CalMedForce - Growing California's Next Generation of Physicians

Physician examining child with mother.

Mission Statement: Physicians for a Healthy California’s CalMedForce program is committed to growing a diverse physician workforce by supporting, incentivizing and expanding graduate medical education in California. Our goal is to grow and strengthen the physician pipeline to meet the demands of California’s growing patient population, with a focus on medically-underserved areas and populations. 

PHC in partnership with UC developed the Advisory Council and Board to provide expertise and guidance regarding the Prop. 56 funded GME program. The Advisory Council is comprised of 15 organizational subject matter experts  that are responsible for advising PHC and the Board on the following:

  • drafting the application
  • establishing grant eligibility criteria
  • developing the scoring criteria
  • supporting outreach efforts
  • reviewing applications
  • recommending funding
  • developing administrative procedures

The Advisory Council had various recommendations to PHC regarding the application, eligibility criteria, and scoring criteria. Because the December 2018 cycle was the inaugural cycle, the Advisory Council took great lengths to validate that the eligibility and scoring criteria aligned with the statute.

The Advisory Council and Board approved the following funding guidelines to disburse funding amongst primary care and emergency medicine.

Discipline Approximate Funding
Family Medicine $9.5 million
Pediatrics $7.6 million
Internal Medicine $7.6 million
Ob/Gyn $5.7 million
Emergency Medicine $7.6 million


The application consists of multiple questions that were evaluated and scored consistent with the statute. In the inaugural year, the application contains only questions with objective quantitatively scored criteria. The electronic application auto-scored the applications. Therefore, the Advisory Council and Board did not score applications. Upon submission, staff reviewed each application for accuracy and completeness.

Staff balanced competing priorities when developing tiered recommendations. These competing priorities included funding high scoring applicants as well as distributing funds across many residency programs. As such, it will be noted that the tiers are similar, but not exact across the disciplines. The tiers were drafted as an acknowledgement that there were scoring distribution variances amongst the disciplines. Nonetheless, it will be noted that given the requests totaling approximately $147.3 million only a fraction of the requests could be honored. At all times, staff used the Advisory Council and Board-approved scoring criteria to develop its tiered approach.

Below is the scoring distribution of all applicants.

*Minus and slots refer the number of residency positions requested. For example, a family medicine residency program with a score of 25 is placed in tier 1. The family medicine program with a score of 25 may have requested funding for 4 residency positions, therefore their award is “minus 1” residency position meaning they received funding for 3 residency positions

**0% refers to applicants receiving no funds from the one-time 200k allocation amount requested.

If you would like to subscribe please send an email to with “subscribe” in the subject line.

Grant Recipients