concept to consider, I think, cuz that's where I feel like we're really where I worry about these programs that
have successfully gotten up and going through these new program grants, but now they still need some additional help to keep them viable to sustain. And that's where it sort of breaks your heart is you've got a program that you
you saw them start from the beginning but now they're going to have to scale back because they don't have the sustainability. And so that just a a thought from the standpoint of a definition of what's what's what
programs are available or eligible for those uh expansion grants and when does that eligibility end. and then hopefully another grant for sustainability, something like that.
>> Yeah, I hope that the two years from now the money is there, we don't have this issue, but I don't think that's going to happen. So, I I do think and as Dr. And I mentioned what what what I think about are those hospitals, those
programs that are showing up that did not get voted in that have never received any grant monies for those slots. And I think the thing that I would encourage you to look at on defining a new program is have to look
at whether programs have received grant funds in the past and and and look at it from a perspective of not necessarily it's a new program in the eyes of ACG as much as they have never received any grant funding period. And if an institution
hasn't received any grant money period, then maybe that that money, maybe those points should be better um distributed to those that have never received it because I'm I'm you got some in there that never received any that are not
getting voted on now. And that's that's disappointing for them. So she got time to look at the whole thing and I think do the deep dive and try to figure out what is most >> Yeah. I mean
go ahead. >> No, go ahead. I'll see you. >> Yeah. I mean I I think just it did make uh the sort of understanding the letter and the writing and how we constructed these it just brings so it's so so much
more re real right we've had to look at this now that we now that we're in this situation where we are not able to fund each grant I mean it wasn't we weren't as we didn't have to be as discerning about reading every line we had written in that initial RFP but I think now we
want to be very faithful to a limited resource environment and how to a portion the money in those in the buckets and we as a board feel is most comfortable. So that's one reason why this uh you know sending out another RFP to make sure we understand uh and that
may be part of the RFP question too right that we put out you know is what do when do health systems do they need that uh sustainability grant? I mean, is it is it realistic to have um the three buckets we have or or do we need a
different bucket of grants that help support ongoing um so the program don't close and uh so I I think these questions are very fair and we should be entertaining them as we get into this phase of of limited fun.
>> Go ahead. Um, so I I I think that the scoring tool worked. So all the, you know, uh, the revisions that were done, it was a it was a test and that's nice to see. As I was looking at the applicants who were remaining, I was wondering in my head some of the
questions have have they received funds? Has that county received funds before? It's that important. I think um but I also so I think if we have some time uh you know work on this while it's fresh on our mind before the next cycle and um
think about how important it is it's because it you and I talked about it does no good to start one up here one door over here is closing but yet at the same time that could be a whole different ask of our legislators you know because I went back kind of getting grounded into what was this board
originally you know, designed to do. I think we stayed true to that mission, but maybe there is a second mission we need to be tasked with with, you know, some additional suppressionary funds that could be used so that we sustain our our
GME, you know, uh, pipeline. So, that that's something I've been thinking about a little bit. And then the question I had, you know, we were talking about is do we know where are the programs that seem to be thriving the best? Like if you're looking at sustainability, like can we identify
that? Can we look at the the what are kind of the the core um you know ingredients that they have to that recipe and then could we somehow incorporate that into our our application. So, we're looking at
investing in, you know, really strong the ones that have, you know, the community commitment and everything needed really kind of to to have its best chance, I guess, and thriving moving forward. But I I actually think this could be an opportunity to ask for
new dollars. Um, and why not? >> Yeah, absolutely. But but I do um I and then if we I think I well done well done in navigating through this as our board
chair. Thank you very much. But and with this for supporting it but I I also you there's ways that we can put some you know phrasing in the next application where we say the board may consider XYZ if there's not enough funds. that
allowed us a little bit more um flexibility than just going down the line because maybe we didn't hit, you know, OBGYNS is kind of important in our city. >> Yeah. And if it had a lower score and have would we have the authority to
consider factor like that or or do we figure out how to put it into the rubric, you know, which is tricky, right? The Yeah. Trish. Um, this is Steve. Um, I think
whoever mentioned I know we've been thinking about doing another assessment to see, you know, what we've grown. So, if you look back, you know, like 10 years ago, we had one psych program. We've now have added, you know, communities and there'll be three at least three more. So, I in multiple
internal medicine and family medicine. So I I do think sometime in the next 6 months we should really take a look at that to see whether we want to change the rubric in terms of programs too. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I think it ties into what you're talking
about right now. [Music] there was an effort this last session I think to incentivize medical educators uh especially people out receptors and I don't know if that was driven largely at the students or also residents but I
think >> for us to expand in some of the places that we really need to that actually is going to have to be a huge piece of you know kind of what we advocate for as well again a little bit on the edge of the scope of what we're our our job is but we can't expand if we don't have
people willing to do the teaching. Yeah. >> Uh and and so from that perspective, I love to push them. >> Yeah. Oh, that's a great point. Such important work all all around. And so um so I guess um as an action from some of
this we one would would like to create an RFP to give you know someone to uh and analyze the data a little bit more deeply on our current progress and see where the gaps are and then how to help us focus. And then in terms of looking at our RFP and maybe adjusting any
language would you recommend we get a subcommittee or how would you how would how do we need to move that forward? Correct. The subcommittee um at least that's what's been done in the past. I think this last year the subcommittee met at least two times. I think it was
three. Um and then that was brought to Yeah. I mean we may need some wisdom from that RFP first, but there's some things we can probably even start working on or uh getting in digging into. So, I guess if folks are
interested in uh being a part of a subcommittee that would work to because it's too hard to have all 10 of us, I think digging in on this, but if there's people who feel passionately about this and like to represent the board on a subcommittee to help evolve the RFP, uh
we would welcome that. So, let Lucas know or you can send an inquiry out after this meeting and see. And that was uh that was all done virtually and uh it'll it'll be recorded. Everybody has access to the SharePoint site now. So even if you're not able to attend those
sessions, however many they are, um please feel free to provide feedback and I can Yeah, that would be a good focus for early 26 for us. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. Wonderful. Um
anything else on that? Great. Um, I have a board member resolution to share. Rob McClennon is completing his time as a member of our board. Thank you very much, Rob, for your service. Um, I'm
going to read a resolution as I standardly do that you are going to receive. Um, so this is a resolution to recognize uh Rob McClennon for a service to the Graduate Medical Education Board. Whereas Indiana currently has a shortage of over 800 physicians and whereas
increasing the number of physicians especially in rural and underserved areas improves the health and quality of life of Hooser communities. And whereas the Graduate Medical Education Board was established in 2015 to extan expand GME in Indiana by funding new residency program slots at licensed hospitals and
qualifying nonprofit organizations. And whereas the GM board is comprised of 10 gubernatorial appointees representing key public health organizations and associations throughout the state. Whereas Roblin has represented a non has represented a non-eing hospital in the
Indiana hospital association and the graduate medical education board since 2022 and served the graduate medical education community and the Indiana residents with distinction. And now, therefore, be it resolved, the Graduate Medical Education Board expresses its deep appreciation to Rob McClennon as he
concludes his term of service, which is continued success. Thank you. >> I've learned a lot. Whereas, Robin Flynn also approves a $6 million increase to the Indiana GM board funding for next year.
>> What a should add that in. We we appreciate your contributions, your perspective, the wisdom you brought to the group and um because this is this is complicated work. It's really important and complex work and and I think you brought a great perspective
for us to all consider. But thank you very much >> and we will um so we do have one open board position from topman's position and then we'll have Rob's uh open as well and Lucas and team will be working to get those filled. Uh it's been a
little bit of a delay with the particular S per you know big yet but um but we'll get try to get both of them filled as quickly as possible so we get back up to our full complement of 10. >> So those are the ISMA and state
association >> correct [Music] again hospital association those are >> that are that are held. Yes. >> Yeah. >> And I know the the hospital association, Laura Brown, I think she's they are
working on it. They're working toward that. >> Yeah. And the ISMA had u also had well we met the person that name has put forward Rachel Rey. She was here in one of our meetings and then we just been waiting on um getting the approval. So
we she officially joined obviously but that's who the ISMA put forward. Once that happens, um I will update the the board's on boarding, but you have, you know, overview document um and that'll reflect, you know, full funding,
the application that were approved today, etc. So, you know, just more like I guess coming. Um okay, I'd like to open it up for any public testimony and not to put our student members on the spot, but if we I'd love to hear if you have any
comments before we close, too. But I'll I'll give you a second. Any public testimony? Um, anyone wants to share? >> This is Doug Bole with ISMA. Um, thanks for the opportunity. I I apologize. Just wanted to confirm the appointment
positions are still pending. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Appreciate that. And I know that you guys touched on the Medicaid GME uh funding piece that you guys are working on that. Obviously, ISMA is particularly interested in supporting those efforts.
Um, so uh if I if myself if Julie if we can be supportive to Lucas, you and I as you guys look into that, please let us know. >> Okay, wonderful. Thank you, D. >> Thank you. >> Any other test? Yeah, Dr. Don just like
to thank the board for your consideration of our grants and for approval. We're excited to uh to get this new program going. The gutter perspective place right now they're doing quite well. Uh it's definitely been a challenge with our low cap numbers. So reclassifying as rural
referral definitely is a big plus for us because this lets us start studying in the direct cap working program. So thank you very much for your support and thank you for all the work you do. Thanks for being here today. Madam Chair, if I may, um, if board
members would like to invite any presenters to come and share data um, at any of the upcoming meetings in 26, please let me know. I know Bowen Center typically shares with us at least once. Um, but if there are any other parties that you think may be beneficial, please let me know and I can start reaching
out. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. anything you want to share about the insights for today? I didn't know what you were hitting when you got this board. >> It's very interesting to see the process. Um, as someone who is considering an Indiana based residency
program in the future, it's kind of nice to see the behind the scenes and what it takes to really increase for future students. So, I really appreciate the opportunity to be here and see how it all works. >> Thank you for being here. >> I have the same thoughts. Um, my goal is
to stay in Indiana long term. Um, but unfortunately Indiana only has one emergency medicine residency program in the entire state and I know soon to be two. Um, so that kind of pushes a lot of people that want to pursue emergency medicine
out of Indiana. Um, so I think that other people talk about looking in programs that didn't have a lot of numbers. So I think that is kind of a area that you guys are looking into to to see how you can increase the numbers of those physicians to keep them in India. Also,
>> it's always great to hear from our students because you you are living this experience and and you're closest to the to this uh this need. So, thank you for being here and your perspectives. All right. Uh I I think uh other than that,
I think we completed our task for today. Appreciate uh so much all the commitment, engagement, and just thoughtfulness of this board. Uh so we will see you all at the January meeting and I'll invade a motion to uh adjourn the meeting.
Thank you. All right, we're all set. Thanks everyone. We'll see you in January.