Is US medical market finally getting saturated with MDs/DOs?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

tabishis

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Messages
177
Reaction score
3
I was just thinking about it this morning. We have so many FMGs in addition to approximately 30,000 US MD/DO graduates each year. How many more doctors can US market accomodate in next 10 years?

First saturation and then outsourcing killed IT. Do you think same will happen to medical(specifically MD/DO) in USA?

Members don't see this ad.
 
I am not worried about the next 10 years. The baby boomer generation is going to require a lot of medical care which will secure medical jobs for some time. I am worried about the supply we create now which will be obsolete once the baby boomer generation is dying out, ie when we are going to be 10-20 years from retirement. You can't really compare medicine with IT or any other industry though since outsourcing is difficult in most specialties and there is an artificial barrier, namely medical licensing. Midlevels do pose a threat to some specialties.

In the end, you have to stay competitive in any industry, medicine being no exception. If you are competitive and willing to change you will be fine even in a changing environment. If you are not, you are going to have trouble no matter what industry you are in. In medicine you will always have a job. It might not pay what it pays today but a job will be there.
 
I was just thinking about it this morning. We have so many FMGs in addition to approximately 30,000 US MD/DO graduates each year. How many more doctors can US market accomodate in next 10 years?

While there may be lots of US MD/DO grads, US MDs educated outside the country (i.e. Caribbean), and FMGs trying to enter the "market," there will still be a limited number of US MD and DO residency positions available limiting the number of physicians receiving post-grad training at a time. The number of residency positions will grow, but very slowly (as I understand it).

And everyone will tell you that healthcare is only going to grow, esp. for services required by baby boomer retirees. We are still producing on the other end as well - a small "baby boom" in 2007. More kids were born in 2007 than any year in U.S. history.

Let's all hope that we will stay in great demand far into the future, who knows what will happen though.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
No.
Beyondbethany is right,
what limits the supply of practicing docs is not the number of people trying to come here to train (including IMG and FMG's) it is the number of residency positions, and that hasn't been increasing very much.

I get job offers almost daily from recruiters, via email or regular mail. These are for hospitalist and general IM jobs. There is definitely still a shortage in some areas.
 
No.
Beyondbethany is right,
what limits the supply of practicing docs is not the number of people trying to come here to train (including IMG and FMG's) it is the number of residency positions, and that hasn't been increasing very much.

I get job offers almost daily from recruiters, via email or regular mail. These are for hospitalist and general IM jobs. There is definitely still a shortage in some areas.

in my small homestate it is estimated that you could drop 300 primary care docs into the system and still have people working (and billing!) at the same rate. baby boomers haven't even started needing health care like they will need in 10 yrs so I wouldn't worry about there being too many docs. However, I think you are going to see a certain amount of boom and bust in some specialties, (cardio comes to mind). Any others people can think of?
 
I don't think cardio is going down any time soon...at least I hope not b/c I'm training in that! Anyway, with the number of obese diabetic hypertensives that we have, I don't see need for cardiologists going down soon.
 
-
 
Last edited:
LOL. Outsourcing did not kill IT, and IT is not dead.


What I meant by "outsourcing killed IT" is there're definitely not many jobs available in IT in USA. I work for a bank(IT) and every so often hear about so many folks being laid off and jobs being created in India, Pakistan and other countries. I work remotely with those folks on different projects EVERYDAY and only a few are smart and others are just plain dumb and lucky. That's what killed IT in the US.
 
I was just thinking about it this morning. We have so many FMGs in addition to approximately 30,000 US MD/DO graduates each year. How many more doctors can US market accomodate in next 10 years?

First saturation and then outsourcing killed IT. Do you think same will happen to medical(specifically MD/DO) in USA?

Citation, please.
 
Both the hospitalists i know seem to enjoy it. Decent hours. competitive pay etc.


they might enjoy it and i am sure they do...no "real" patients of their own....good hours etc.... but they are some of the biggest mistake makers I see.....just an observation
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I was just thinking about it this morning. We have so many FMGs in addition to approximately 30,000 US MD/DO graduates each year. How many more doctors can US market accomodate in next 10 years?

First saturation and then outsourcing killed IT. Do you think same will happen to medical(specifically MD/DO) in USA?

As mentioned above currently the only path to practicing in the US is to complete a residency and licensing in the US. So it really doesn't matter how many FMGs want to come here, the same number of physicians gets generated each year because the number of funded residency slots don't increase with the supply. So its the same 25,000-ish people matching and scrambling each year, not more. This is a rate that the US market can acomodate -- in fact we currently are running at a shortage in certain fields and regions. So no, medicine is quite well regulated in terms of number and thus no external threats really exist regardless of the number of FMGs out there. And FWIW, as older doctors retire and die off, there is always room for the younger set -- it's a nice closed system.
 
I don't know where you got the facts from, its not 30,000 graduates but rather 15,000 US medical graduates each year.
 
Common misconception is that the number of people medical graduates control the physician market, it doesn't. Residency produces licensed doctors. As long as that number don't change, the number of practicing physicians stay the same. Since medicare is funding the residency spots, I don't foresee a huge increase in doctors anytime soon.

Also, keep in mind that we have more residency spots than medical students graduating from US med schools. That may change in the future as spots increase, but since both the residency spots and med school slots are regulated, I don't think we will see a deliberate outpacing of US med school slots over residency slots anytime soon.
 
why does everyone expect baby boomers to suddenly get sick when they start retiring soon? what if baby boomers are healthier than expected? and its kind a sad that some people are happy about others becoming sickly.

- the number of pharmd schools and graduates has exploded in the last 5 years. yet starting pay for a pharmD keeps going up, and starting is around 115,000K and most come with very nice perks. i think prescription usage is a leading indicator for general medical care. people usualy start taking drugs and when things get more serious and/or drugs are not enough they go to doctors and have procedures. hope i dont have things reversed, lol.
 
Last edited:
why does everyone expect baby boomers to suddenly get sick when they start retiring soon? what if baby boomers are healthier than expected? and its kind a sad that some people are happy about others becoming sickly.

- the number of pharmd schools and graduates has exploded in the last 5 years. yet starting pay for a pharmD keeps going up, and starting is around 115,000K and most come with very nice perks. i think prescription usage is a leading indicator for general medical care. people usualy start taking drugs and when things get more serious and/or drugs are not enough they go to doctors and have procedures. hope i dont have things reversed, lol.

Nobody is happy about others becoming sickly, but it's a fact of life -- our bodies have an expiration date -- they were not designed to go on forever. We probably have already extended lifespans far beyond what ecological balances were ever meant to handle. That being said, all people who get older have much much higher incidences of virtually every major disease. Cancers, heart disease, diabetes, kidney failure, strokes, dementia, etc all affect folks the older they get. That's why older people have a harder time getting life insurance -- they aren't very healthy as a group. Baby boomers are living longer than prior generations, and as a result, are having MORE and MORE pathology that requires medical care. As folks live longer, virtually every disease category skyrockets. Just a fact of life. Exceptions exist, but you don't focus on exceptions to the rule, you focus on the rule. And yes, when you are talking about a closed profession, it is a very necessary evil that folks will retire, get ill or die, leaving spots for the newer generation. Not just in medicine but in virtually every profession. In many fields they have mandatory retirement, often set as low as 65. In medicine, where you aren't forced out in most cases, the newer generation has to wait longer to move up the ranks. Again, this isn't wishing ill or being gleeful about the older generation -- we all will get there. It's simply a fact of life. It's not like "Logan's Run" where we intentionally get rid of every senior citizen, but the design of the human body, with it's built in expiration date, does an equally effective job.
 
I would see a massive threat to radiology in particular not from saturation of the job market, but simply from technological advances. Computational vision is starting to get very, very good, and it is only a matter of time before there exist automated systems for performing most of the sorts of analyses that have traditionally been part of the specialty. Obviously, for legal purposes, there are still going to need to be humans signing off on these, but far fewer qualified humans are going to be needed to process the same volume of imaging work.
 
IMO, this is a non-issue and won't be for some time. As some stated, the baby-boomers are just now hitting the window that many predicted would require an influx in healthcare workers in general. At the top of this are MDs/DOs. Also, many people are commenting on how many MDs/DOs are graduating every year. What people fail to look at is how many physicians are leaving medicine due to retirement, burn-out, illness/death, etc... While I don't have raw numbers in front of me, something tells me this somewhat balances out the influx of med school students and graduates. As there has been a shortage, many current and older physicians have worked more than they admittedly wanted to, and with the increase of graduating doctors, I foresee many older physicians opting for an even earlier retirement after being overworked for most of their careers.

Also, if you have not worked in healthcare before, it is staggering to see how and why people use and abuse the system. Just in the field that I am in currently, to see the reasons that people come up with to make a visit to the Emergency Department alone, and how they use it as their primary care provider, amazes me day after day. I work in a large urban area where a wait in the ED at any area hospital of 3-4 HOURS is nothing atypical--arriving POV or by ambulance. This in itself deals initially with the Emergency Department; however, leads to patients being sent to floors, surgeries, referrals, etc....it is a snowball from here. The ED is the gateway to many other specialties, which many times, are just as over run.

To me, while there may be pockets where there is an overflow, this is a non-issue and if you commit to something as time and energy demanding as medical school, you should not have any problem locating employment or a nice salary and job stability.
 
Another trend to consider outside of the aging of the population is the growing number of young people who are not taking care of themselves and encountering "elderly" health problems at younger ages. I"m not going to bother to look up the numbers, but I know that childhood obesity, for example, is becoming a huge problem in our country. As long as kids hit the buffet and then sit around and play video games all day (and then carry these habits into adulthood), there will be a demand for physician services, unfortunately.
 
I would see a massive threat to radiology in particular not from saturation of the job market, but simply from technological advances. Computational vision is starting to get very, very good, and it is only a matter of time before there exist automated systems for performing most of the sorts of analyses that have traditionally been part of the specialty. Obviously, for legal purposes, there are still going to need to be humans signing off on these, but far fewer qualified humans are going to be needed to process the same volume of imaging work.

Actually technology is probably a much bigger threat in most other medical fields. You have much higher yield plugging in the history, exam findings and a bunch of symptoms and getting the most likely diagnoses in the other diagnostic fields then you do having a computer actually read a film. The reason is that there isn't a single "normal" - it's a huge range, and there are more variations than not. Two people can have totally different looking scans and both be variations of normal. So while it might be possible to teach a computer to find things that are a deviation from a normal scan, and some programs do this now, it doesn't work well when no two people have the same baseline normal scan. So when folks use this kind of software it's a VERY high percentage of the time that the radiologist has to ignore the findings because the anomaly highlighted is simply a normal finding. A buddy of mine works at a lab doing research on this (they actually attach sensors to radiologists eyes to try and learn how radiologists look at a film), and it's apparently a very complex analysis -- it's not useful to do a linear pixel by pixel scan. I'd say we are talking many decades before this kind of thing actually comes into fruition, if ever, and as mentioned, you will see it in the medicine specialties far earlier. The attempts to use the same kind of "facial recognition" type software that Vegas tries to use (with debatable results) really haven't panned out in rads.

Not to mention that if you are just looking to preread a film nobody does it cheaper than folks overseas (although you still have to have someone with a license review it for legal reasons), and nobody in the states does it cheaper than residents. So there's really never going to be that much incentive to install expensive software packages throughout your hospital when you are only paying a resident or fellow $50k/year to do the same thing, and you already need them to be doing that for training purposes anyhow. So no, I don't see this happening anytime soon.
 
Another trend to consider outside of the aging of the population is the growing number of young people who are not taking care of themselves and encountering "elderly" health problems at younger ages. I"m not going to bother to look up the numbers, but I know that childhood obesity, for example, is becoming a huge problem in our country. As long as kids hit the buffet and then sit around and play video games all day (and then carry these habits into adulthood), there will be a demand for physician services, unfortunately.

Soda, fast food and video games/internet are the problem. Kids get more calories per sitting, and are sitting more. So the percentage obese has gone up dramatically. And with that hypertension and diabetes. So even though the generations behind the baby boomers are smaller, most will be keeping the doctors in business. I actually think the lifespan may start to decline in years to come.
 
they might enjoy it and i am sure they do...no "real" patients of their own....good hours etc.... but they are some of the biggest mistake makers I see.....just an observation

So true!
 
LOL. Outsourcing did not kill IT, and IT is not dead.
100% agree.
What I meant by "outsourcing killed IT" is there're definitely not many jobs available in IT in USA. I work for a bank(IT) and every so often hear about so many folks being laid off and jobs being created in India, Pakistan and other countries. I work remotely with those folks on different projects EVERYDAY and only a few are smart and others are just plain dumb and lucky. That's what killed IT in the US.
There are, and will forever be, plenty of jobs in IT in the US. IT didn't die, it stabilized. What changed? You can no longer assume that you're going to get rich in IT, and you can no longer assume that you will never get laid off or outsourced, and you can no longer have recruiters fighting over your CS degree. Which means it's now a normal engineering industry. If you can create, such as if you're a whiz kid who can whip out an iPhone app or modify the kernel, you can still make $150k and have recruiters fight over you - creative jobs are investments for software firms. Support jobs at non-software firms are part of operating costs, which are always targets for cost savings. If you have no better credentials than an IIT Bombay grad, meaning you can install and use and configure and support software that other people created, then you're going to be competing for the $40k jobs that are outsourceable. (PS: IIT Bombay kids started winning the competition for the $150k jobs lately...you've been deceived if you think they're nimrods.)

By comparison, in medicine, physicians are like creative engineers: always in demand as long as the population is growing, and always well paid (if you consider $150k well paid). If you are at the top of the heap in a profitable arm of medicine, with lots of procedures and demand from high-income consumers with private insurance (hearts, hips and hotness), you can still start at $300k and have recruiters fighting over you. If you are primary care, you're not going to find a $300k job, but you'll have recruiters fighting over you for the $100k jobs.

And the elephant in the room, universal health care, isn't going to change physician income structures for at least a decade - we have too many barriers to change. There are too many profitable interests (pharm, HMOs) who can afford to fight like rabid starving wolverines to protect their income stream. The "threat" to physician incomes would come if Obama has a 90% approval rating in his 2nd term, with supermajority control in Congress, and a balance in the Supreme Court, and populist support (largely due to bankruptcies) that makes gay marriage look like nothing - this would be the required setup for the drastic changes required to give us a health system like the rest of the developed world where medicine is almost completely divorced from the free market. Could happen (and personally I hope it does) but I wouldn't plan on it. Furthermore, watch Taiwan for what happens when the party that put universal health care into place loses power (largely due to rising univ. health care costs!). In the short term, watch physican salaries in Massachusetts to see what will happen under the Obama 1st term health care changes. Meaning: watch them not fall under required/subsidized health insurance.
 
100% agree.

There are, and will forever be, plenty of jobs in IT in the US. IT didn't die, it stabilized. What changed? You can no longer assume that you're going to get rich in IT, and you can no longer assume that you will never get laid off or outsourced, and you can no longer have recruiters fighting over your CS degree. Which means it's now a normal engineering industry. If you can create, such as if you're a whiz kid who can whip out an iPhone app or modify the kernel, you can still make $150k and have recruiters fight over you - creative jobs are investments for software firms. Support jobs at non-software firms are part of operating costs, which are always targets for cost savings.

I think that about sums up the IT industry for the past ten years. I was getting my CS degree right at the height of the dotcom bubble and you'd hear crazy offers, people thought they could write their own ticket with a CS degree (and it was true for the top tiered candidates). After the crash, and now the recession, a CS degree is about as useful as any other engineering degree. It ain't dead, it's like a junkie that got down from its high. :)
 
Actually technology is probably a much bigger threat in most other medical fields. You have much higher yield plugging in the history, exam findings and a bunch of symptoms and getting the most likely diagnoses in the other diagnostic fields then you do having a computer actually read a film. The reason is that there isn't a single "normal" - it's a huge range, and there are more variations than not. Two people can have totally different looking scans and both be variations of normal. So while it might be possible to teach a computer to find things that are a deviation from a normal scan, and some programs do this now, it doesn't work well when no two people have the same baseline normal scan. So when folks use this kind of software it's a VERY high percentage of the time that the radiologist has to ignore the findings because the anomaly highlighted is simply a normal finding. A buddy of mine works at a lab doing research on this (they actually attach sensors to radiologists eyes to try and learn how radiologists look at a film), and it's apparently a very complex analysis -- it's not useful to do a linear pixel by pixel scan. I'd say we are talking many decades before this kind of thing actually comes into fruition, if ever, and as mentioned, you will see it in the medicine specialties far earlier. The attempts to use the same kind of "facial recognition" type software that Vegas tries to use (with debatable results) really haven't panned out in rads.

Not to mention that if you are just looking to preread a film nobody does it cheaper than folks overseas (although you still have to have someone with a license review it for legal reasons), and nobody in the states does it cheaper than residents. So there's really never going to be that much incentive to install expensive software packages throughout your hospital when you are only paying a resident or fellow $50k/year to do the same thing, and you already need them to be doing that for training purposes anyhow. So no, I don't see this happening anytime soon.


so what specialty would have most access to treat young, obese diabetics?
 
Nobody is happy about others becoming sickly, but it's a fact of life -- our bodies have an expiration date -- they were not designed to go on forever. We probably have already extended lifespans far beyond what ecological balances were ever meant to handle. That being said, all people who get older have much much higher incidences of virtually every major disease. Cancers, heart disease, diabetes, kidney failure, strokes, dementia, etc all affect folks the older they get. That's why older people have a harder time getting life insurance -- they aren't very healthy as a group. Baby boomers are living longer than prior generations, and as a result, are having MORE and MORE pathology that requires medical care. As folks live longer, virtually every disease category skyrockets. Just a fact of life. Exceptions exist, but you don't focus on exceptions to the rule, you focus on the rule. And yes, when you are talking about a closed profession, it is a very necessary evil that folks will retire, get ill or die, leaving spots for the newer generation. Not just in medicine but in virtually every profession. In many fields they have mandatory retirement, often set as low as 65. In medicine, where you aren't forced out in most cases, the newer generation has to wait longer to move up the ranks. Again, this isn't wishing ill or being gleeful about the older generation -- we all will get there. It's simply a fact of life. It's not like "Logan's Run" where we intentionally get rid of every senior citizen, but the design of the human body, with it's built in expiration date, does an equally effective job.

ok.
 
Obama administration concerned about growing shortage of primary-care doctors

by Robert Pear/New York Times Sunday April 26, 2009, 9:59 PM


Washington -- Obama administration officials, alarmed at doctor shortages, are looking for ways to increase the number of physicians to meet the needs of an aging population and millions of uninsured people who would gain coverage under legislation championed by the president.
The officials said they were particularly concerned about shortages of primary-care providers who are the main source of health care for most Americans.
One proposal -- to increase Medicare payments to general practitioners, at the expense of high-paid specialists -- has touched off a lobbying fight.
Family doctors and internists are pressing Congress for an increase in their Medicare payments. But medical specialists are lobbying against any change that would cut their reimbursements. Congress, the specialists say, should find additional money to pay for primary care and should not redistribute dollars among doctors -- a difficult argument at a time of huge budget deficits.
Some of the proposed solutions, while advancing one of President Barack Obama's goals, could frustrate others. Increasing the supply of doctors, for example, would increase access to care, but could make it more difficult to rein in costs.
The need for more doctors comes up at almost every congressional hearing and White House forum on health care. "We're not producing enough primary-care physicians," Obama said at one forum. "The costs of medical education are so high that people feel that they've got to specialize." New doctors typically owe more than $140,000 in loans when they graduate.
Lawmakers from both parties say the shortage of health-care professionals is already having serious consequences. "We don't have enough doctors in primary care or in any specialty," said Rep. Shelley Berkley, Democrat of Nevada.
Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, said, "The work force shortage is reaching crisis proportions."
Even people with insurance are having problems finding doctors.
Miriam Harmatz, a lawyer in Miami, said: "My longtime primary-care doctor left the practice of medicine five years ago because she could not make ends meet. The same thing happened a year later. Since then, many of the doctors I tried to see would not take my insurance because the payments were so low."
To cope with the growing shortage, federal officials are considering several proposals. One would increase enrollment in medical schools and residency training programs. Another would encourage greater use of nurse practitioners and physician assistants. A third would expand the National Health Service Corps, which deploys doctors and nurses in rural areas and poor neighborhoods.
Sen. Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, chairman of the Finance Committee, said Medicare payments were skewed against primary-care doctors -- the very ones needed for the care of older people with chronic conditions like congestive heart failure, diabetes and Alzheimer's disease.
"Primary-care physicians are grossly underpaid compared with many specialists," said Baucus, who vowed to increase primary-care payments as part of legislation to overhaul the health-care system.
The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent federal panel, has recommended an increase of up to 10 percent in the payment for many primary-care services, including office visits. To offset the cost, it said, Congress should reduce payments for other services -- an idea that riles many specialists.
Dr. Peter J. Mandell, a spokesman for the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons, said: "We have no problem with financial incentives for primary care. We do have a problem with doing it in a budget-neutral way. If there's less money for hip and knee replacements, fewer of them will be done for people who need them."
The Association of American Medical Colleges is advocating a 30 percent increase in medical school enrollment, which would produce 5,000 additional new doctors each year.
"If we expand coverage, we need to make sure we have physicians to take care of a population that is growing and becoming older," said Dr. Atul Grover, the chief lobbyist for the association. "Let's say we insure everyone. What next? We won't be able to take care of all those people overnight."
The experience of Massachusetts is instructive. Under a far-reaching 2006 law, the state succeeded in reducing the number of uninsured. But many who gained coverage have been struggling to find primary-care doctors, and the average waiting time for routine office visits has increased.
"Some of the newly insured patients still rely on hospital emergency rooms for nonemergency care," said Erica L. Drazen, a health policy analyst at Computer Sciences Corp.
The ratio of primary-care doctors to population is higher in Massachusetts than in other states.
Increasing the supply of doctors could have major implications for health costs.
"It's completely reasonable to say that adding more physicians to the work force is likely to increase health spending," Grover said.
But he said: "We have to increase spending to save money. If you give people better access to preventive and routine care for chronic illnesses, some acute treatments will be less necessary."
In many parts of the country, specialists are also in short supply.
Linde A. Schuster, 55, of Raton, N.M., said she, her daughter and her mother had all had medical problems that required them to visit doctors in Albuquerque.
"It's a long, exhausting drive, three hours down and three hours back," Schuster said.
The situation is even worse in some rural areas. Dr. Richard F. Paris, a family doctor in Hailey, Idaho, said that Custer County, Idaho, had no doctors, even though it is larger than the state of Rhode Island. So he flies in three times a month, over the Sawtooth Mountains, to see patients.
The Obama administration is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into community health centers.
But Mary K. Wakefield, the new administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, said many clinics were having difficulty finding doctors and nurses to fill vacancies.
Doctors trained in internal medicine have historically been seen as a major source of frontline primary care. But many of them are now going into subspecialties of internal medicine, like cardiology and oncology.
 
you can treat obese diabetics as an internist, pediatrician, or family practice physician. If you want to focus your practice on diabetes, then become an endocrinologist (3 years of internal medicine residency, then 2 years of endocrinology fellowship).
 
you can treat obese diabetics as an internist, pediatrician, or family practice physician. If you want to focus your practice on diabetes, then become an endocrinologist (3 years of internal medicine residency, then 2 years of endocrinology fellowship).

Yep. And because diabetes has so many spill over issues, you may also be involved in many diabetic issues as a cardiologist, nephrologist, GI doc, EM physician, optho, ortho.
 
i still chuckle every time I see a post by an alarmist about physician incomes because he is still mad the black guy actually won. get over it. :rolleyes:
 
Most physicians still do well financially, but there actually are some who are in trouble. For example, folks trying to do private practice peds, family practice or geriatrics sometimes have to sell their practices and become employed by a hospital because they cannot make a profit, due to flat reimbursement by programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and the increasing costs of business (i.e. office rent, employee salaries, and benefits, some patients who never pay their copays, and insurance companies that like to drag their feet and/or refuse to pay the claim/bill for services already rendered by the physician). Just because you, the patients, have insurance, doesn't mean the insurance is paying the physician promptly and reasonably. Just because you, a patient, are paying your $10 copay when you go to the doctor doesn't mean that other patients are doing so.
 
As state above, there is an actual shortage of doctors, especially in more rural areas. There is an acute shortage of primary care providers (internists & family medicine). The shortage will get acute as more baby boomers retire and need care.

There may be a lot of FMG/IMG clamoring to work in the US but there are a limited amount of residency spots. Without a residency most cannot be gainfully employed.

There's actually talk of increasing medical school enrollments and the number of positions for residencies. I will be a GI fellow this July. I don't have any fears about job security. However, the issue may be about pay. Many medicine specialties may not be as lucrative as in the past. There is a real push to pay primary care docs more money to attract more. The money will have to come from somewhere.
 
Top