WWAMI TRUST Scholars become exceptional rural physicians
During my time as a TRUST scholar in Hailey, I had the opportunity to form truly meaningful relationships with my patients. I helped provide prenatal care for an expecting mother, assisted with her delivery, and saw her baby at a four-month well-child visit. At the other end of the spectrum of life, I had conversations with terminally ill patients about transitioning to hospice care, went on home visits, and remained involved until their passing, writes guest columnist Alexis Ericsson. (Getty Images)
As a third-year WWAMI student from Soda Springs, I am writing on behalf of 18 current and former rural medicine trainees in Idaho, primarily from the TRUST program. We are concerned that House Bill 368 will detrimentally impact the state's rural physician pipeline. WWAMI, Idaho's medical education program through the University of Washington School of Medicine, has been educating aspiring physicians from Idaho for 53 years.
Since 2013, WWAMI's Targeted Rural and Underserved Track (TRUST) program has reserved a portion of each class for students from small towns like Cottonwood, Payette, Rockland and Victor. This program is unlike any other in the country and has established a successful pipeline for training exceptional rural physicians.
TRUST scholars spend about nine months throughout medical school embedded in rural continuity sites including half of their third year, engaged in clinical learning experiences. This program allows them to 'try on' life as a small-town doctor and is currently running in Sandpoint, Orofino, Moscow, McCall, Nampa, Hailey and Jerome.
During my time as a TRUST scholar in Hailey, I had the opportunity to form truly meaningful relationships with my patients. I helped provide prenatal care for an expecting mother, assisted with her delivery, and saw her baby at a four-month well-child visit. At the other end of the spectrum of life, I had conversations with terminally ill patients about transitioning to hospice care, went on home visits, and remained involved until their passing.
It was a privilege to be part of these moments, and I realized that I want nothing more than to care for people in my community from birth to death for the rest of my career. My experiences as a TRUST scholar are not unique to me, and I have seen how these formative patient encounters have shaped the career trajectories of my peers.
Many TRUST scholars like me grew up traveling significant distances to receive necessary care. All of us professionally have seen poor health outcomes stemming from inadequate health care access. In addition to our lived experiences, many current students, alongside our non-TRUST peers, conducted research at 22 rural Idaho clinical sites, which found that service access was the most frequently perceived barrier to providing care.
Simply put, Idaho needs more doctors. We support the formation of a committee of experts through the Idaho State Board of Education who can provide the Legislature with guidance on improving medical education in Idaho. We know a plan with rural Idahoans' best interests at heart will always include initiatives like TRUST through the WWAMI program.
House Bill 386 will take 10 seats away from WWAMI, with the potential to cut more annually until the program is obsolete. If Idaho reduces seats or cuts ties altogether with the WWAMI program, causing future students to miss out on experiences like TRUST, it will be a huge loss for all rural communities in the state.
It has been alleged that WWAMI does not embody Idaho values, but that could not be further from the truth. TRUST has become a pipeline where hardworking students from rural and underserved backgrounds can receive outstanding training, preparing them to serve the communities they know and love.
Caring for one's neighbor is intrinsically Idahoan and something the state should be proud to support. As current and former TRUST scholars and rural medicine trainees, we are the future of rural health care in Idaho and ask our legislators to work together with eth State Board of Education to develop a physician workforce that will serve Idahoans in the areas where we are needed the most.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
The best and worst ways to commute to lower your risk of dementia
Turns out your daily commute can affect more than just your road rage — it could also influence how your brain ages. New research published today suggests that how you get from point A to point B can significantly impact your risk of dementia. 'We have about 55 million people living with dementia, and that number is expected to almost triple by 2050,' Dr. Liron Sinvani, a geriatrician and researcher with Northwell Health who was not involved with the study, told The Post. 3 New research explores whether cycling, walking, driving or using public transportation is best for your longterm cognitive health. Getty Images/iStockphoto 'We know that both genetic and environmental factors contribute to dementia, which leads us to: What are modifiable risk factors or things that we can change in our life to reduce our risk of dementia? And physical activity is one of the main factors that that has been raised over and over.' That's why it may not be altogether shocking that a new study indicates cycling is the gold standard for commuting when it comes to staving off cognitive decline. 'One of the hypotheses they raised was that cycling is a moderate- to high-intensity workout, and also requires balance,' Sinvani said of the study. 'It requires more complex brain function than walking, which is why maybe it was a better reducer of dementia risk.' If cycling to work sounds a bit too Danish to you, walking is still a worthwhile second — but you might want to steer clear of subways, buses or, yes, even Ubers. 3 If cycling to work sounds a bit too Danish to you, walking is still a worthwhile second — but you might want to steer clear of subways, buses or, yes, even Ubers. Nexa – 'Another interesting thing they found was that even when using inactive travel like car or public transportation, it seemed like driving had a little bit better impact [on brain health] than public transportation,' she said. That could possibly be due to the fact that driving requires more attention, coordination and decision-making skills, giving your brain more of a workout than zoning out on the train. Ultimately, though, it's all about making lifestyle choices that are realistic but also give your brain a boost. 'We know that not being socially isolated is important. So getting out and being active is super important,' she said. 3 The study indicates that cycling is the gold standard for commuting when it comes to staving off cognitive decline. nuttawutnuy – To her, the study is 'not about just doing exercise and making that part of your routine, but thinking about the way you live your life. So, instead of having to drive somewhere, taking that bike and using active travel modes to get around as part of your lifestyle becomes very important.' Whenever people ask her what they can do to stave off dementia, her biggest piece of advice is 'whatever gets you outside doing stuff.' 'I think we see that it's not just the physical activity, but it's also in the balance, and it really engages different parts of your brain,' she said. If the choice is between walking and taking a bike, she would suggest going with the bike — but if it's between walking and staying home? 'I would say definitely walk,' she said. The latest study aligns with previous findings that say two of the most modifiable factors for reducing the risk of dementia are exercise and socializing. So, if you're really strapped for time, cycling to work with a friend is probably one of the best things you can do for your brain.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Big Data Can Make America Healthier. How to Do It Right
Credit - Ezra Bailey—Getty Images Big data can help make Americans healthier, and the Trump Administration has stated—in its recently released Make America Healthy Again report and elsewhere—that building a national big-data platform is one of its primary goals. As scientists who use large data sets to study health, we're excited about its potential and the willingness of the federal government to invest in it, particularly since big data has been underutilized in the U.S. compared with other developed countries—and since the number of ways it can be used grows nearly daily. It's a huge opportunity. But there are lots of concerns when assembling sensitive health data and combining it with other sensitive data, like credit scores, tax records, employment, educational records, and more. Some of those concerns with the Administration's plans have already surfaced. The Administration's first goal of assembling big data to studying autism has left some worried that if used inappropriately, such data could lead to harm, rather than help, for those with autism. Others worry that big data could be used to perform and justify shoddy research that supports predetermined conclusions without adhering to rigorous scientific methods—a concern reinforced by the discovery that the Make America Healthy Again report cited non-existent sources to support its claims. So how can we reap the benefits of big data while minimizing its risks? Here are some guiding principles: The health care system already possesses health data on millions of Americans. Medical records are now almost always digitized, permitting doctors' notes, medical imaging, laboratory tests, insurance claims, and more to be linked (in theory) across doctors' offices, hospitals, nursing homes, and any other place people receive care. However, data collected about a patient in one setting often doesn't get connected to data from other settings—making it hard for researchers to get a full picture of what, exactly, is happening to each of us within the larger health care system. Read More: Gun Injuries of All Kinds Go Up During Hunting Season The federal government also has data on us that can be connected to health care data to answer important questions. For example, comprehensive and detailed data on Americans' occupations linked with health, insurance, and other data could help shed more light on relationships between our work and our health—helping to better answer curious questions like why taxi drivers are less likely to die from Alzheimer's disease or why female physicians don't outlive their male colleagues. The first step of making big data more helpful is to simply link the data—which, while possible, is difficult to accomplish without centralized effort. Once linkages have been made, data can be anonymized so that those studying sensitive questions aren't privy to confidential information about specific individuals. In addition to governmental data, many other sources of data can provide insights into our health. For example, smartwatches not only have data on how our hearts are beating (e.g., they can identify abnormal heart rhythms like atrial fibrillation), but they can also identify subtle changes in mobility that might be predictive of early neuromuscular diseases like Parkinson's disease. Meanwhile, grocery stores have data on the foods we eat, and with increasing interest in how diet affects our lives, these data could be linked to detailed measures of health. Read More: Could the Shingles Vaccine Help Prevent Dementia? Similarly, social-media platforms possess data that can offer insights into changes in our mental health, and through large-scale analysis of online photos could even identify, in real time, early visible markers of disease. These are moonshots, of course, and whether we want to use data in this way is an open question. But the potential to improve health could be large. Creating a way for scientists to link outside data to existing government and health data—while responsibly maintaining individual anonymity after the linkage—could open many novel research opportunities. Keeping all of these data sources organized, secure, and accessible to scientists is a tall order. Researchers who use big data often dedicate substantial resources to finding the data they need, organizing it, and ensuring its accuracy; the better the database is maintained, the easier it is for researchers to actually perform their analyses. The secure online platform where Medicare and other government health care data are currently accessed has been described by researchers as 'tedious and prone to system errors' and in need of major improvements. Meanwhile, security concerns have led the government to stop letting researchers store the data on their own secure servers, the easiest and most cost-effective way to actually work with the data. Access to Medicare data by researchers has become prohibitively expensive, costing about $30,000 a year or more for a single user to work on one project using the online platform. Read More: Why We Can't Rely on Science Alone to Make Public Health Decisions Proposals to drastically cut medical research funding have been reported, and if passed, these research funding cuts will come at the cost of discoveries to improve health that will never be made. High-quality research of any kind requires investment, whether it's in a biology lab under a microscope or working with data on powerful computers. A new data platform is only as valuable as researchers' ability to access it in a functional and cost-effective way. Any roadmap to designing a national data platform that links together health care and other sensitive data must consider the many valid concerns about collecting data in the U.S., including privacy concerns and how data will be used. The Pew Research Center finds that large majorities of Americans say they are concerned about how the government uses data collected about them (71%), while also admitting that they have little to no understanding of what the government even does with such data (77%). Here are some strategies—in addition to many of the cybersecurity and privacy safeguards already in place—to both protect the data and help earn the public trust: Mistrust and unease with government data collection is readily traceable to historical abuse of Americans' data (as well as recent allegations of improper access), so it's not surprising that many are wary of the Trump Administration's plans. Ensuring data cannot be weaponized by the government against individuals is perhaps the single biggest barrier to creating a useful database, but it can be done. Those currently using federal health care data must already undergo training and comply with very high data-security standards. Misuse of the data—such as even attempting to figure out the identity of an anonymous individual in the data—or failure to protect patient privacy can lead to criminal penalties. A platform of sensitive data without well-delineated restrictions on who can use it and what they can use it for is a recipe for problems. Other ongoing efforts by the Administration to compile data under the vague goal of 'increasing government efficiency' have been met with pushback and lawsuits from organizations concerned about data being used against members of the public. Current use of federal health data also requires researchers to provide the government detailed plans to justify the use of specific data. This allows the government to ensure that no more data than is needed to answer the specific question is provided to researchers. Read More: Why Do Taxi Drivers Have a Lower Risk of Alzheimer's? Researchers must also obtain ethical approval from an Institutional Review Board prior to accessing and analyzing data, a second checkpoint. These boards, which exist in light of egregious failures of medical research ethics in the 20th century, help ensure that analyses are designed to minimize risk to patients—even if it is only their data, and not their bodies, at risk. Transparency into who is using this sensitive data and what exactly they are doing with it can engender trust between researchers and the American public. Just like researchers already do for clinical trials, those accessing the data platform should specify their plans in advance, and those plans should be easily and publicly available. Transparency around which data were accessed and what computer code was used to analyze it not only promotes trust, but such data- and code-sharing practices among researchers make it easier to appraise the quality of the work, identify mistakes, and root out misconduct. We can only assume that Americans' unease with governmental data use stems from knowledge that, as with all powerful tools, linked data has the potential to be used in potentially harmful ways. But when in the hands of qualified scientists using rigorous scientific methods and privacy safeguards, a robust real-world data platform like this could lead to new discoveries about how all of us can lead healthier lives. Contact us at letters@
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
DRI Healthcare Trust Announces Appointment of Annalisa King to Board of Trustees and as Chair of the Audit Committee
– Adds extensive expertise in audit, risk and financial strategy – TORONTO, June 9, 2025 /CNW/ - DRI Healthcare Trust (TSX: (TSX: DHT.U) ("DRI" or "the Trust") today announced Annalisa King has been appointed as an independent member and chair of the audit committee of the Trust's board of trustees effective immediately. Ms. King is the chair of the board for Vancouver Airport Authority and an experienced corporate director serving on three TSX public company boards. She is the chair of the audit committee at both Saputo Inc. and The North West Company Inc. and is the chair of the compensation committee at First Capital Real Estate Investment Trust. In addition to her board work, Ms. King is the National Academic Director of the Board Oversight of Strategy course at the Institute of Corporate Directors. Ms. King was the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Best Buy Canada Ltd. from 2008 to 2016, where, in addition to her finance responsibilities, she also led the information technology, ecommerce technology, cyber security, legal and real estate functions. Recognized in 2012 as the British Columbia CFO of the Year by Business in Vancouver, Ms. King is one of Canada's most respected senior business executives. She received the award for Significant Board Contribution by the Association of Women in Finance in 2019 and was inducted into the Canada's Most Powerful Women: Top 100 Hall of Fame™ in 2010. Her dedication to leadership has earned her a reputation as a dynamic business thought-leader in the areas of corporate finance and business transformation. "On behalf of the Trust and my fellow trustees, I am very pleased to welcome Annalisa King to the board," said Gary Collins, the Trust's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman. "Annalisa's extensive audit, risk and financial experience provides a strong addition to the board. I look forward to working with her on behalf of our unitholders." With the addition of Ms. King, the Trust's board is now made up of eight members with backgrounds in the areas of pharmaceuticals, government, business, finance, law, cybersecurity and governance, all critical to the continued growth and prosperity of the Trust. About DRI Healthcare Trust The Trust is managed by DRI Capital Inc., a pioneer in global pharmaceutical royalty monetization. Since its initial public offering in 2021, the Trust has deployed more than $1.0 billion, acquiring more than 25 royalties on 20-plus drugs, including Eylea, Orserdu, Omidria, Spinraza, Stelara, Vonjo, Zejula and Zytiga. The Trust's units are listed and trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange in Canadian dollars under the symbol " and in U.S. dollars under the symbol "DHT.U". To learn more, visit or follow us on LinkedIn. SOURCE DRI Healthcare Trust View original content to download multimedia: Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
