D.O student worried about Caribbean students taking our residencies....

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
.
Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
FutureDO2016 said:
I think the OP is trying to say...he's worried DO students with lower board scores and low class ranks that in previous years matched easily in less competitive primary care programs or unattractive rural programs will have a tough time matching soon. This is because these programs will also consider foreign trained IMGs that have higher scores or US trained allopathic applicants that have similar or higher scores and accept them over a weaker DO applicant...It's not really fair because if lots of DO's end up not matching and IMG's take their spot...what will happen to those weaker DO's? Obviously, we don't know if AOA program directors would rather take a weaker DO student or smarter IMG based on scores?

I'm sure this won't be a problem for at least a few years, but by 2020, it will be a major issue if the system has not created enough residency programs, and new class sizes and new schools produce more graduates plus foreign trained applicants applying...it will be a mess.

We already knows hundreds and maybe thousands of foreign/caribbean medical graduates do NOT match already but what if this starts happening to DO students?
Click to expand...

Depends upon the loan type and its eligibility for IBR.
 
I agree with CG...if the matches don't combine. If they don't it would be a big loss for DOs (students, not the residency program so). If they do combine the match, I'll call it a net gain because more DOs will get stronger residencies.

I would hope that the AOA wouldn't be so short sighted to merge on behalf of filling their residencies.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
SukoonAkhira said:
There is absolutely NO hypocrisy at all in my post.. Let me explain....I have no problem with U.S M.D graduates matching into D.O programs. I've always felt that the system that was set up before was unfair. D.O's bring residencies to the table and U.S M.D's bring residencies to the table... what the hell do Caribbean medical schools bring to the table???? Exactly, nothing... that's my problem. I do not have any issues with U.S MD's taking D.O residencies.... But allowing Caribbean students into our system is not fair.....
Click to expand...

Should we ban European candidates from our residencies too? I don't believe they add residencies to our system either.
 
I mean while those doctors deserve to practice medicine too, but they should practice in the country they were educated and trained in as I'm sure their medical school did not expect them to leave. Most foreign medical graduates leave their own countries just to make more money and have more prosperous futures in America when their countries are also in desperate need for medical care. For example, I believe the majority of foreign medical graduates come from Caribbean medical schools, India, Philippines, and Europe and all have to re-train in a residency or internship because the standards in American health system are different.

I think after the AOA and ACGME match, the match rate is 95+% for DO's and MD's trained and educated in U.S. so this is not a problem now? Right?

However, I have a feeling that percentage will drop significantly (maybe down to 90%?) in the next 5-20 years after the merger, stagnant development of residencies, increasing class sizes, new schools, and even more foreign medical applicants. In essence, everything is going to become even more competitive and students in the bottom (low grades, low scores, average to poor letters of rec) of MD and DO classes will struggle to match.

IMGs by Country of Origin
Top 20 countries where IMGs received medical training
The following list ranks the top 20 countries where the largest numbers of U.S. physicians trained. These data do not represent citizenship or ethnic origin; they only represent the location of the medical school where the U.S. practicing physician obtained their medical degree.

  1. India - 19.9% (47,581)
  2. Philippines - 8.7% (20,861)
  3. Mexico - 5.8% (13,929)
  4. Pakistan - 4.8% (11,330)
  5. Dominican Republic - 3.3% (7,892)
  6. U.S.S.R. - 2.5% (6,039)
  7. Grenada - 2.4% (5,708)
  8. Egypt - 2.2% (5,202)
  9. Korea - 2.1% (4,982)
  10. Italy - 2.1% (4,978)
  11. China - 2.0% (4,834)
  12. Iran - 2.0% (4,741)
  13. Spain - 1.9% (4,570)
  14. Dominica - 1.9% (4,501)
  15. Germany - 1.9% (4,457)
  16. Syria - 1.5% (3,676)
  17. Columbia - 1.4% (3,335)
  18. Israel 1.4% (3,260)
  19. England- 1.4% (3,245)
  20. Montserrat (3,111)
Source: 2007 AMA Masterfile
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Dr. Zombie said:
Should we ban European candidates from our residencies too? I don't believe they add residencies to our system either.
Click to expand...

Yes... In my opinion, any country or foreign entity that doesn't add residencies to our system should NOT be allowed in. Look at it this way, can a US medical student just walk into any European medical residency programs.... Nope.... They have their own sets of laws that protect their own medical students that are graduating. So why doesn't the United States protects our medical students?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
FutureDO2016 said:
I mean while those doctors deserve to practice medicine too, but they should practice in the country they were educated and trained in as I'm sure their medical school did not expect them to leave. Most foreign medical graduates leave their own countries just to make more money and have more prosperous futures in America when their countries are also in desperate need for medical care. For example, I believe the majority of foreign medical graduates come from Caribbean medical schools, India, Philippines, and Europe and all have to re-train in a residency or internship because the standards in American health system are different.

I think after the AOA and ACGME match, the match rate is 95+% for DO's and MD's trained and educated in U.S. so this is not a problem now? Right?

However, I have a feeling that percentage will drop significantly (maybe down to 90%?) in the next 5-20 years after the merger, stagnant development of residencies, increasing class sizes, new schools, and even more foreign medical applicants. In essence, everything is going to become even more competitive and students in the bottom (low grades, low scores, average to poor letters of rec) of MD and DO classes will struggle to match.

IMGs by Country of Origin
Top 20 countries where IMGs received medical training
The following list ranks the top 20 countries where the largest numbers of U.S. physicians trained. These data do not represent citizenship or ethnic origin; they only represent the location of the medical school where the U.S. practicing physician obtained their medical degree.

  1. India - 19.9% (47,581)
  2. Philippines - 8.7% (20,861)
  3. Mexico - 5.8% (13,929)
  4. Pakistan - 4.8% (11,330)
  5. Dominican Republic - 3.3% (7,892)
  6. U.S.S.R. - 2.5% (6,039)
  7. Grenada - 2.4% (5,708)
  8. Egypt - 2.2% (5,202)
  9. Korea - 2.1% (4,982)
  10. Italy - 2.1% (4,978)
  11. China - 2.0% (4,834)
  12. Iran - 2.0% (4,741)
  13. Spain - 1.9% (4,570)
  14. Dominica - 1.9% (4,501)
  15. Germany - 1.9% (4,457)
  16. Syria - 1.5% (3,676)
  17. Columbia - 1.4% (3,335)
  18. Israel 1.4% (3,260)
  19. England- 1.4% (3,245)
  20. Montserrat (3,111)
Source: 2007 AMA Masterfile
Click to expand...

I could not agree more. How tragic would that be that our own government doesn't even look out for its own citizens. An earlier poster mentioned to just work harder bla bla bla... That's completely naive and simplistic....
 
Chris, you're only looking at one metric, and saying that means the merger will be beneficial for IMGs. I've already made it clear that other metrics are involved. For example, if by combining the matches you double the residency spots that they can apply to, but simultaneously double their competition, there won't really be much of a benefit.

SukoonAkhira said:
I could not agree more. How tragic would that be that our own government doesn't even look out for its own citizens. An earlier poster mentioned to just work harder bla bla bla... That's completely naive and simplistic....
Click to expand...

What about the American citizens that go to international medical schools (and get federal loans to do so)? US citizen percentages at many schools (mainly in the Carib) are like 90%+. Many US citizens also go to India, Pakistan and Mexico for medical school (mainly because they usually also have ties to those countries).

Personally, I think the idea of blocking off residencies to people that may very well be top performers in their countries is ridiculous. America has for some time attracted intelligent and succesful people, and those people tend to end up benefiting America. I'd rather not destroy that position.

If you're worried about low performers, there is no way that AMG residency placement will drop below 90% (actually DO schools will risk losing their accreditation if it drops below 98%), unless literally the quantity of graduates increases beyond the number of residencies (has nothing to do with IMGs - they as a whole are viewed as second tier by programs regardless, they're not "takin urr jawbs").

Match rates thus far for AMGs even with big expansion of US med schools has consistently grown. Placement rates are probably still the same (somewhere around 99%). Even if you are a low performer, if you manage to graduate and are at least somewhat sociable there are plenty of things you can do to make GME placement a practically a guarantee.
 
Last edited:
SukoonAkhira said:
I could not agree more. How tragic would that be that our own government doesn't even look out for its own citizens. An earlier poster mentioned to just work harder bla bla bla... That's completely naive and simplistic....
Click to expand...

You forgot that the idea behind the med school enrollment increase is to reduce the number of IMGs and replace them with U.S. med students in the match (through an ERAS filter or intentional bias). This is what the AAMC actually said: "Each year, 6,500 IMGs enter our health care system through U.S. residency programs. The vast majority of these physicians stay in this country when they complete their training. Many come from less developed nations that have physician shortages of their own. This trend raises concern on two levels — continuing dependence on IMGs, rather than U.S.-educated physicians, and the health care impact of a “brain drain” on the populations of less developed countries."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
hallowmann said:
Chris, you're only looking at one metric, and saying that means the merger will be beneficial for IMGs. I've already made it clear that other metrics are involved. For example, if by combining the matches you double the residency spots that they can apply to, but simultaneously double their competition, there won't really be much of a benefit.
.
Click to expand...



.......every other metric that has been posted here has been 100% opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Edit: But why is Medicare paying for IMGs to be trained when there are USMGs to train? We can lump US MD/DO with US-IMG, for sake of argument. But why wouldn't the Medicare funding that pays for GME not be prioritized to favor USMGS over IMGs?

Maybe there weren't enough US grads to meet the demand, but now with the increased amount of grads one would think US grads would/should receive the training over IMGs. The stat I've read is 1/4 are IMGs, that seems crazy that it is that high.
 
Last edited:
Honest question: if OMM training is required for an MD to get into our residencies, what stops us from not giving that training to IMG and FMG? We can easily say their schools are not up to our standards.

I can totally understand there is no choice with US MD getting the training.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Stlblues17 said:
Not to be that guy,

But why are our tax dollars paying for IMGs to be trained when there are USMGs to train? We can lump US MD/DO with US-IMG, for sake of argument. But why wouldn't the Medicare funding that pays for GME not be prioritized to favor USMGS over IMGs?

Maybe there weren't enough US grads to meet the demand, but now with the increased amount of grads one would think US grads would/should receive the training over IMGs. The stat I've read is 1/4 are IMGs, that seems crazy that it is that high.

Maybe I'll write my senator. 'Merica!
Click to expand...
Because the gme money isn't a reward for being a tax paying citizen (most students have barely paid anything by graduation). It's nothing but an investment in doctors for the system, national origin of those doctors doesn't matter at all. The system wants doctors (and is starting to not even care if we are doctors...looking at you NPs) and anyone that counts can have the money
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
sb247 said:
Because the gme money isn't a reward for being a tax paying citizen (most students have barely paid anything by graduation). It's nothing but an investment in doctors for the system, national origin of those doctors doesn't matter at all. The system wants doctors (and is starting to not even care if we are doctors...looking at you NPs) and anyone that counts can have the money
Click to expand...

I figured as much. I'm not necessarily talking about 'my' tax dollars, just why not push for more US doctors than IMG. I guess my thing is why doesn't the system, if it wants doctors, try to fix it by strengthening/favoring the American pool?
 
Last edited:
Stlblues17 said:
I figured as much. I'm not necessarily talking about 'my' tax dollars, just why not push for more US doctors than IMG. I guess my thing is why doesn't the system, if it wants doctors, try to fix it by strengthening/favoring the American pool?
Click to expand...
I think you are working with some mistaken assumptions. The system isn't interested in better care (they keep promoting NPs as proof). The system wants more bodies that it can tell the public are providing care, there is no value in american bodies over foreign bodies in that regard. I might even say that if I were architect I might prefer foreign as they are less likely to balk at pay cuts than american born docs

*edit "isn't interested"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
sb247 said:
I think you are working with some mistaken assumptions. The system isn't interested in better care (they keep promoting NPs as proof). The system wants more bodies that it can tell the public are providing care, there is no value in american bodies over foreign bodies in that regard. I might even say that if I were architect I might prefer foreign as they are less likely to balk at pay cuts than american born docs

*edit "isn't interested"
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I am curious how far they'll push the 'Promoting NPs' thing. Only time will tell.
 
sb247 said:
Oregon went far enough to outlaw private insurance paying doctors more than NPs
Click to expand...

Talk about a race to the bottom. Why go through all the schooling when there is no added benefit in pay for the clinician? I'm afraid this will only get worse by the time we're all practicing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
ChrisGriffen said:
...Except the combined match is thus far a baseless prediction that SDN just assumes will happen.

There has still been no official mention of this.
Click to expand...
I've heard more than one AOA board member say a combined match is imminent.
 
NontradCA said:
I've heard more than one AOA board member say a combined match is imminent.
Click to expand...
Yet they always stop short of providing us an actual year or range of years by which to expect this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
user3 said:
Yet they always stop short of providing us an actual year or range of years by which to expect this.
Click to expand...

Imminent can mean a lot of things, apparently. It seems, based on the publicly-available updates from the ACGME and the AOA/AACOM, is seems like they've been really focused on getting AOA and AACOM representatives integrated into the ACGME. Now that that has happened, I'm hoping we will start see more updates with regards to the accreditation process, the timetable for residencies to get ACGME accreditation, how many programs won't make it, combined match, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Legitimate 4th year DO here.

Try and relax. Some Caribbean students deserve those spots and some don't. Work hard, take care of yourself, and you'll end up somewhere.

Plenty of MD students don't like us taking their spots, but we've done it for years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Honestly, the altruist in me thinks that if Caribbean students are better candidates than some DO students then they deserve to beat them out. I'd otherwise feel hypocritical for thinking the same about my MD counterparts.
 
NurWollen said:
Imminent can mean a lot of things, apparently. It seems, based on the publicly-available updates from the ACGME and the AOA/AACOM, is seems like they've been really focused on getting AOA and AACOM representatives integrated into the ACGME. Now that that has happened, I'm hoping we will start see more updates with regards to the accreditation process, the timetable for residencies to get ACGME accreditation, how many programs won't make it, combined match, etc.
Click to expand...

So far it's all going according to the timeline. This was the first step from the beginning. Once programs start to transition (July) we should get a better idea of what will actually happen.

As far as the combined match goes, this has more to do with the contracts between NMS and the AOA and the NRMP. That was never a goal in the merger, but it will be a side effect of it.
 
As someone else mentioned, we "take" MD residency spots so it's pretty hypocritical to complain about FMG/IMGs applying to AOA spots. I think many people on here are completely misjudging the students coming from the Caribbean. Most are Americans/Canadians. While I think the schools in the Caribbean are unethical degree granting factories, there are still plenty of students coming out of there who worked their asses off and are easily just as qualified as many of us.

This is not to say that I support the education coming from those schools, but I think people just need to focus on themselves, keep their heads down, and work hard. Also this is coming from a student whos main training hospital is currently being taken over by SGU students for rotations. People here also seem to forget that the PDs at most AOA programs are still going to prefer DO students over IMGs unless that IMG is significantly more qualified for the spot, and rightfully so deserves it.
 
NoLollipops4U said:
As someone else mentioned, we "take" MD residency spots so it's pretty hypocritical to complain about FMG/IMGs applying to AOA spots. I think many people on here are completely misjudging the students coming from the Caribbean. Most are Americans/Canadians. While I think the schools in the Caribbean are unethical degree granting factories, there are still plenty of students coming out of there who worked their asses off and are easily just as qualified as many of us.

This is not to say that I support the education coming from those schools, but I think people just need to focus on themselves, keep their heads down, and work hard. Also this is coming from a student whos main training hospital is currently being taken over by SGU students for rotations. People here also seem to forget that the PDs at most AOA programs are still going to prefer DO students over IMGs unless that IMG is significantly more qualified for the spot, and rightfully so deserves it.
Click to expand...
some competition is healthy I guess, but what if it gets to a point of IMG/FMG matches threatening COCA's 98% requirement?

FWIW, the AOA HOD did pass a resolution supporting a US-grads-first match-- they do not want DO grads facing any competition from IMG/FMG students.
 
Last edited:
user3 said:
some competition is healthy I guess, but what if it gets to a point of IMG/FMG matches threatening COCA's 98% requirement?

FWIW, the AOA HOD did pass a resolution supporting a US-grads-first match-- they do not want DO grads facing any competition from IMG/FMG students.
Click to expand...

The "first match" seems more like a PR move. I'm sure that the NYC hospitals that enjoy those fat checks from SGU will just not rank a good number of seats to ensure they go unfilled so their SGU students can get them during 'Round II'
 
meliora27 said:
The "first match" seems more like a PR move. I'm sure that the NYC hospitals that enjoy those fat checks from SGU will just not rank a good number of seats to ensure they go unfilled so their SGU students can get them during 'Round II'
Click to expand...
Lol. DO>>>Carib, unless you dream of working in an understaffed, overcrowded, overly-malignant IM program in NYC.
 
NurWollen said:
Lol. DO>>>Carib, unless you dream of working in an understaffed, overcrowded, overly-malignant IM program in NYC.
Click to expand...

My point was that for those programs that prefer Carib MD's over DO's, an 'American First' policy would still allow those programs to fill with Carib MD's over DO's by intentionally shorting their ROL to ensure openings for their preferred Carib grads
 
meliora27 said:
My point was that for those programs that prefer Carib MD's over DO's, an 'American First' policy would still allow those programs to fill with Carib MD's over DO's by intentionally shorting their ROL to ensure openings for their preferred Carib grads
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get what you're saying, and you're absolutely right. I was just make an (apparently poor) attempt to be facetious.

The truth is, there are programs out there that prefer IMG's to DO's- whether the be because they are paid to have IMG'S rotate there or whatever other reason. They'll likely continue to look first at IMG's, while residencies that currently prefer DOs (ACGME and AOA alike) will probably continue to prefer DOs.

I think the best places do and will continue will looking at an individual's achievements, regardless of where that person went to school. I know that's the kind of program I would like to be in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'm nominating this for worst thread on SDN.

DOs wil be fine. Even low-ranking DOs will generally be fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
NurWollen said:
Lol. DO>>>Carib, unless you dream of working in an understaffed, overcrowded, overly-malignant IM program in NYC.
Click to expand...

Some people would rather that environment than to have an overly-malignant "DO" initials after their names (that 95% of patients don't care, don't know to care). *shrug*
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
meliora27 said:
My point was that for those programs that prefer Carib MD's over DO's, an 'American First' policy would still allow those programs to fill with Carib MD's over DO's by intentionally shorting their ROL to ensure openings for their preferred Carib grads
Click to expand...
The "America First' proposals would favor graduates of American schools, not American citizens regardless of where their school is located, for the record. Take a look at the actual proposed legislation.
 
NontradCA said:
I've heard more than one AOA board member say a combined match is imminent.
Click to expand...

A lot of people say a lot of things. This is politics. Words mean nothing.

kzjb333 said:
Legitimate 4th year DO here.

Try and relax. Some Caribbean students deserve those spots and some don't. Work hard, take care of yourself, and you'll end up somewhere.

Plenty of MD students don't like us taking their spots, but we've done it for years.
Click to expand...

Hang on guys. He is "legitimate." Are you kidding me?

The merger is bad (for most DOs). However we went from competely screwed to sort of screwed. It was only a matter of time before the ACGME said "ok no more dos" and then the AOA is stuck with a something near 4:1 ratio of graduates to AOA residency spots. It was a must move and if they standardize the timing of the matches it may work out decent for us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
jw3600 said:
A lot of people say a lot of things. This is politics. Words mean nothing.



Hang on guys. He is "legitimate." Are you kidding me?

The merger is bad (for most DOs). However we went from competely screwed to sort of screwed. It was only a matter of time before the ACGME said "ok no more dos" and then the AOA is stuck with a something near 4:1 ratio of graduates to AOA residency spots. It was a must move and if they standardize the timing of the matches it may work out decent for us.
Click to expand...

I was being sarcastic.
 
As soon as an idiot posts about how DOs would get banned from acgme residencies it is officially the death of the thread.
 
I don't think the idea of the ACGME eventually 'banning' DOs was completely ludicrous. If in some future time the number of MD school spots increases to the point of being able to fill their residencies, or if the feds ever cut GME funding and residencies have to close, I could see them making that move.

I'm not sure when 'the merger is bad for DO's' became the dominant SDN dogma, but I for one still think it's a mostly good thing. There are (thankfully few) employers out there that insist on having ABMS-boarded doctors. In any case, ABMS board certification is seen as the gold standard. Thanks to the merger, all DOs graduating from any residency, after a certain future point in time, will be eligible for ABMS board certification.

Also, having a unified GME system assures a higher level of quality of residencies across the board. People talk a lot about the merger causing DO residencies to close. Would any of you really want to go to any of these residencies anyway? I for one am more likely to apply to osteopathic residencies that have achieved ACGME accreditation because I know they will be up to par.

People fear competition from MD's for our residencies, but to me that is only fair.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
NurWollen said:
I don't think the idea of the ACGME eventually 'banning' DOs was completely ludicrous
Click to expand...


No it really really is ludicrous. Its even worse because this has been gone over countless times on SDN.

The feds pay for residencies. They step out and allow[ed] two separate bodies (aoa/acgme) to allocate funding and oversee the residency programs for two reasons

1) the two organizations historically get along fine, and play nice with each other

2) the government USED TO have no role in policing medicine.


Today, the government polices medicine. The only thing keeping them out of policing GME is the fact that they dont need to. There are already people who do that. Now, if the acgme/aoa even appear to quarrel over something and stop functioning efficiently, they will be instantly guillotined, and a senate committee would take the role of the former aoa/acgme.

Banning DOs from ACGME residencies would actually be the last thing they ever do.
 
NurWollen said:
I don't think the idea of the ACGME eventually 'banning' DOs was completely ludicrous. If in some future time the number of MD school spots increases to the point of being able to fill their residencies, or if the feds ever cut GME funding and residencies have to close, I could see them making that move.

I'm not sure when 'the merger is bad for DO's' became the dominant SDN dogma, but I for one still think it's a mostly good thing. There are (thankfully few) employers out there that insist on having ABMS-boarded doctors. In any case, ABMS board certification is seen as the gold standard. Thanks to the merger, all DOs graduating from any residency, after a certain future point in time, will be eligible for ABMS board certification.

Also, having a unified GME system assures a higher level of quality of residencies across the board. People talk a lot about the merger causing DO residencies to close. Would any of you really want to go to any of these residencies anyway? I for one am more likely to apply to osteopathic residencies that have achieved ACGME accreditation because I know they will be up to par.

People fear competition from MD's for our residencies, but to me that is only fair.
Click to expand...
I highly doubt there would be a move to ban DOs. With the merger, I don't see it as legally feasible. What could happen is a push for the LCME to absorb the COCA, which I would personally view as a positive thing. Another possibility is a US grads first policy, which has been discussed a bit, and might actually start to see the light of day once the crunch hits.

One certain thing that will occur care of the merger is the death of the osteopathic specialty boards- there will be no incentive for people to double-board, as it is both costly and time consuming to maintain dual certification on both sides of the fence. The vast majority of DOs will board on the ABMS side of things, and the osteopathic organizations will lose funding and slowly die.
 
The comments on here are ridiculous. ACGME ban DOs?! Seriously, how many of you folks posting are paranoid pre-meds? This includes people with acceptances, you are still pre-meds. Stop spreading fear with ZERO proof of anything.

This garbage belongs on the pre-osteopathic forum, not the Osteopathic forum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
ChrisGriffen said:
No it really really is ludicrous. Its even worse because this has been gone over countless times on SDN.

The feds pay for residencies. They step out and allow[ed] two separate bodies (aoa/acgme) to allocate funding and oversee the residency programs for two reasons

1) the two organizations historically get along fine, and play nice with each other

2) the government USED TO have no role in policing medicine.


Today, the government polices medicine. The only thing keeping them out of policing GME is the fact that they dont need to. There are already people who do that. Now, if the acgme/aoa even appear to quarrel over something and stop functioning efficiently, they will be instantly guillotined, and a senate committee would take the role of the former aoa/acgme.

Banning DOs from ACGME residencies would actually be the last thing they ever do.
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is that if the merger hadn't happened, it could be foreseeable that the ACGME could ban DOs. DOs weren't always allowed in MD residencies. Any idea of how the government would respond is speculation. You're probably right in that it would be in the government's best interest to prevent the ACGME from doing this, but who knows what crap congress can pull. Anyway, it's a moot point because of the merger.

Mad Jack said:
I highly doubt there would be a move to ban DOs. With the merger, I don't see it as legally feasible. What could happen is a push for the LCME to absorb the COCA, which I would personally view as a positive thing. Another possibility is a US grads first policy, which has been discussed a bit, and might actually start to see the light of day once the crunch hits.

One certain thing that will occur care of the merger is the death of the osteopathic specialty boards- there will be no incentive for people to double-board, as it is both costly and time consuming to maintain dual certification on both sides of the fence. The vast majority of DOs will board on the ABMS side of things, and the osteopathic organizations will lose funding and slowly die.
Click to expand...

Again, I was referring to things pre-merger.
NoLollipops4U said:
The comments on here are ridiculous. ACGME ban DOs?! Seriously, how many of you folks posting are paranoid pre-meds? This includes people with acceptances, you are still pre-meds. Stop spreading fear with ZERO proof of anything.

This garbage belongs on the pre-osteopathic forum, not the Osteopathic forum.
Click to expand...

2nd year DO student. I was simply making the point that before the merger, DOs were at the mercy of the ACGME when it comes to everyone getting residency spots. Now, since the ACGME is the accrediting organization for DO residencies, they can't very well exclude DOs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

R
D.O. Students: Research Participation Request!
Replies
3
Views
643
greenmath44
G
N
Funding from Canadian banks for my D.O program in the U.S
Replies
3
Views
702
neytini
N
D
1st year D.O. trying to match competitively in IM
Replies
36
Views
4K
TransformerInWestVirginia
T
TheBoneDoctah
D.O. Student Orthopedic Surgery Matched-AMA
2 3 4
Replies
182
Views
38K
bored_suitcase
B
M
Worried about research for general surgery
Replies
3
Views
1K
soundofwonder
S
Top