Board of Regents appear split on fate of medical education committee

The closing of the Health Sciences System was only the first chapter in a debate that has again reached the agenda of a Nevada System of Higher Education regents meeting.

Next month, the board plans to address whether a 10-year-old committee tasked with overseeing medical education programs at Nevada’s colleges is even necessary moving forward.

The response from regents has been mixed, with one saying he is “vehemently opposed” to the committee’s elimination.

“It’s a reduction in the transparency to what NSHE and Board of Regents do at a time when making sure the quality of both medical schools remain high,” said Regent Mark Doubrava, the committee’s vice chairman.

In July, NSHE “phased out” the Health Sciences System to let colleges direct their own health care initiatives with less oversight.

The committee was introduced in 2006 and became a standing committee in 2007. Board Chairman Rick Trachok said he believes the most important initiative it accomplished was helping to create UNLV’s nascent medical school.

“Now that it has been created, any item that comes up, I would rather it be addressed by the full board,” he said.

Doubrava disagreed.

Just last month, the school was granted preliminary accreditation, allowing the institution to begin recruiting and accepting students for its first class in 2017.

“It doesn’t make sense,” Doubrava said. “I think the timing is just horrible. I feel each one of the committees does important work. Eliminating any, especially this, committee at this time is ill-advised.”

Policy change items, such as the elimination of the health sciences system committee, require a first reading before the board can act. The first reading will occur at the board’s Dec. 1-2 meeting, and, if requested, will be approved at the March 2-3, 2017, meeting.

Doubrava, however, is concerned that the item is coming up for discussion before the new board members are in place this January.

“If you’re going to eliminate a committee, and you have four new members coming on, shouldn’t they be involved with the process from the beginning?” Doubrava said, adding that he would prefer that the first reading occur in March, after the new regents are seated.

“They’ll need to be brought up to speed rather quickly, and they’ll have no experience to realize if it was functioning to the best of Nevada’s needs.”

Trachok and Regent Michael Wixom, who is on the committee, don’t view it as an issue.

“They’ll have been on the board for three months when it comes up again,” Trachok said. “They will have the opportunity to do any research that they deem important to decide whether to keep it or not.”

Wixom offered a similar view.

“We don’t suspend meetings just because we have new regents coming on board,” he said.

Committee Chairman James Dean Leavitt, who is leaving the board next month, said changes like this should be proposed in a special meeting, where there is more time to discuss pros and cons.

“I do think we need to flush this out in much greater detail,” Leavitt said. “I think the best decisions get made that way.”

Doubrava also offered concerns that any discussions involving the medical schools and health sciences would defer to the Statewide Medical Education Steering Group, whose meetings are not public.

“They meet behind closed doors,” Doubrava said. “That’s not sufficient enough. Now that we’ve got increased funding it’s important to continue to have public input from all the stakeholders so that this increased funding is put to good use.”

Contact Natalie Bruzda at nbruzda@reviewjournal.com or 702-477-3897. Follow @NatalieBruzda on Twitter.