Hi,

I found this article in Business Week (my husband reads it). Is it just me or is it just sexist?

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_17/b4081104183847.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_li festyle

Are There Too Many Women Doctors?
As an MD shortage looms, female physicians and their flexible hours are taking some of the blame
by Catherine Arnst

Finding a doctor could soon be even harder than paying for one. Various studies have projected a shortfall of anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 physicians in the U.S. relative to demand by 2020, and the Institute of Medicine, a federal advisory body, just reported that in a mere three years senior citizens will be facing a health-care workforce that is "too small and woefully unprepared."

This looming shortage is forcing into the open a controversy that has been cautiously debated in hospitals and medical practices for some time: Are women doctors part of the problem? It's not the abilities of female doctors that are in question. It's that study after study has found women doctors tend to work 20% to 25% fewer hours than their male counterparts.

The British Medical Journal went public with the debate on Apr. 5 when it published a commentary by Dr. Brian McKinstry, a general practitioner at Scotland's University of Edinburgh, titled "Are There Too Many Female Medical Graduates? Yes." McKinstry argues that "society still expects women rather than men to reduce work commitments to look after children and not to return to full-time work until the children are older." He laments the unfairness of it all but concludes that "in the absence of a profound change in our society in terms of responsibility for childcare, we need to take a balanced approach to recruitment."

Plenty of medical staffing experts reject the notion that women should shoulder the blame. Even McKinstry does not want to set the clock back to the 1970s, when only 10% of U.S. doctors were women. Today women account for one-third of the physician workforce. In U.S. medical schools, they make up half the class.

But even those who disagree with McKinstry's position acknowledge that women doctors in the U.S. work less—47 hours per week on average, versus 53 for men. They also see about 10% fewer patients and tend to take more time off early in their careers. "It's pretty much an even bet that within a year or two of entering practice they will go on maternity leave," says Phillip Miller, a vice-president of the medical recruiting firm Merritt, Hawkins & Associates. "Then they are going to want more flexible hours."

Such demands tend to irritate older doctors. "The young women in our practice are always looking to get out of being on-call," says a male internist at a large New York-area medical group who asked not to be named. "The rest of us have to pick up the slack. That really stirs up a lot of resentment."

On the plus side, women are willing to take on lower-paying specialties that male doctors are moving away from, such as primary care, pediatrics, and obstetrics. Since 1996 there has been a 40% jump in the number of women choosing primary care, offsetting the 16% decline in men entering the field.

A lighter workload also has its advantages. "Lots of studies show that doctors who work fewer hours have less burnout," says Dr. Joseph Flaherty, dean of University of Illinois College of Medicine. "There is a strong association between long hours and medical errors."

The issue of shorter work weeks may in fact be as much generational as gender-based. Newly minted male doctors are also rejecting the heroic 80-hour weeks put in by physicians of yesteryear. Ultimately, medicine will have to accommodate the lifestyle demands of a younger generation if it is to address the physician shortage, says Dr. Nancy Oriol, dean of students for Harvard Medical School. "If there is a problem with retention, it might serve us well to investigate details of the career paths themselves."

Hi,

I found this article in Business Week (my husband reads it). Is it just me or is it just sexist?

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_17/b4081104183847.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_li festyle

Are There Too Many Women Doctors?
As an MD shortage looms, female physicians and their flexible hours are taking some of the blame
by Catherine Arnst

Finding a doctor could soon be even harder than paying for one. Various studies have projected a shortfall of anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 physicians in the U.S. relative to demand by 2020, and the Institute of Medicine, a federal advisory body, just reported that in a mere three years senior citizens will be facing a health-care workforce that is "too small and woefully unprepared."

This looming shortage is forcing into the open a controversy that has been cautiously debated in hospitals and medical practices for some time: Are women doctors part of the problem? It's not the abilities of female doctors that are in question. It's that study after study has found women doctors tend to work 20% to 25% fewer hours than their male counterparts.

The British Medical Journal went public with the debate on Apr. 5 when it published a commentary by Dr. Brian McKinstry, a general practitioner at Scotland's University of Edinburgh, titled "Are There Too Many Female Medical Graduates? Yes." McKinstry argues that "society still expects women rather than men to reduce work commitments to look after children and not to return to full-time work until the children are older." He laments the unfairness of it all but concludes that "in the absence of a profound change in our society in terms of responsibility for childcare, we need to take a balanced approach to recruitment."

Plenty of medical staffing experts reject the notion that women should shoulder the blame. Even McKinstry does not want to set the clock back to the 1970s, when only 10% of U.S. doctors were women. Today women account for one-third of the physician workforce. In U.S. medical schools, they make up half the class.

But even those who disagree with McKinstry's position acknowledge that women doctors in the U.S. work less—47 hours per week on average, versus 53 for men. They also see about 10% fewer patients and tend to take more time off early in their careers. "It's pretty much an even bet that within a year or two of entering practice they will go on maternity leave," says Phillip Miller, a vice-president of the medical recruiting firm Merritt, Hawkins & Associates. "Then they are going to want more flexible hours."

Such demands tend to irritate older doctors. "The young women in our practice are always looking to get out of being on-call," says a male internist at a large New York-area medical group who asked not to be named. "The rest of us have to pick up the slack. That really stirs up a lot of resentment."

On the plus side, women are willing to take on lower-paying specialties that male doctors are moving away from, such as primary care, pediatrics, and obstetrics. Since 1996 there has been a 40% jump in the number of women choosing primary care, offsetting the 16% decline in men entering the field.

A lighter workload also has its advantages. "Lots of studies show that doctors who work fewer hours have less burnout," says Dr. Joseph Flaherty, dean of University of Illinois College of Medicine. "There is a strong association between long hours and medical errors."

The issue of shorter work weeks may in fact be as much generational as gender-based. Newly minted male doctors are also rejecting the heroic 80-hour weeks put in by physicians of yesteryear. Ultimately, medicine will have to accommodate the lifestyle demands of a younger generation if it is to address the physician shortage, says Dr. Nancy Oriol, dean of students for Harvard Medical School. "If there is a problem with retention, it might serve us well to investigate details of the career paths themselves."
:eek:

Hi,

I found this article in Business Week (my husband reads it). Is it just me or is it just sexist?

It's you.

What exactly does the article say that you find so beyond the pale?

the article is right on. until men realize that they too need to take care of their children, women will continue to take time off and apparently cause the "MD shortage". the guy who was pissed off about his female MD partners taking time off obviously never had any kids and if he did, doesn't know them.

Gosh is stating a fact sexist? Anyway, I agree that it's not women that need to work harder, it's men that need to relax a little.. but that wont happen cause:

1) Men don't have periods.

2) Men don't get pregnant.

3) Society still expects a guy to spend the money on the girl he is dating, marrying etc etc. Child support and alimony are highly biased towards women.


And of course there are those who are not raised to care for a family, like Gwen said. They dont know their own kids.


Still, should we accept more male doctors? Hell no. Keep the balance, that way it's fair. It's not like anyone signing up to be a doctor doesnt have the right to reduce their hours.. sheesh. They can always increase the overall number of spots in residency+college to graduate more.

McKinstry argues that "society still expects women rather than men to reduce work commitments to look after children and not to return to full-time work until the children are older." He laments the unfairness of it all but concludes that "in the absence of a profound change in our society in terms of responsibility for childcare, we need to take a balanced approach to recruitment."


<choke>
Good God. So while completely acknowledging the problem (that society disproportionately puts the care of children on the shoulders of women), this guy says to not bother with the actual problem itself but instead put barriers to women entering the profession. Sure, THAT'll be a great idea. Why not tell women they should only be in careers where they won't be needed? Or why not ask women applicants to sign a waiver saying they will remain childless before allowing them to enter med school? All of these options are ridiculous.

A woman doctor is as capable a doctor as any other. If there are only enough doctors to go around if they work 100 hr weeks, then there AREN'T enough doctors around!! Telling women to go find something else to do is not going to help.

Hmm, I'm confused.

Gosh is stating a fact sexist? Anyway, I agree that it's not women that need to work harder, it's men that need to relax a little.. but that wont happen cause:

1) Men don't have periods.
So they would relax more if they had periods? Personally, wearing a tampon does not stop me from being able to think, to work, or compete in a triathlon for that matter. Is this a barrier to the profession?

2) Men don't get pregnant.
You're right. For the 9-27 total months that the average mother spends in pregnancy, she'll need a little extra slack. Not sure why that has to impact the other 35 years of her career.

3) Society still expects a guy to spend the money on the girl he is dating, marrying etc etc.
Really? Guess I've been living in the wrong society. I've been "going Dutch" all my life. Just think how much I could have saved!

Anyway, I don't mean to tear this apart, but really, what's the relevance again?

Hah, this issue has been brought up on SDN before...usually by some disgruntled male pre-med who can't compete with the ladies. Capping female enrollment to prevent a physician shortage is like cutting off your arm to lose weight.

Not a bad article.

For those who want to work more for more pay, the opportunities will be there. I see more people wanting to do part-time as a good thing for me as an individual, but as a profession? Opens the door for midlevels to fill in the gap, leading to unacceptable increased scope of practice issues.

I don't think the article is sexist at all, its stating a basic truth. Namely that women have commitments other than employment in the form of having and raising children. Obviously, this will lead to women putting in less hours on the job. With women accounting for 60% of undergrads and less men entering college and professional school thereafter its logic 101 to see that there will be a disproportionate amount of female physicians who work less hours than their male counterparts of the past.

Capping female enrollment is not the answer. The answer is what companies have been doing for the last 15 years. Outsource medical care in the form of hiring more foreign physicians. This will allow women to continue to pursue higher education and make up for the deficit in work hours they cause by splitting their time with other commitments.

the article is right on. until men realize that they too need to take care of their children, women will continue to take time off and apparently cause the "MD shortage". the guy who was pissed off about his female MD partners taking time off obviously never had any kids and if he did, doesn't know them.

1. Men have always taken care of their children by providing for them, and that means by working long hours to make money.

2. The guy was pissed off because he thinks if women want to do his job, they ought to be able to do it as well as he does, and that includes taking call.

There's nothing sexist about the article. It's just how things are.
Personally, I think it's good that women take time off to be with their children because there is no replacement for a good mother.
And please don't ask men to be more maternal or anything like that, men have become domesticated enough as it is as far as I'm concerned. Just be thankful we don't eat our young like most male mammals, hahaha.

I saw this too.

I don't think it's fair to say that the physician shortage is because of women doctors. Unfortunately, we still live in a society that largely expects women to be stay at home moms.

I think if a woman wants to be a doctor, she should be able to, and have kids or whatever else she wants to do.

The physician shortage is not a result of women doctors; there are more factors involved than just that (for starters, an aging population that needs more health care).

Next thing you know, they'll be writing about the shortage of doctors because all the doctors are transitioning into non-clinical careers...

the article is right on. until men realize that they too need to take care of their children, women will continue to take time off and apparently cause the "MD shortage". the guy who was pissed off about his female MD partners taking time off obviously never had any kids and if he did, doesn't know them.

:thumbup::thumbup:

The article isn't sexist. It points out an obvious problem in the medical profession which no one wants to mention for fear of being accused of sexism. The sad truth is that women are still expected to fret about the childcare and home. Men are still expected to be the 'breadwinner'. But with women entering demanding professions, that means men have to pick up the slack at home. During this slow transition period, even as men are doing more childcare and housework, women are still doing the majority of both. This means cutbacks on the job.

I believe the market will sort itself out. Eventually, as more women work, more men will help around the house. And as more young doctors demand family time, I think the profession will change to accommodate that (i.e more flexible schedules, part-times etc). I am not worried about the gender dynamics of medicine.

And if any guy thinks that taking care of the children is 'too domesticated'----I wish you good luck on finding a wife. There is absolutely nothing maternal or domesticated about cooking and cleaning. Plenty of men have traditionally gotten paid for doing both.

Yeah...well most of the super select private practices dont hire women specifically because of this and if they do they arent on partnership tracks, they are employees for life.

As an insight, I live in a very progressive California "ra-ra Blue State/Obama ftw" city. In the entire county there has NEVER been a female partner in a group in my speciality and several others in the private practice realm. Almost all the female MDs in private prac are primary care (with a rare say female breast surgeon or plastics type) OR an employee of a large HMO.

So coming from "Babara F'ing Boxerland" I can only imagine what it is like say in Biloxi, MS. LMAO.

That IS the nature of the beast. The beast cannot change. No degree of feminist ideology will change the biological reality that is intertwined in a capitalist free market business like American healthcare.

IF the entire system is socialized, then maybe this would change but I would certainly burn the house down as I left should that apocalypse ever occur.

Yeah...well most of the super select private practices dont hire women specifically because of this and if they do they arent on partnership tracks, they are employees for life.

As an insight, I live in a very progressive California "ra-ra Blue State/Obama ftw" city. In the entire county there has NEVER been a female partner in a group in my speciality and several others in the private practice realm. Almost all the female MDs in private prac are primary care (with a rare say female breast surgeon or plastics type) OR an employee of a large HMO.

So coming from "Babara F'ing Boxerland" I can only imagine what it is like say in Biloxi, MS. LMAO.

That IS the nature of the beast. The beast cannot change. No degree of feminist ideology will change the biological reality that is intertwined in a capitalist free market business like American healthcare.

IF the entire system is socialized, then maybe this would change but I would certainly burn the house down as I left should that apocalypse ever occur.

Ya, i try to explain that to people and they dont listen... evidence by many replies above. They make fun of 6 months predelivery period and 3 months post delivery saying.. how much does that impact a female physician career... get pregnant 3 times and that's practically 3 years... so your partners will have to work short-handed for 3 years?? What if there was more than 1 female physician as well? What if they were twins or she had placenta previa and the physician needs more time off with bed rest or lose the baby? :eek:

The period thing is a minor issue, missing one or two days when in severe PMS is fine for most practices though if it occurs continuously I am sure others in the partnership who have to cover will be unhappy.

You are correct, the system is not socialized and it runs like a business and in business taking a day off much less a year is off.

Ya, i try to explain that to people and they dont listen... evidence by many replies above. They make fun of 6 months predelivery period and 3 months post delivery saying.. how much does that impact a female physician career... get pregnant 3 times and that's practically 3 years... so your partners will have to work short-handed for 3 years?? What if there was more than 1 female physician as well? What if they were twins or she had placenta previa and the physician needs more time off with bed rest or lose the baby? :eek:

The period thing is a minor issue, missing one or two days when in severe PMS is fine for most practices though if it occurs continuously I am sure others in the partnership who have to cover will be unhappy.

You are correct, the system is not socialized and it runs like a business and in business taking a day off much less a year is off.

Actually even 1-2 random days a month can reek HAVOC, absolute havoc on a small private practice. I have come into work with massive sepsis even, at one point actually practicing medicine (pathology..but still) with an IV line in.

I have missed only one unexpected day in the last 5 or so years where I pretty much was at death's door and speed dialed for last rites.

Stuff like missing a day here and there because of illness or kids is tantamount to basically saying you cannot do the job but would like an income, which is fine but dont expect to be partner, because you absolutely will not.

...Stuff like missing a day here and there because of illness or kids is tantamount to basically saying you cannot do the job but would like an income, which is fine but dont expect to be partner, because you absolutely will not.

Spare us your self-righteouness please. As you get older, you will realize that stuff happens in life; even for male doctors, wives get sick at the same time the kids are sick, etc. Glad noone has to work for you; if you think missing a day here and there for family issues means "you cannot do the job", you're really dumb.

The problem is not that there are too many female doctors. If there's a physician shortage, it is either because there are too few medical school seats, or because the reward is not on par with the effort required, or both.

Spare us your self-righteouness please. As you get older, you will realize that stuff happens in life; even for male doctors, wives get sick at the same time the kids are sick, etc. Glad noone has to work for you; if you think missing a day here and there for family issues means "you cannot do the job", you're really dumb.
.

LOL, have you worked in a small subpec group? Do you have any idea when the 1 guy/girl you have doing frozen section coverage fails to show and the other staff in the field is on vacation in Aruba? The surgical system can grind to a halt, basically instantly.

That person failing to show could be reponsible for upwards of a half million dollars of lost revenue...for a single day.

As I said, in private practice, in smaller groups you CANNOT be randomly missing a day here or there for personal crap on a semi regular basis.

That crap may fly in residency and fellowship, where programs are 10+ people deep but not out in subspec medicine in the community.

And yes, if you need that flexibility you CANNOT do those particular jobs, making partnership opportunities very scarce.

As I said, Ive had 1 sick day in 5years, my coworkers have had zero. The system would have to be drastically changed (much more redundancy, more staff, more people getting paid to sit around IF you decide to take a personal day) for it to accomodate the working mom planning on taking random days here and there.

Stuff like missing a day here and there because of illness or kids is tantamount to basically saying you cannot do the job but would like an income, which is fine but dont expect to be partner, because you absolutely will not.[

I'm not sure I agree with this.

I think the nature of work can and will change as more women enter the workplace. The idea that a person has to step into the workplace from day 1 and never budge from it until retirement in order to reach the brass ring is starting to be questioned by women (and some men) who want to a more circumvented route.

There is a budding market for women who take time off to have kids/do other stuff and then come back to their career. Does it hurt their career? Absolutely. But does that mean they can never make partner or achieve in their career? Not as much as they use to, and I think society be more flexible about people who weave in and out of the workplace.

As a capitalist society, we want to find the most talented people to do the work. If that means hiring someone who had quit for a few years, then I think the system will eventually see the value of that---especially if half your applicant pool has done so (this include both men and women since some men will take time off to stay home).

I was offered a job at a major consulting company and they had installed a program whereby they kept track of their employees who leave to stay home for their kids. The company try to keep in contact with these employees and make it a policy that ensures that these employees can come back and go back to the partner track. Before, you could never make partner if you dropped out even for a short while. The company said they realized they were losing a lot of money since they had to keep on training new employees.

As a result of the program, they said they have made female partners in the firm. This doesn't mean that all females are all par with the males, but it does mean that more females make partner.

Also, as lifespan expands, a few years out of the workforce will affect careers less and less, I think.

The same goes for those that took days off from work for kids. Kids will grow up, so this is not a permanent state. But I don't think that means parents will never make it to the top of their field because of that. Also, since we are talking about women in healthcare, I see more and more men involved when their kids are sick. Women are the predominate caregiver when the children are very young, but men take a much larger role as the kids grow up.

Anyways, I typically don't argue for the stay at home crowd considering both my grandmother and mother have worked fulltime all their lives and I plan on doing the same. But as I'm studying these work-life issues, I'm starting to realize that the traditional model of a straight linear path to careerdom is no longer the only guarantee to a successful career.

The article is a simplistic take on a complex problem. And yes, I do think it is kind of sexist the way it is presented, but heck, medicine is still kind of a sexist profession. Women are making gains, however.

If there is a shortage of docs it is because there aren't enough medical school spots, and because medicine as a career isn't rewarding enough. What about all the docs who are thinking of retiring early because of the hassle factor from the gov't and insurance companies, and declining profit margin? What about the young guys who just don't want to work the 80 hour weeks that the old timer docs are used to? They are a part of this equation also.

For what it's worth, I've never taken a day off because I had my *period* nor do I know any other doctor who has. It's kind of funny that so many men think being female is a debilitating illness!

Oh yeah, because all women just dream of the day that they can pop out a bunch of kids. :rolleyes: