faculty advisory committee final report

7/24/2019 Faculty Advisory Committee Final Report

1/107

FACULTY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

REPORT ON THE PROPOSITION TO ESTABLISH

A VETERANS FOCUSED COLLEGE OF

MEDICINE

OCTOBER 2015


2/107

Acknowledgements

The Faculty Advisory Committee deliberated for seven weeks on the proposed idea of a veterans

focused College of Medicine. This report of the views and findings that emerged would not have been

possible without a lot of help.

The University's senior leadership lent significant assistance from the very beginning of the endeavor to

help set context and understand the origins of the idea. In particular, Vice Chancellor Mike Haynie

patiently explained the various elements that have converged in recent months to make this a

proposition worth exploring. The Committee was so compelled by his presentation that we requested

that he commit the discussion to writing. His paper, coordinated with other senior University leaders, is

a concise summary of the current state of play for this proposition and can be found in Section VII,

Appendix A of this report. It is also attached to the website established to document the proceedings

on the Committee at http://vetsfocusedmedschoolinitiative.syr.edu. Mikes efforts were

complemented on so many occasions by Dan French, Kevin Quinn, Jeff Kaplan, Candace Campbell

Jackson, and the Deans who offered initial nominations for the Committee membership.

Interim Provost Liz Liddy attended every meeting of the Committee and provided invaluable insight

throughout the process. Her prompt assistance to deliver information to the Committee significantly

contributed to the timely completion of this effort. Most importantly, her thoughtful assessment of the

wide range of candidates nominated to be members of the Committee was helpful to achieve extensive

diversity of view and representation from across the university, but still have a Committee sized to

permit maximum participation for all members. Her countless hours working through this effort

assured the highest quality of the product the Committee could assemble.

Staff assistance from Souher Cosselman and Tim Drumm gave the Committee the support necessary to

establish the start of our efforts. Without them, we'd still be getting started. Without their helpful,

understanding and cooperative dispositions, we'd still be floundering.

Once established, the extraordinary task of Committee communications, meeting venues, logistics, and

coordination with university IT Services to set up the Committee website and other support

requirements was ably assumed by Bethany Walawender, the Assistant Director of the Campbell

Institute at the Maxwell School. Her misfortune was to be on the same office floor as the Committee's

chair who relied on her for everything- organizing the report, managing the multiple inputs to the

document, and communicating with members on the final disposition of their input. In her non-existent

spare time, she designed and administered the survey tool the committee selected, then managed the

responses to assure completeness of the submissions in the appendix to this report. At several

intervals, she was assisted by graduate student assistants who assured timely and accurate

documentation like Eni Maho who provided invaluable editorial assistance on the final product. The

Committee is deeply indebted to Bethany for her patience, professionalism, and selfless "volunteerism"

in this endeavor.

2


3/107

Together, we all participated in this seven week effort to help inform the decision and final

determination of whether to pursue this initiative. We are grateful to all who made this task possible.

And as chairman, I am most appreciative for the thoughtful participation and views of all colleagues on

the Committee. While few of us knew each other when the first meeting was convened in early

September, we have all completed the task with the highest regard and respect for the importantperspectives that every member brought to the table. This is an exemplar committee in taking on this

complex challenge and accomplishing the objective charged in a thorough yet expeditious fashion. I am

deeply grateful to all of them for their insights and exceptional collegiality.

Sean O'Keefe, Chair Faculty Advisory Committee

3


4/107

Table of Contents

Letter of Transmittal ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Faculty Advisory Committee Members ........................................................................................................ 7

Chancellor Syverud Charge for Faculty Advisory Committee ...................................................................... 9

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 11

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 13

Findings ....................................................................................................................................................... 17

Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 31

Appendix A: A Veteran-Themed College of Medicine at Syracuse University Context & Logic ......... 32

Appendix B: Faculty Feedback ................................................................................................................ 39

Appendix C: Faculty Advisory Committee Meeting Executive Summaries............................................. 88

Appendix D: Information Paper Veterans Focused College of Medicine ............................................ 94

Appendix E: National Veterans Resource Complex Description ............................................................. 97

4


5/107

Letter of Transmittal

5


6/107

Kent Syverud, Chancellor and President

Syracuse University

900 South Crouse Avenue

Syracuse, NY 13244

Dear Chancellor Syverud,

On behalf of the Faculty Advisory Committee members, I am pleased to forward the report of our

findings pertaining to the proposition of establishing a veterans focused College of Medicine at Syracuse

University. This is a very exciting, potentially transformative initiative which includes considerable risk

and opportunity. Some of those potential impacts are treated in these reviews. Our report also covers a

wide range of issues considered by the Committee which we believe will have bearing on your decision

whether to pursue this initiative.

In the seven weeks since you issued your charge to the Committee, we have met a half dozen times to

compare notes on our views as well as the input collected from our faculty colleagues around the

University. The reactions to the idea of such a new medical school to train and educate professionals for

service at veterans hospitals vary widely across campus. As you well appreciate, the factors for

consideration are complex and not widely understood by our faculty colleagues.

Given the nature of this potential initiative, we are very pleased that you elected to consult with the

faculty and asked that we collect the range of views among our ranks. We make no claim to having

developed a comprehensive view. To the contrary, the accompanying report of findings represents the

best effort of a diverse assembly of faculty colleagues to offer our views which may well be considered

anecdotal. But we have actively engaged others across campus within the limits of the time available.

We believe that what has emerged is a cross section of views that may be representative of the broader

faculty community at Syracuse University. That said, we make no pretense that this is a proportionate

reflection of faculty sentiment.

It is our hope that you will find this input to be helpful as a means to inform your decision. This effort,

combined with the input from others you have commissioned and solicited on the range of factors to be

considered, may well add to the composite sketch of pertinent issues which have bearing on this idea.

At minimum, the findings reflected in this report suggests that much more work will be required if you

elect to move forward. We are pleased and appreciative to have been invited to participate in this

initial phase.

Best regards,

Sean OKeefe

Chair, Faculty Advisory Committee

Proposed Veterans-focused College of Medicine

6


7/107

Faculty Advisory Committee Members

7


8/107

Sean OKeefe, University Professor and Chair

Provost Liz Liddy, Ex Officio

Keith Alford, Associate Professor, Social Work

Lori Brown, Associate Professor, Architecture

Dessa Bergen-Cico, Associate Professor, Public Health

Tom Dennison, Professor of Practice, Director, Lerner Center for Public Health

Robert Doyle, Professor of Chemistry

Jeremy Gilbert, Professor of Biomaterials

Jeffrey S. Good, Assistant Professor, Communication/Rhetorical Study

James Henderson, Associate Professor, Biomedical and Chemical Engineering

William Horrace, Professor and Department Chair, Economics

Arlene Kanter, Professor of Law

Lisa Manning, Associate Professor, Physics

Cristina Marchetti, Professor of Physics

Pat Mather, Professor, Biomedical and Chemical Engineering

Alex McKelvie, Department Chair and Associate Professor, Entrepreneurship

Bob Murrett, Professor of Practice, Maxwell and Law School

Karin Ruhlandt, Dean, College of Arts & Sciences

Bob Silver, Professor of Biology

Radhakrishna Sureshkumar, Department Chair, Distinguished Professor Biomedical & Chemical Eng.

David Van Slyke, Professor and Department Chair, Public Administration and International Affairs

Douglas A. Wolf, Professor, Public Administration and International Affairs

8


9/107

Chancellor Syverud Charge for

Faculty Advisory Committee

9


10/107

10


11/107

Introduction

11


12/107

At his inauguration, Chancellor Syverud announced that one of his strategic priorities is to introduce

programs, policies, and resources positioning Syracuse University as best-in-class with regard to

supporting the educational experience of military veterans and their families. This focus has taken

shape in the Universitys academic and strategic planning, informed by leaders across the veterans

community in Syracuse and nationally. Syracuse University has great strengths in many disciplines

relevant to this space, including the Institute for Veterans and Military Families and the Universitys

schools and programs related to public health, disabilities, aging, speech and hearing, clinical

psychology, biology, bioengineering, child and family studies, food studies, social work, education,

exercise science, design, communications, and many other areas.

Utilizing the Chancellors strategic priorities as a foundational basis, in 2015, Syracuse University began

exploring, with the encouragement of government leaders in Washington, the idea of opening a small

interdisciplinary College of Medicine dedicated to developing medical professionals who seek to servethe healthcare needs of veterans and military families. This concept grew from reports of a critical

shortage of physicians nationally, and that shortage is particularly severe on the medical facilities that

treat our nations veterans and their families. The envisioned school would be the first college of

medicine in the nation, organized around a post-degree service-model concept, supporting a pipeline

of healthcare professionals to serve the needs of veterans receiving care supported by the U.S.

Department of Veteran Affairs.

To assist in exploring the feasibility of a potential college of medicine, Syracuse University Chancellor

Syverud established a Faculty Advisory Committee chartered for the purpose of exploring the

opportunities and potential challenges associated with creating a niche-focused College of Medicine

prior to final decision on the matter. In accordance with the Chancellors charge, the Committee

developed a methodology to solicit faculty input from across the Universitys academic spectrum. This is

but one of many inputs the Chancellor has reached out to gather. This faculty perspective combined

with the other inputs being gathered by the University administration will help inform the Chancellors

decision of whether to pursue the initiative.

The Committee examined an array of opportunities and implications of establishing such a school

focusing on: research expansion opportunities and effects, resourcing considerations, curricula

development and potential areas of redundancy, faculty implications and interdisciplinary collaboration

opportunities. Following meticulous deliberation, the Committee concluded with twelve key findings

that are articulated in section VI. of this report.

12


13/107

Executive Summary

13


14/107

As part of a comprehensive effort to position Syracuse University as the national exemplar for veteran

and military family education, training, entrepreneurship, research, opportunity and care, the University

is exploring the idea of creating a niche, veterans-focused College of Medicine. The medical schoolwould be a first-of-its-kind, based upon a service model that cultivates a pipeline of healthcare

professionals to serve the needs of veterans that utilize the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

healthcare system. The impetus for the idea of a veterans-focused college of medicine originates from

the Veterans Affairs Departments projection of a shortage of 22,000 doctors over the next 10-15 years.

To explore the feasibility of a school of medicine, Chancellor Syverud established a Faculty Advisory

Committee to gather faculty input on how the Universitys programs and activities may be impacted by

establishment of a medical college. Led by University Professor Sean OKeefe, as Committee Chair, in

consultation with the Provost and the Universitys senior leadership team, twenty-one faculty

representing the spectrum of the Universitys colleges and schools were selected for Committee

membership. During the months of September and October, the Committee held six sessions where a

multitude of issues were debated. Each Committee member engaged colleagues in their respective

departments and colleges to gather views from the widest range of faculty. Their varied perspectives

helped frame the input offered by the members at its meetings. Subject matters discussed included but

were not limited to financing, resource prioritization, collaborative research opportunities, faculty

impact, student considerations, curricula requirements, and duplication and competition with

established regional medical academic institutions.

In addition to the Committees insight to the subject matter, the Committee determined that to provide

the Chancellor with the most comprehensive assessment of the potential impact a school of medicine

could have on the University, soliciting feedback from a wider collective of faculty was necessary. Toeffectively accomplish this in a timely manner, the Committee established an online survey for faculty

to provide comments and feedback to five key questions to assess the impact on the University in the

areas of research, student recruitment, faculty recruitment and retention, and campus life. The survey

was sent to all of the Universitys 1,649 faculty members, generating approximately 330 submissions

and associated comments. The results of the survey conducted over a two week period was favorable

or neutral to a decision to establish such a veterans focused medical school by approximately a 2:1

ratio compared with opposing views. Associated commentary ranged from generally supportive,

requirement for additional information, uncertainty of impact, to significant opposition.

The first question included in the Committees online survey asked respondents to indicate their

assessment as to the potential impact of launching a college of medicine at SU on each of four areas.

In each case, response categories were favorable, unfavorable, or neutral.

A total of 310 respondents, of the 330 submissions, provided these assessments, which are summarized

in tabular form (in Figure 1) and in graphical form (in Figure 2) below.

14


15/107

Fi ure 1: Tabular summary of responses to online survey Question 1

# Question Favorable Unfavorable NeutralTotal

Responses

1 Research 201 55 54 310

2Student

Recruitment155 48 104 307

3

Faculty

Recruitment

and Retention

149 62 96 307

4 Campus Life 110 61 137 308

The total of 310 respondents represents 20% of eligible faculty members, but we did not have the

means to assess the statistical representativeness of this sample. We do note, however, that the open-

ended comments supplied (in response to Questions 2 and 3) represent a very wide range of views from

the strongly supportive to the strongly negative.

In any event, our narrative summary of the responses received includes the following points:

The percentage of respondents assessing items favorably ranged from a low of 36% (on

campus life) to a high of 65% (on research). About half of respondents assessed impacts on

student recruitment and faculty recruitment and retention favorably. Thus, while there is a

good deal of positive assessment of the impacts of establishing a medical school, the facultys

views are by no means uniformly positive.

On the other hand, unfavorable assessments fell into a small range, from 16% (on student

recruitment) to 20% (on both faculty recruitment and retention and campus life). Thus it isaccurate to characterize the negative views of the proposed school as views that are held by a

relatively small minority of respondents (and, possibly, the faculty in general). The remainder of

respondents (ranging from 17% to 44% depending on the area being assessed) are neutral.

15


16/107

Figure 2: Graphical summary of responses to online survey Question 1

The survey results, combined with the Committees deliberations resulted in key findings. Establishment

of a veterans-focused college of medicine would present significant risks and opportunities. It is an

evident faculty view that a necessary condition for the college of medicine concept to move forward is a

resourcing strategy and economic model that is self-sustaining and does not diminish existing programs,

schools and colleges. If implemented carefully and transparently, and targeted properly, the

establishment of such a focused medical school could yield significant research, teaching and service

opportunities across a wide spectrum of the University community. But to achieve such benefits, our

faculty colleagues also urge that a prospective college of medicine be integrated with other University

teaching, research, and service.

To leverage research opportunities fully, the Committee is of the view that the University must have

working relationships with the regional healthcare service and academic institutions.

It is particularly noteworthy that institutional skepticism, objection, and opposition is evident around

campus. The Findings to accompany these observations are treated at some length in the report

supported by the survey observations.

Overarching the contents of the findings are views in the Committees finding that the campuscommunity would benefit by a concerted effort to communicate about the factors that will contribute

to the ultimate decision.

16


17/107

Findings

17


18/107

Finding 1: Establishment of veterans focused college of medicine presents significant risks

and opportunities which must be carefully assessed

The Committee received a wide range of observations, views and input from our faculty colleagues that

a decision to establish a College of Medicine would have a wide reaching effect on the campus, perhaps

more so than any other major initiative we could envision. The wide majority of inputs convergearound the proposition that this institutional transformation decision creates significant risks and

opportunities.

The single most significant risk is the potential for inordinate demand on University resources. The

specifics of this view are explored in greater depth in other Findings in this report, but the overarching

concern is that capacity, infrastructure, talent and resources could be deprived for the rest of the

University to support this initiative. In essence, the University mission and focus could be

fundamentally redefined by this decision whether intentionally or inadvertently. Over the past 30-40

years, many institutions of higher education have divested medical schools and attendant health

treatment facilities to be liberated from the extensive burdens of continued support a partialdescription of our own Universitys reasoning for departure from these missions years ago. While this

initiative does not envision the capacity, scope and magnitude of these historic divestitures, caution

must be exercised in evaluating the risk and, indeed, the efficacy of even this narrower focused

proposal.

Conversely, establishment of a veterans focused medical school properly executed could be a catalyst

for extraordinary synergies around the campus community to elevate the Universitys prestige and

rankings, an opportunity to raise the research profile, and expand teaching and service experiences.

Such a vision could help Syracuse University be singularly distinctive, as we join the elite universities of

the world which are home to research focused medical schools and the enhanced reputation this

targeted initiative could bring. This is a decision with the potential to further reinforce this University

with the signature reputation for critical support to the American veterans community.

When exploring potential synergies, it is apparent that not all are equal in value and must be evaluated

carefully. For example, the consequence of such opportunities may be extensive for some scientific

communities resident on campus, while comparatively modest for many social science disciplines,

professional degree programs and the arts. Nevertheless, the consensus of the Committee is that the

prospect of wide ranging, albeit uneven impact by establishing a veterans focused college of medicine

could have an expansive reach across the University. As such, it is imperative that a process be devised

to carefully evaluate the varied depth of such synergy impact potential on the range of academic

programs, research, teaching and service activity resident on campus. This assessment must also factorin the necessity, imperative and/or feasibility of partnerships or engagement with other institutions to

realize any of the potential gains or mitigate the risks. An honest, credible appraisal of the

opportunities inclusive of the potential advantages and downside risks will be essential to understand

the potential.

18


19/107

Finding 2: A necessary condition for the College of Medicine concept to succeed is a

resourcing strategy and an economic model that is self-sustaining which does not diminish

existing programs, schools and colleges

The Committee found frequent and repetitive input pertaining to the necessity to consider sustainment

and priority challenges. These views are summarized in the following subdivisions of the Finding.

a.A veterans-focused College of Medicine must be self-sustaining.

The Committee collected input which demonstrates that the University administration is advised to be

mindful that the economic model to support a College of Medicine must be sufficient to build, equip,

staff and sustain operations. The University administrations assertion is that the combination of State

of New York financing to build the infrastructure, philanthropic support to supplement such

construction cost, and federal resources to cover the cost of medical student enrollment via a service

model, must be present to make such a decision viable. That view has been made available to the

University community and accompanied the survey for background information to informunderstanding.

Nevertheless, the survey input and other views gathered from faculty colleagues by the Committee

suggests a skepticism that these elements of resource support can be secured to make this a viable and

self-supporting enterprise. To the extent that resources are insufficient, this gives rise to the deep

concern that funding will be drawn from other campus activities to cover the costs of the medical

school and/or that bonds will be issued to cover infrastructure cost which will add to the Universitys

burgeoning debt. Others offered the view that the University administration is not sufficiently staffed

to undertake the large scale project management that will be required to secure the resources from the

widely varying sources envisioned and to construct an economic model to guarantee long term

sustainment of operations without otherwise drawing from other university resources.

A further view has been registered which asserts that the total cost of the venture are insufficiently

understood. Those offering this view believe a realistic cost per faculty member of $2-3 million will be

required to recruit, retain and fully support the faculty to populate the new college of medicine. This

impact is explored in greater depth in Finding 5 of the report. Similarly, the consultant estimate for

infrastructure costs vary widely which contributes to the underlying faculty skepticism. And, to make

this a medical school which sustains a firm research foundation to remain cutting edge, a reliable

commitment from federal agencies is required, and that presumption is considered unrealistic.

In considering these views, the Committee believes that the concerns expressed could be largely

addressed by a concerted communications effort. A frequent annunciation of the necessary conditions

by university leadership in the time leading up to the decision will serve to respond to this Finding. This

observation will be explored more extensively later in this report, but much of the input used to derive

this Finding reflects on the credibility of the information at present as well as the paucity of

communication.

19


20/107

b.The College of Medicine should be considered within the context of other strategic

initiatives under consideration by the University

The Committee received extensive input observing that the University has engaged several important

issues in the course of the strategic planning process launched a year ago. This effort revealed a range

of deficiencies across several dimensions of activities around campus. From this strategic exercise,

many goals have been established to enhance programs, save indirect costs, and correct deficiencies.

Many decisions are still pending, awaiting resolution of information or to assure that adequate

resources may be redeployed to properly finance selected priorities. Meanwhile, staff shortages remain

unmet and multiple faculty lines unfilled awaiting those decisions. Recognizing this on-going dynamic,

several colleagues are concerned that the effort expended in the strategic planning process may be set

aside to make room for this new priority if pursuit of a medical school is decided. Many colleagues

expressed the view that the decisions surrounding the strategic plan should be exercised and rendered

before any further consideration is given to the idea of a medical school.

A fundamental tenet concluded in the strategy exercise is that the University faces considerable budget

pressure to sustain and promote programs currently underway and agreed to as part of that process.

Given that reality, some question why we should pursue an initiative with the potential for enormous

financial burden, particularly if we have misjudged the full scope of requirements to make it successful.

This leads some to conclude that recognized and acknowledged goals may be sacrificed to make way for

this effort. This point contributes substantially to the overall Finding that the University may not have

the capacity or bandwidth to make these decisions while adequately recognizing the range of priorities.

In effect, the view is supported by the skepticism of the Universitys capacity to make a realistic

assessment of the proposal in relation to all other established goals.

This range of observations again prompts the Committee to conclude that this overall Finding could be

addressed by a concerted communications effort and transparent decision process, which will be criticalfor a decision either way to be properly understood and supported.

Finding 3: If decided to be established, a College of Medicine should be fully integrated with

the existing capacity at Syracuse University to enhance research, teaching and service

opportunities

Many faculty have observed that there are multiple competing models of how medical schools operate

at universities. But a fundamental decision is whether the college of medicine is designed to be

integrated with current University capacity to leverage that foundation base for larger gain, or should a

new medical school be severable from the core activities of the University and established exclusivelyon a fully self-sustaining basis. The consequence of selecting a model that would establish a silo of

excellence potentially mitigates the risk of liabilities spilling over to the University if properly managed

and isolated. But this approach also creates a more costly enterprise and, most importantly, denies the

opportunities for the range of synergies for both gains and efficiencies which could otherwise accrue.

20


21/107

The dominant view expressed supports the Finding that if establishment of a veterans focused college

of medicine is determined to be in the Universitys best interest, that this medical school should be fully

integrated to build on the University foundation and broaden the base of support. Several important

caveats were offered to support this Finding.

First, and most importantly, a realistic evaluation of resources to expand selected current capabilitiesmust be undertaken to properly leverage current capacity for additive functions. These incremental,

additional costs must be accurately estimated to support this expansion and avoid erosion of the

foundational capacities already dedicated to existing requirements. The appearance of redirecting

current capabilities for teaching or research to meet medical school requirements without additional

resources will be viewed as a back door reprioritization without recognizing the consequences to the

university foundation by that action. For example, adding teaching load with no additional resources

would be considered bad faith and a dishonest way to suppress the true cost of the activity. This will

also serve to erode credibility of the decision and diminish the requisite support for the overall

enterprise.

Second, the faculty requirements for medical schools often conflict with the teaching load and

compensation standards resident within most colleges of science and related fields within universities.

The different compensation levels, tenure clock, teaching expectations, and opportunities for off

campus practice and/or research opportunities, all converge to create divisions unless these differences

are understood and properly evaluated to assure harmonious integration.

Third, the research objectives for the college of medicine must be carefully considered to factor in

current research underway to assess how the research and the researchers could interact with the

college of medicine. Constructing a process methodology to consistently integrate research activities

between the current university entities and the medical school will assist in achieving the goal of

embedding the College of Medicine into the existing culture of the University. This has bearing on thenext Finding as well.

If each of these considerations are implemented effectively in establishing an integrated entity, the

impact on students could be significant. In addition to opening a new avenue for advanced degree

applicants to pursue the medical profession through veterans hospital service, a wide range of impacts

on the student experience at Syracuse University may result as well. A path to professional degrees for

undergraduate students, internships, and research participation are all student benefits that could

accrue from such a fully integrated enterprise.

Finding 4: To leverage research opportunities fully, a sustainable and collaborative working

relationship with regional medical institutions is necessary.

This Finding emerged predominantly from faculty colleagues who have a working familiarity with

existing relationships across the regional medical communities. Formalizing the institutional

relationships will serve to broadly leverage research capacity and collaboration for collective qualitative

gain. Such an active effort to establish collaborative relationships will also contribute to the durability

21


22/107

and sustainment of the collective enterprise. This broader, enhanced capacity where the sum is far

greater than the parts could establish a collective capacity to favorably compete for federal research

grants and more broad based collaborations well beyond the region. In that regard, the University may

seek assurance from the Department of Veterans Affairs to include dedicated research funding lines to

explore the range of methods for treatment of the most frequent conditions experienced by veterans.

This would prompt the kind of collaboration and sustainment envisioned by those who urged the

inclusion of this Finding.

The Committee heard the expressed view that this will not be an easy undertaking, but the value of

doing so will yield considerable dividends. The University will be uniquely positioned to initiate this

more expanded effort with the anchor of a veterans focused college of medicine as the objective of the

collaboration.

Finding 5: Expert advice and substantial investments will be needed to attract top-notch

medical faculty that is well placed to generate external research funding.

It was pointed out that the required per-faculty investments will be on a scale currently unparalleled in

other university units. There is concern that the total cost of the venture may be insufficiently

understood, especially in context of the costs of building a college that sustains high-profile medical

research and brings new reputation and visibility to the university in this area. It was indicated that

attracting research-active medical faculty will require an investment of at least several million dollars in

set-up per individual, plus the initial and then recurring costs of building and staffing research facilities.

In addition, the consultant estimates for infrastructure costs vary widely, which contributes to the

underlying faculty skepticism. Finally, to make this a medical school which sustains a firm research

foundation to remain cutting edge, a reliable commitment from federal agencies is required, and that

presumption that such commitments will automatically follow is considered unrealistic.

A cohesive plan will have to be developed to attract and retain medical research faculty that can

successfully compete for research funds and sustain cutting edge research. The new medical faculty

should also have a strong interest in exploring opportunities for synergy with existing research strengths

across the university. A number of current Syracuse University faculty can provide substantial input and

should be involved in this process, but it was felt that it may additionally be desirable to also seek the

advice of an external group of leading medical researchers to develop a coherent plan for identifying

promising and suitable research areas and high-profile faculty in these areas.

Finding 6: There is a substantial need to communicate with the broader Universitycommunity to explain the framework of this idea

The Committee membership is drawn from nine colleges across campus and a wide array of different

programs. Each member has observed, and the survey results confirm, that there is a wide disparity of

understanding across campus as to the framework for this idea. Several documents have been

generated by the administration to explain the concept and the conditions necessary to make this a

22


23/107

viable proposition. All documents received by the Committee have been posted on the dedicated

website created to make this information more broadly available. The communications the Committee

has undertaken with campus faculty have included link references or direct transmittal of these

documents. Nevertheless, significant gaps in awareness and understanding, as well as misinformation

argue in favor a more concentrated effort from the administration to disseminate the information.

As further demonstration of the importance of such an effort, some of our colleagues have expressed

the view that the decision has been made and the faculty advisory committee is a rubber stamp to

merely establish the image of consultation with faculty prior to announcement of the preordained

decision. While the Committee membership does not share this view, we must nonetheless

acknowledge that our credibility as an advisory collective does not merit the standing necessary to

convince some of our colleagues that their concerns will be heard prior to rendering a decision on the

matter.

The communication of information from the Chancellors office or appropriate university leadership is

essential to establish credibility of the decision making process. As previously covered or referenced in

other Findings, the input points to low morale and a wide distrust of the University leadership, New York

State, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Defense Department to reach a viable agreement to

realize an economic model to sustain activities launched under this initiative. The most frequently cited

reference from the inputs is an assertion that faculty lines and staff replacement actions have been

denied contributing to the view that these instances prompt questions over the viability of a cost

neutral medical school. Concurrently, some colleagues find the retention of external consultants to help

inform the administrations consideration of options as evidence of misplaced priorities in the midst of

personnel cutbacks underway. However uninformed or misguided these views may be to any member

of the Committee, we have accepted that the existence of such concern merits identification as a

Finding of some significance and point to the imperative to redouble efforts to communicate more

frequently to describe the factors which will contribute to the decision.

Finding 7:The Determinants of Health: Contributions of University Resources

There are certain areas where medicine and medical education and the broader academic offerings of

Syracuse University synergize with clinical care and are apparent and extant. Areas such as biology and

chemistry are obvious. Other examples that contribute to both scholarship and technology include

externally funded research in medical devices, soft matter, drug delivery, tissue engineering, and

information technology and include centers focused directly on commonality of interest, such as the

Syracuse Biomaterials Institute.

Other synergies are not so apparent. Medicine and medical education have historically largely focused

on the science and art of healing the individual patient. Medical practitioners, physicians and the team

of professionals with whom physicians work, are now being asked to focus on the broader issues that

contribute to health. These professionals (and our health care system) are being challenged to focus on

the health of a population, keeping people well, and not just treating disease. This shift in focus

requires new perspectives and new skills. It is in this area where the broad and rich offerings of a large

23


24/107

university can make substantial contributions to an innovative curriculum designed to prepare

professionals for a new future.

The attached graphic attempts to draw the linkages between the variables that contribute to good

health and the rich offerings of a broad university like SU. The graphic is not intended to be an

exhaustive depiction of what contributes to health for specific populations, such as veterans, but asplace to start thinking more broadly about health and medical care.

Health professionals will need a stronger skill set in impacting human behaviors. Understanding more

about human psychology, sharper communication skills, knowledge of nutrition and exercise science will

be critical. This is, in many respects, the embodiment of public health.

We have come to learn that where a patient lives and works drives health dramatically. Many health

disparities can be traced directly back to access to resources, tangible and intangible. Education is key.

A nurturing environment that understands the life cycle can support people in accessing what they need

to maintain good health. Education, social work, the study of aging impact these issues. Law affects

social and economic well-being in many ways; issues around disability are obvious links. Driving change

in the patients environment, not just the built environment but the natural environment involves

architecture and engineering.

And, all of these issues are directly affected by policies and programs. Public policy to support change

needed to create and sustain an environment that can produce good health is what will make the

fundamental difference in the long run.

Syracuse University has all of these academic resources, and more. The point of this graphic is to

stimulate thought. It is not meant to be exhaustive in listing where medical education relates to the

kind of academic offerings at a university like Syracuse nor to identify where there may be needsparticular to a veteran population. It is meant to help faculty identify where they see how their areas of

study might relate to medical education in the future.

24


25/107

Finding 8: Dimensions of Veterans-Focused Medical Education at Syracuse University

The attached graphic shows the linkages between the capacity of Syracuse University to engage in

the creation of a medical college, drawing on both traditional aspects of what constitutes core

undergraduate medical education (heavily in the sciences) and added value non-traditional

determinants of health, shown on an earlier graphic, drawing on other University resources.

The core undergraduate medical education component would be developed to prepare students to

be successful in the standard United States medical education process (ie: the United States

25


26/107

Medical Licensing Examination Process1) but could, through certain electives generally in the third

and fourth year as well as through clerkships in Veterans Administration hospitals, provide an

introduction to medical issues faced by veterans. Ideally, the clinical exposure of the students

would extend from year one through four, consistent with current thinking around models of

medical education. Clerkships would also need to be available in hospitals with clinical services

typically not found in VA hospitals such as pediatrics and obstetrics.

The Veterans Administration (VA) has need for manpower equipped with specialized skills.

Working with the VA to determine the numbers of providers and types of specialties needed,

programs in graduate medical education (residency and fellowship experiences) would be

identified or developed. The graduate medical education programs, which lead to state licensure

and board certification, would need to meet the standards of the American Board of Medical

Specialties2(ABMS) and the relevant specialty area. Specific content knowledge beyond the scope

of the specialty that might be relevant and important to the VA must be identified and a plan to

introduce residents (or, most likely fellows) to these issues developed.

1"The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) is a three-step examination for medical

licensure in the United States and is sponsored by theFederation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and

theNational Board of Medical Examiners (NBME).The USMLE assesses a physician's ability to

apply knowledge, concepts, and principles, and to demonstrate fundamental patient-centered skills,

that are important in health and disease and that constitute the basis of safe and effective patient care".

(http://www.usmle.org/)

2"ABMS Board Certification and the ABMS Program for Maintenance of Certification (ABMS MOC) are

instrumental to the integrity of medical specialty care. Certification by an ABMS Member Board involves

a rigorous process of testing and peer evaluation that is designed and administered by specialists in the

specific area of medicine. Through collaboration between ABMS and the24 Member Boards,

standards for initial certification and keeping certification current through ABMS MOC are determined

for continuous professional development as well as improvements to patient care". (

http://www.abms.org/board-certification/)

26
http://www.fsmb.org/http://www.nbme.org/http://www.nbme.org/http://www.nbme.org/http://www.abms.org/member-boards/contact-an-abms-member-board/http://www.abms.org/member-boards/contact-an-abms-member-board/http://www.abms.org/member-boards/contact-an-abms-member-board/http://www.abms.org/member-boards/contact-an-abms-member-board/http://www.nbme.org/http://www.fsmb.org/


27/107

Finding 9: If the University were to establish further entanglement with the federal

establishment, could this compromise or alter the culture and mission of the University as

an institution dedicated to higher education?

This question was raised in the input received by the Committee expressing the view that the

establishment of a veterans focused college of medicine could draw the University into a more

extensive alignment with the federal agencies and departments charged with the mission of

providing for the national defense and security of the US homeland. In turn, this has the potential

to change the emphasis of the Universitys institutional priorities and culture away from critical

27


28/107

thinking and open dialogue. The prospect of entanglement with the so-called National Security

State risks subordinating the Universitys academic mission and becoming the functional adjunct

of the institutional security interests of these federal entities. The overriding concern is expressed

by the view that the further we travel down this path, the more likely we are to become less like a

university and more like a defense contractor.

In and of itself, pursuing an initiative to provide education, development and training for prospective

medical professionals to join the ranks of the health care community dedicated to treatment of military

veterans does not raise the specter of such a transformational change to the very core of the

Universitys mission and purpose. To the contrary, such an effort could be viewed as the University

stepping up to do its part to address a deficiency in meeting the national obligation to properly care for

Americans who have volunteered in service for defense of the nation. Nonetheless, the institutional

relationships necessary for the University to achieve this capability will require engagement with the

very federal institutions that are the basis of this question. Partnerships with these federal

departments and agencies will be essential to make such an enterprise successful. This input does

highlight a potential risk of entanglement that could evolve from these relationships.

The Committee debated the content and as well as an assessment of the validity of this input. We

concluded that the point of view was offered to provoke such debate as well as raise awareness of this

question as a part of the broader campus dialogue and reflection of the efficacy of establishing such an

enterprise. As such, this has been included as a Finding to elevate the awareness of this existential

question when considering the potential ramifications of this decision should the University choose to

move forward in this direction.

Finding 10: Contrasting views over the impact to the University such a decision could yield

The inputs to the Committee expounded a range of impact consequences forecast by our faculty

colleagues. Views ranged the full spectrum of assessments.

Some believe that the establishment of a veterans focused college of medicine could be a significant

catalyst to raise all boats by elevating the prestige and standing of the University as a signature, one of a

kind institution across the nation. Many believe this could differentiate Syracuse University as a unique

institution by filling this organizational and identity gap.

Still others are of the mind that the Universitys image could be negatively altered from its ranking as a

top tier institution of higher education in the fields of social science and humanities to a confusing

amalgamation of disciplines with no central grounding. The stated fear is that the establishment ofanother second rate college risks further erosion of the University standing from the ranks of leading

institutions of higher education.

The Committee concluded that this Finding is important to articulate and fully understand that there is

no consensus from the faculty on the overall predictive outcome stemming from such a decision. The

anticipated alternative futures vary widely based on the input received.

28


29/107

Finding 11:

Institutional Limitations

The Committee received numerous views and input addressing concerns about the campus

infrastructure capacity to accommodate a new facility dedicated to a veterans focused college of

medicine. This concern can be summarized by contrasting the organizational objectives articulated with

the physical limitations of the existing space.

The overwhelming view expressed was that it will be important to co-locate such an enterprise within

the existing University footprint in order to realize the integration objectives explored in an earlier

Finding. To maximize synergies, yield economies of scale and minimize duplicative indirect costs, the

college of medicine must be accessible. Similarly, this would avoid the prospect of the college of

medicine becoming peripheral to the connection with the campus life. That said, all views expressed

acknowledge the confines of the urban footprint of the University which severely limits the space

options to achieve this goal. Moreover, some are concerned about the collateral impact on current

congestion, parking limitations and inadequate facilities to accommodate present activities. This

Finding observes that the overall quality of campus life will be impacted by such a decision. But on themain, the impact is a consequence to be managed in order to support the dominant view expressed

that the facilities should be a part of the existing University footprint.

Finding 12:

Existing programs at Syracuse University have expertise in providing treatment

and services for veterans.

Several members of the Committee, as well as other faculty interviewed by committee members,

expressed considerable enthusiasm for the idea of a veterans focused medical school in an array of

disciplines, including some unrelated to hard sciences. Many observed that veterans are a special

population, with issues that social workers, counseling, and mental health professionals are trained toaddress. The needs of trauma victims are one example of such needs. Some departments, such as

exercise science, include faculty with post-doctoral training at major medical schools.

For example, social workers are universally present in hospitals involved in many activities such as

discharge planning. In addition, the families of veterans are a population with their own distinctive

needs; social workers are trained to treat the whole person including the family system of which they

are a part. Social workers also provide a large share of mental health services, another particular need

among the population of veterans. The MCAT exam includes a psycho-social component, an area in

which the School of Social Work can provide the necessary training and preparation.

Those who advanced these views spoke also of other opportunities for research, as well as training andcurriculum development, presented by a veterans-focused medical school. In addition to the application

of such social work disciplines many other colleagues identified an array of unsuspected potential for

teaching, research, and service opportunities and collaborations like information technology

applications. Impact from these areas include discursive/linguistics practices that improve doctor-

patient communications, disease symptom discovery from large scale digital health data-both numeric

and textual data, and deliberative techniques to improve patient understanding about diagnostic

29


30/107

processes. Other public management applications include crisis management studies to incorporate

medical and health emergencies. Still others point to therapeutic art techniques and dedication to

community writing within the moral injury project as applicable to treatment regimens unique to the

veterans population.

In addition to their enthusiasm regarding teaching and research opportunities, as well as anticipatedbenefits with respect to faculty recruiting, faculty members in these departments spoke of the

enhanced training and placement opportunities for their students, including internships and other

forms of involvement in service provision.

In short, the Committee heard views from many colleagues that the existing capabilities resident at

Syracuse University have a multitude of applications to treatments for the veteran patient that would

contribute to a well-rounded medical student in professional training for veterans hospitals.

Should a decision be taken to pursue this initiative, Committee urges undertaking an assessment of

these unsuspected areas of relevant application for this unique training and education opportunity.

30


31/107

Appendix

31


32/107

Appendix A: A Veteran-Themed College of Medicine at Syracuse University Context & Logic

The following paper was prepared at the Committees request to summarize the University administrations

factors that prompted consideration of this potential initiative.

The Context and Logic for Exploring the Opportunity

Syracuse University College of Medicine The Story by J. Michael Haynie, Ph.D.

Past Informing the Present

At the start of World War II, Syracuse University was a small teaching college serving a student body of

approximately 5,500. As the end of the war approached, Syracuse University Chancellor William Tolley was

asked by President Roosevelt to serve as a member of a small group of college and university leaders, tasked

with creating what would ultimately become the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 more commonly

known as the GI Bill.

Today most historians assert that the GI Bill is among the most important legislative acts in the history of this

country, as the legislation played a key role in positioning the U.S. as a technological superpower throughout

the 21st century. Specifically, following the war the GI Bill empowered 8-million veterans to pursue higher

education, including three Presidents, three Supreme Court justices, 14 Nobel Prize winners, 24 Pulitzer Prize

winners, 91,000 scientists, 67,000 doctors, 450,000 engineers, and countless other members of what has been

famously described as the Greatest Generation.

Importantly, you cant tell the story of the post-WWII GI Bill and that Greatest Generation,without telling the

story of Syracuse University. Thats true not only because of Chancellor Tolleys role in creating the GI Bill, but

more than that its the case because Syracuse University in a way dramatically different than almost any other

college or university in America embraced the opportunity to open the doors of higher-education to the

nations returning veterans bringing more than 10,000 veterans to our campus as students, in the years

following the end of the war. No school in New York State welcomed more returning veterans to campus than

did Syracuse University, and only a small handful of colleges and universities in America count more of the

Greatest Generationas graduates.

It should be noted that Chancellors Tolleys decision to kick open the doors of Syracuse University to post-WWII

veterans was about something more than a sense of obligation. It was a very strategic and purposeful decision,

positioned to enact a vision shared by this community for turning a smaller, regional university, into a dynamic

and nationally-recognized research institution. Chancellor Tolley understood that a means to enact that visioncould be to engage our returning veterans, those who he intuitively realized would come to lead our nation in

the pursuit of social and economic prosperity over the next century.

32


33/107

Today Syracuse University is the institution we know and appreciate because of this decision.

In the 60+ years since the end of WWII, Syracuse Universitys connection to the veteran- and military connected

community has remained strong, robust, and central to our identity. For example:

For the past 60 years, Syracuse Universitys Whitman School of Management and Maxwell School of

Citizenship have been home to the Defense Comptroller Program (DCP), training the leadership of the

DoDs financial management community. Students come for a 14-month program, where they earn a

dual degree (MBA/MPA), and then return to service as military officers. This program is fully funded by

the Department of Defense.

For more than 50 years, Syracuse Universitys Newhouse School of Communications has been the home

to the DoDs School of Military Photo-Journalism. Students come for a 12-month program, where they

are trained as photographers and film journalists, and then return to military service. This program is

fully funded by the Department of Defense.

For more than 20 years, Syracuse Universitys Maxwell School of Citizenship has been home to the

National Security Studies Program, training senior military leaders (General Officers and Senior

Executive Service) in the fundamentals of global security. This program is fully funded by the

Department of Defense.

Founded in 1918, Syracuse University is home to the oldest, continuously operating Reserve Officer

Training Corps (ROTC) program in all of America. Students receive full-tuition scholarships (out of high

school) to attend Syracuse University, and after graduation go on to serve as officers in either the U.S.

Army, or the U.S. Air Force.

Syracuse University is home to the Institute for Veterans and Military Families (IVMF), nations first

interdisciplinary academic focused solely on the social, economic, and wellness concerns of the nations

22.5 million veterans.

Syracuse University is home (Law & Maxwell) to the Institute for National Security and

CounterTerrorism (INSCT), one of the nations leading academic institutes focused on interdisciplinary

research, teaching, public service, and policy analysis in the fields of national and international security

and counterterrorism.

Veteran and military-connected themes/applications have (for decades) represented a very significant

percentage of sponsored research/programmatic funding generated at Syracuse University. For

example, over the past year approximately 40% of all such funding coming to Syracuse University has

been veteran and/or military connected.

In summary while not necessarily visible or intuitive to many across our campus community Syracuse

Universitys past and present connection to the veteran- and military connected community is not only central

to our identity, its also one of the institutions most rare, valuable, and differentiating resources (relative to our

peer and aspirational peer colleges and universities). This is why, for example, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter

chose to visit Syracuse University on his first domestic trip after being confirmed as Secretary he came here

because (in his words):

33


34/107

The competence of this place (Syracuse University) makes it a preferred partner. Youve

been committed for a long time. You were way out in front in the

early post-WWII years and so theres a level of commitment and sophistication to the

thinking here that we really need, an intellectual basis, that we get from a place that knows

how to couple training with scholarship with action and there is just no other place thatdoes it like Syracuse.

Our Present as a Future Opportunity

Before Chancellor Syverud arrived in 2014, he had both studied our institutions history, and also surveyed the

current landscape of programs, research, and educational offerings at Syracuse University. Like Secretary of

Defense Carter, he recognized the Universitys past and present engagement with the veteran- and military

connected community as a rare, valuable, and differentiating resource one that could potentially seed the

conditions for future-focused opportunity at Syracuse University. Its for this reason that at his inauguration,Chancellor Syverud announced that one of his strategic priorities is to seed and cultivate programs, policies, and

innovative initiatives positioned to create Syracuse University as a national hub of thought leadership, research,

and programming related to engaging the nations service members, veterans, and their families.

This focus was incorporated into the Universitys academic strategic planning process last year, in the form of a

workgroup of faculty, staff and students tasked with investigating and informing futurefocused opportunity

connected to the Universitys past and present engagement with the veteran- and military connected

community. This workgroup concluded that Syracuse University has great strengths in many disciplines relevant

to this space, including in our Institute for Veterans and Military Families and our schools and programs related

to public health, disabilities, aging, speech and hearing, clinical psychology, biology, biomedical engineering,child and family studies, food studies, social work, education, exercise science, design, communications, and

many other areas.

In addition, the strategic planning workgroup also highlighted additional opportunity associated with framing

the Universitys past and present engagement with the veteran- and military connected community as a rare,

valuable, and differentiating resource. Some of these include:

The post-9/11 GI Bill as the most generous educational entitlement afforded to veterans since WWII.

Accordingly, there is a financial incentive to create a campus culture and climate attractive to this

generation of veterans, both because its the right, thing to do on behalf of our veterans, and also

based on external funding available to the University for tuition support.

While available funding from traditional sources to support research (NIH, NEH, etc.) continues to

decline, research and program funding from the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of

Defense has increased (or held steady) throughout much of the past decade. Closer and more robust

connections to these agencies may represent a significant source of research funding opportunity for

our schools and institutes.

34


35/107

The corporate sector is heavily engaged in the post-service concerns of veterans and their families and

(similar to the above), may represent a significant source of research funding opportunity for our

schools and institutes.

Because of our student serving veterans as students, engagement with the veteran- and military

connected community represents a compelling opportunity to motivate our alumni to support of

efforts.

Finally (and importantly), the workgroup identified engagement with the veteran- and military

connected community as a means to demonstrate societal citizenship behavior, purposefully working to

positively impact an important segment of society across social, economic, and wellness dimensions.

Given the above, the recommendations of the workgroup have been incorporated into a campus-wide strategy

to engage the schools and colleges related to this effort. Part of this work includes a studentfocused effort,

based on increasing opportunity for veterans to attend Syracuse University. A second dimension of this effort

relates to creating the conditions for veteran- and military-connected research to flourish on this campus.

As related to research, both the academic strategic planning workgroup and also leading researchers on the

campus identified as a barrier to opportunity the fact that Syracuse University currently is limited in its ability

to effectively compete for research funding situated primarily in the wellness (clinical)/medical fields. Further,

the workgroup also noted that Syracuse University is sometimes disadvantaged in its ability to effectively

compete for research funding even when not situated in non-medical/clinic fields, in instances where that

research opportunity includes a secondary wellness (clinical)/medical focus. These barriers/disadvantages are

present largely as a consequence of the fact that Syracuse University does not have a school of medicine. The

report of the academic strategic planning workgroup summarizes the situation like this: we may not yet have

considered how best to tap into our existing strengths . This includes faculty who teach the core required

sciences for a medical degree partner(ing) with local hospitals in addressing the critical need for skilled

physicians, and a potential new program focused on medical training specifically tailored for the needs of

veterans.

The Idea for a Medical School

The impetus for the current effort to explore the opportunity to design and deliver medical training specifically

tailored for the needs of veterans has been informed by our history, our present engagement with the veteran-

and military-connected community, and findings stemming from the academic strategic planning process. That

said, several environmental factors also suggest the opportunity as being timely and compelling:

There is a critical shortage of physicians nationally (45,000 90,000 by 2025), and that shortage has particularly

severely affected our nations veterans and their families and caregivers. That shortage will become particularly

acute in coming years as our veterans population ages.

The Veterans Administration Healthcare system is the largest in the world. The VA conservatively estimates a

shortage of 22,000 doctors over the next 10-15 years. The VA leadership has been actively lobbying established

medical schools to produce more doctors, but demand will outpace supply for the foreseeable future.

35


36/107

The SU CoM will enhance SUs research capabilities, will include research focused on military & veteran medical

issues, and will aim to attract the best faculty, staff and students from around the country who are interested in

this unique niche.

Related to the above, SUs national leadership role related to veterans and the close ties established between

the VA and Syracuse University that have resulted have opened the door to exploratory discussions related toa possible partnership in support of a college of medicine at Syracuse University.

Exploratory conversations with key stakeholders both to the University, and within the military/veterans

community have suggested strong support for continued effort to explore the concept. This suggests

opportunity related resourcing and securing the infrastructure/partnerships that would be essential to support

the project.

As part of the ongoing Upstate (NY) Economic Revitalization Initiative, we are proposing to cluster in the Central

New York Region institutions, programs, resources, and infrastructure creating a national hub of thought-

leadership, research, and programming focused on the social, economic, policy, and wellness issues impacting

the nations veterans and their families; elements of this resource cluster include vocational skills-traininginitiatives, research collaborations, technology transfer initiatives and possibly, medical education.

The Concept

Its important to note that the concept for a college of medicine at Syracuse University must be framed within

the context of a broader strategy to cluster at Syracuse University and across the Central New York Region

institutions, programs, resources, and infrastructure creating a national hub of thoughtleadership, research, and

programming focused on the social, economic, policy, and wellness issues impacting the nations veterans and

their families. In other words, the proposed medical school would represent a dimension of this larger strategy

already in progress.

Accordingly, the core question is how might a college of medicine be synergistic with and enhance Syracuse

Universitys existing strengths in many disciplines relevant to this space, including in our Institute for Veterans

and Military Families and our schools and programs related to public health, disabilities, aging, speech and

hearing, clinical psychology, biology, biomedical engineering, child and family studies, food studies, social work,

education, exercise science, design, communications, and many other areas?

Given that framing, the current thinking related to the design and function of the school is as follows:

Syracuse University is exploring a service-model college of medicine, such that 1) students would

attend at no direct cost (tuition-free), and 2) subsequently incur a service obligation as healthcare

providers working within the VA healthcare system.o Tuition revenue would come to SU on behalf of the students from external sources

(likely VA, and/or private donors) oConsider the model akin to the

current approach applied to ROTC

36


37/107

o If created, the proposed College of Medicine would be the firstpublic-sector college of

medicine of its kind in the nation, organized around a post-degree service-model concept,

and supporting a pipeline of doctors to under-served populations/institutions.

The proposal would create the college of medicine as an interdisciplinary endeavor, connected both

through research and educational/programmatic offerings to the schools, colleges, and institutes at

Syracuse University.

Residencies for students would be distributed throughout the nation, ideally within the network of VA

hospitals and clinics.

Assumptions & Feasibility

For the concept to be viable, the following assumptions represent necessary conditions:

Support from & partnership with the Department of Veterans Affairs

An economic model that sustains the college of medicine, and that is based on new/externally

generated funding, as opposed to debt funding or reallocation of existing university resources.

An operational model that does no harm to SUNY UpState, with regard to existing community

partnerships supporting their medical education program.

Support from the faculty and University community.

Latest Developments

As part of the Universitys feasibility analysis, administrative and academic leadership have met withstakeholders both inside and outside the University regarding this idea.

Productive discussions with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, including with Secretary McDonald

have guided the University regarding the needs and challenges of the Veterans Health Administration.

University leadership has spoken to Governor Cuomo, SUNY Chancellor Zimpher, and Dr. Greg

Eastwood, interim President of SUNY Upstate Medical University and briefed each of them on this idea.

In mid-July University senior leaders met with Dr. Eastwood and his staff to address any concerns held

by SUNY Upstate. It was made clear that this idea is national in scope and stature and would

complement, not detract from, the mission of SUNY Upstate Medical University.

In August, the University retained the counsel of Tripp Umbach (TU) a leading medical school and

healthcare consulting firm to assist the University in its feasibility analysis. This analysis is ongoing and

TU representatives are actively consulting with New York State, Veterans Administration and national

medical college stakeholders. A report from TU is expected in the beginning of October.

37


38/107

In discussions with local healthcare stakeholders (Crouse Hospital, St. Josephs Hospital) SU was strongly

encouraged to continue exploring pursuit of a veterans-focused CoM and look for synergistic,

partnership opportunities with regional healthcare facilities.

In early September 2015, Chancellor Syverud directed the formation of a Faculty Advisory Committee

chartered for the purpose of exploring the opportunities and potential challenges associated with

creation of a niche, veterans-focused college of medicine. The Advisory Committee will report its

findings to the Chancellor no later than 5 October 2015.

During consultation with multiple retired Flag Officers / General Officers (FO/GO), SUs veteransfocused

CoM service model was well received. Key FO/GOs that have expressed support for SU CoM are:

oGeneral David McKiernan (USA Ret., former Afghanistan International Security

Assistance Force Commander)

oAdmiral John Harvey (USN Ret., former Fleet Forces Commander and Current

Commonwealth of Virginia Secretary of Veterans and Defense Affairs)

oRear Admiral Craig Quigley (USN Ret. Former Deputy Assistance Secretary of Defense for

Public Affairs) oLieutenant General Harry Bud Wyatt (USAF Ret., former Adjutant

General of Oklahoma, former Director of the Air National Guard.)

38


39/107

Appendix B: Faculty Feedback

In order to effectively solicit feedback from across the Syracuse University faculty populace, the Advisory

Committee constructed on online survey whereby faculty could respond to key questions and provide

comments and views. Faculty could provide submissions anonymously or choose to incorporate their contact

information. The survey was available for submissions from Friday, September 18 thto Monday, September 29th

2015. The survey was sent to 1,649 faculty members, with appropriate follow-up measures to ensure the entire

faculty community had an opportunity to participate. Below are the survey questionnaire and responses.

Please note that the responses have been redacted to delete any reference to the identities of the authors.

While it has been determined that responses submitted to a public survey are not protected by confidentiality

protocols, nevertheless, the Committee has erred on the side of an abundance of caution to protect the privacy

of the faculty colleagues who have offered views. As such, the responses to the questions for which

respondents elected to elaborate were redacted to omit identification.

Survey responses are unedited.

Question 1 is described in the executive summary.

Question 2: Feel free to elaborate on any area of your response above

many of my strong students are pre-med or interested in health professions, and I teach 17th c

British literature. A college of medicine adds prestige and allows for interdisciplinary work between

members of faculty working on the many areas of research that medicine touches upon and is

informed by.

The Chancellor has a full plate: fixing Arts and Sciences; fixing the College of Law; fixing Athletics;

fixing HR; fixing Development; and much more. I do not see how building a Medical School will help

with any of this. Indeed, it will divert the Chancellor from his necessary tasks. Managing this broken

institution back to health is enough for this or any chancellor. The medical school is an unnecessary

diversion.

A school of medicine is desirable. One focused on disability would be great. One focused on vets is

much less desirable to me.

I have a hard time understanding how at a time when the university is facing serious financial

problems we want to undertake a College of Medicine. What would happen when the revenue

estimates don't materialize? Will SU then raid the budgets of other schools and programs? Is this

really an idea that should be our top priority now considering our needs in so many other areas?

39


40/107

Having a medical, or other types of graduate programs, adds to the prestige of any university and

aids in recruiting undergraduates.

This is a fantastic idea!

If this is determined to be a 'win-win,' especially for SU's bottom line, it should be supported.

However, I don't know what crystal ball is being used, and if it can be relied upon.

The premise that this will not negatively impact SU finances and that it can be funded entirely by

external sources is, to be kind, delusional.

As a graduate school, how it would enhance or help student life is unclear, since the student life that

certainly needs enhancing to retain tuition dollars and alumni pride is predominantly undergraduate

student life. Other than in the biomedical sciences, how would it recruit/retain faculty? How will

investing in this impede other basics that need taking care of, including investments in our

classrooms, our faculty (and not ongoing hires of consultant and VPs), our dorms, our libraries? Our

graduate school is also woefully under-resourced already, as is our OSP division: it seems laughable

to build yet another aspect of SU when so much that is here needs attention and focus. To have a

medical school you need a strong graduate school (which we don't have) and well-resourced

graduate training in diverse fields and areas (which we increasingly don't have either).

I came to SU from a tier 1 research university with a world class medical school. The opportunities

for research, human services, instruction, and academic citizenship that can grow from SU's

adoption of a medical school are significant.

I believe a focus on medicine (or pre-med) will selectively benefit recruitment but restrict diversity of

student skills and interests and result in a less thriving intellectual environment.

It can only be a positive

As Syracuse University's student caliber continues to plummet, I feel that we need to re-energize and

refocus on the programs which we already have. Adjunct faculty are treated poorly and are paid low

wages with hardly any benefits. Undergraduate student performance is increasingly being driven by

helicopter parents who are threatening that those adjuncts be fired. As our caliber continues to fall

(3 spots in the current ranking of US News & World Reports), the last thing we need is to have our

student body become medical doctors.

I believe that multiple research opportunities not currently available to SU will become available do

to the connection with the VA system. These opportunities have the potential to impact beyond the

40


41/107

medical/mental health arena. More advanced technology must also be involved to create

orthopedic and other items to enhance the lives of our wounded warriors. Students interested in the

STEM areas and in medicine will look at SU even at the undergraduate level, hoping to be able get a

step up on entering the VA medical school. Innovative and creative faculty will look to SU for

employment. Those here will have more opportunities to expand their areas of expertise and

research. Campus life may well change in a positive manner. Certainly students will have more

opportunities to become aware of the VA system, veterans needs and challenges and opportunities

available to include those veterans into campus life.

the question isn't posed clearly --that is are you asking about these with respect to the other schools

and colleges at su? or about the medical school

SU should have a med school as a university of stature. Our relationship with Upstate is not a strong

connection. Let's do it!

It brings in real engagement, in depth, with a significant and identifiable group within our society

that interacts lifelong and across generations in our society.

This will increase enrollment by pre-med undergraduates and provide experiential learning

opportunities for our students

I am aware of several funding streams within the VA system related to mental health. My

department, Counseling & Human Resources has partnered with the local VA as a training placement

for the past decade. In fact, one of our alumni, Ann Canastra, has been a leading force in the

adoption of Mental Health Counselors' work in the VA. Although I am unaware of a research

program exploring this evolution, I believe that a medical school could provide additional

mechanisms for this.

A self-sustaining CoM in a RCM model will not affect the greater good. A CoM (and just a CoM)

without new research infrastructure (facilities and faculty) will do little to enhance overall research

visibility at SU or impact faculty recruitment/retention. A CoM will require faculty with expertise in

teaching, not research. More med students, med faculty, med staff, med families = "more mouths

to feed" = more strain on already very strained campus resources (libraries, campus rec, student

centers etc) = unfavorable effect on campus life. Unfortunately, a CoM may not impact UG student

recruitment as this is currently largely driven by the social and sporting infrastructure.

I don't accept the premise: It may be possible to find external funding to start the school, but

leadership attention will always be in short supply.

41


42/107

It will likely be impossible t

faculty advisory committee final report

Documents