Physician Shortage and Decreasing Admission Rates

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

Dr_OneDay

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2015
Messages
42
Reaction score
14
General question: if there's a predicted physician shortage in America, then how is it that these days competition to get into medical school has risen so much?

I would think that I natural solution would be to accept more applicants. Anyone have any explanation or theories?

Sorry if the question has an obvious answer. This was just something that I'd been thinking about recently.

Members don't see this ad.
 
A good portion of the problem is the number of residency positions available.

Also, accepting more applicants is not very simple in medical school; a great amount of funding goes into the education of each student. It's not like undergraduate where people jump in and drop out willy-nilly, transfer, etc. Medical schools accept individuals with the intent of them being a physician in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
More applicants in recent years = more competitive admissions. It doesn't mean they're not accepting enough students to fill physicians spots. And also the shortage more has to do with physicians not wanting to work primary care in rural or underserved areas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
General question: if there's a predicted physician shortage in America, then how is it that these days competition to get into medical school has risen so much?

I would think that I natural solution would be to accept more applicants. Anyone have any explanation or theories?

Sorry if the question has an obvious answer. This was just something that I'd been thinking about recently.

1. Med school has nothing to do with the number of new doctors. That's an issue of number of residency slots.
2. There's no doctor shortage, just a distribution problem. Plenty of doctors, they just dont want to do primary care in underserved parts of the country. Not a problem you can fix with more doctors, rather youd compound it. you could try to incentivize existing doctors to other regions, but that hasn't panned out thus far.
3. At the same time you are reading about doctor shortages, there are articles within the medical field of US med school deans concerned that with the growth of US med schools there might very soon be a day when a sizable proportion of their graduates won't match. So increasing enrollment any faster would just mean some US MDs get to drive cabs.
4. More competition for med school just means more people are applying, not needed. That's more a reflection of the economy and issues with other professions (eg law isn't as great an option for top college grads anymore).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10 users
2. There's no doctor shortage, just a distribution problem. Plenty of doctors, they just dont want to do primary care in underserved parts of the country. Not a problem you can fix with more doctors, rather youd compound it. you could try to incentivize existing doctors to other regions, but that hasn't panned out thus far.

This statement flies in the face of basic economic principles. If the supply of doctors is large enough and the competition in desirable locations is great enough, then eventually doctors will be forced to go to underserved areas to find any work at all. Of course, in such market conditions, the average salary for all doctors will be much lower than what they are at now. This outcome is undesirable for doctors but would probably be very good for patients.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
This statement flies in the face of basic economic principles. If the supply of doctors is large enough and the competition in desirable locations is great enough, then eventually doctors will be forced to go to underserved areas to find any work at all. Of course, in such market conditions, the average salary for all doctors will be much lower than what they are at now. This outcome is undesirable for doctors but would probably be very good for patients.
More doctors in a particular region or field has been observed to increase health cost in the area. It is one of the paradoxes of healthcare in the US. It's not really surprising, though. New doctors bring new technologies. New tech is always pricey.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
More doctors in a particular region or field has been observed to increase health cost in the area. It is one of the paradoxes of healthcare in the US.

It is not a paradox at all. Patients cannot pay for doctor visits they cannot schedule. A larger number of doctors leads to a higher utilization, which leads to higher costs. All this means is that the market for medical services is not in equilibrium due to the supply side of the market being artificially depressed.
 
It is not a paradox at all. Patients cannot pay for doctor visits they cannot schedule. A larger number of doctors leads to a higher utilization, which leads to higher costs. All this means is that the market for medical services is not in equilibrium due to the supply side of the market being artificially depressed.
If you could clarify, how come patients wouldn't be able to schedule appointments if there's so many doctors?
 
It is not a paradox at all. Patients cannot pay for doctor visits they cannot schedule. A larger number of doctors leads to a higher utilization, which leads to higher costs.
Both higher use and higher costs associated with new technologies account for the ability to absorb more docs while increasing cost. I agree it's not a real paradox. But it's one of the reasons that more doctors can continue to overfill particular geographies and specialties in what appears to be a defiance of the laws of supply and demand. Doctors create their own demand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
If you look at the data that AAMC releases, you'll find that they have been accepting more and more students each year. The thing is, the amount of people interested is rising faster than the amount of seats being created, thus the acceptance rate is decreasing overall.
 
If you could clarify, how come patients wouldn't be able to schedule appointments if there's so many doctors?

Who is saying there's so many doctors? Not me. Law2Doc is saying there are sufficient doctors, but I am not in agreement with him.
 
Both higher use and higher costs associated with new technologies account for the ability to absorb more docs while increasing cost. I agree it's not a real paradox. But it's one of the reasons that more doctors can continue to overfill particular geographies and specialties in what appears to be a defiance of the laws of supply and demand. Doctors create their own demand.

Doctors are creating demand by offering new services and techniques, made possible by new technology and the market pressure to develop niche practices. This is a good thing from an economic perspective. You might say that the new opportunities afforded to physicians are growing at a rate that is sufficient to accommodate the current influx of physicians.

However, it is entirely possible, if enough barriers are removed from physician supply, for the influx of new physicians to outpace development of new market niches to accommodate them. When this point is reached, then physicians will be forced by the market to go into areas currently underserved.

Any issue of unequal distribution can be overcome if physician supply is large enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
Doctors are creating demand by offering new services and techniques, made possible by new technology and the market pressure to develop niche practices. This is a good thing from an economic perspective. You might say that the new opportunities afforded to physicians are growing at a rate that is sufficient to accommodate the current influx of physicians.

However, it is entirely possible, if enough barriers are removed from physician supply, for the influx of new physicians to outpace development of new market niches to accommodate them. When this point is reached, then physicians will be forced by the market to go into areas currently underserved.

Any issue of unequal distribution can be overcome if physician supply is large enough.

Physician supply is not determined by med school seats, it is determined by residency slots. Training physicians is very expensive. The size of the supply necessary to have the impact you are talking about is probably unsustainably expensive in terms of training. Furthermore, clinical practice is not the only opportunity available to physicians. Even if a market is totally saturated with physicians in every specialty (which even in highly competitive areas the evidence does not suggest is true) then there are other opportunities in those locations (administrative, teaching, consulting, research, business) that would have increased physician participation as a result. Efforts to increase the supply of physicians in underserved areas demonstrate that neither the increased business opportunity or earning potential in these areas is sufficient to remedy to disparity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Physician supply is not determined by med school seats, it is determined by residency slots. Training physicians is very expensive. The size of the supply necessary to have the impact you are talking about is probably unsustainably expensive in terms of training. Furthermore, clinical practice is not the only opportunity available to physicians. Even if a market is totally saturated with physicians in every specialty (which even in highly competitive areas the evidence does not suggest is true) then there are other opportunities in those locations (administrative, teaching, consulting, research, business) that would have increased physician participation as a result. Efforts to increase the supply of physicians in underserved areas demonstrate that neither the increased business opportunity or earning potential in these areas is sufficient to remedy to disparity.

Most other countries do not require nearly as much education or training for their physicians, especially for general practitioners, as the United States does. This is one of the barriers to market entry that can be removed to increase physician supply. It would cost no resources to implement this policy change. We merely have to lower the education and training requirements.
 
Interesting to see that Foreign educated physicians make up 30% of the working population. Will this number decrease with the merger? Surely they must be looking to eliminate IMG positions and create room for US trained MD/DO.
As the number of US trained physicians increases, it is projected that the proportion of US IMG's as well as Internationals will dramatically decline.

By 2023 the ECFMG will require LCME level accreditation from offshore schools. This will also decrease the number of IMG's. The proportion of successful graduates could probably increase, though. http://www.ecfmg.org/about/initiatives-accreditation-requirement.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Most other countries do not require nearly as much education or training for their physicians, especially for general practitioners, as the United States does. This is one of the barriers to market entry that can be removed to increase physician supply. It would cost no resources to implement this policy change. We merely have to lower the education and training requirements.

I don't disagree but it would require resources to implement such a change. It is something I've theorized about on SDN before. You would need to create a separate pathway for people trained to be specifically general practitioners. Primary care is not easy simply because it is primary. It requires a broad and deep knowledge base, connections with specialists if you need them, a good business sense since they are typically separated from large hospital systems in rural and even suburban areas. The training would be shorter than specialist training but it would not mean that we could somehow water down or change the medical school curriculum. Not only is it expensive to train physicians but it is even more expensive to train physician-drop outs. A strong plus of the American system is that by placing the filter in undergrad attrition post-matriculation is extremely low. It would require many resources to implement more training programs for GPs while ensuring that they are as comprehensive and rigorous as other training.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Most other countries do not require nearly as much education or training for their physicians, especially for general practitioners, as the United States does. This is one of the barriers to market entry that can be removed to increase physician supply. It would cost no resources to implement this policy change. We merely have to lower the education and training requirements.
Americans have come to expect a much broader definition of the word "physician."
We expect citizen/scientist/scholar/clinicians, not technicians.
I doubt this will change any time soon.
Right now, surgical training needs to be extended due to work hour restrictions, not shortened.
I wouldn't be surprised if the nonsurgical specialties need more time now as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Most other countries do not require nearly as much education or training for their physicians, especially for general practitioners, as the United States does. This is one of the barriers to market entry that can be removed to increase physician supply. It would cost no resources to implement this policy change. We merely have to lower the education and training requirements.

Also while other countries certainly have different pathways towards becoming a physician, it is incorrect to say that their paths are shorter or easier. To become a consultant in England is a 6 year undergraduate ordeal coupled with much longer specialist training. It takes much longer to go from trainee, junior doc, consultant (a UK attending) than it does from MS1-->resident-->attending. It is only longer if one counts undergrad and even then we are talking 1-2 years difference. The bar for entry into medical school is also high in other countries, usually only taking the best high school students in the country and even then attrition rates are much higher.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I don't disagree but it would require resources to implement such a change. It is something I've theorized about on SDN before. You would need to create a separate pathway for people trained to be specifically general practitioners. Primary care is not easy simply because it is primary. It requires a broad and deep knowledge base, connections with specialists if you need them, a good business sense since they are typically separated from large hospital systems in rural and even suburban areas. The training would be shorter than specialist training but it would not mean that we could somehow water down or change the medical school curriculum. Not only is it expensive to train physicians but it is even more expensive to train physician-drop outs. A strong plus of the American system is that by placing the filter in undergrad attrition post-matriculation is extremely low. It would require many resources to implement more training programs for GPs while ensuring that they are as comprehensive and rigorous as other training.

It isn't even necessary to create a new, separate pathway. You can pare down the existing pathway and/or offer earlier branching points. For example, Texas only requires 90 undergraduate hours to apply to medical school. Why can't all medical schools nationwide require only 60 undergraduate hours? Another example is the new Dell Medical School, which has a 1-year pre-clinical curriculum. Why can't all medical schools move to a 1-year pre-clinical curriculum? Most medical students treat fourth year like a joke anyway, so why can't we reduce that to half a year or eliminate it altogether? Pretty soon, what was an 8-year track from high school to MD is now only 4 years long.
 
Who is saying there's so many doctors? Not me. Law2Doc is saying there are sufficient doctors, but I am not in agreement with him.
See Luccas explanation above. Right now in many specialties in certain cities there are actually very tight job markets -- you can't get a job until someone retired or dies, and each job opening gets hundreds of applications. Meanwhile the underserved state one over cant get such a specialist even by offering a premium. So the issue isn't really number of doctors, it's distribution. I agree there's no equilibrium because you'll see doctors biding time to get to a certain geography over moving to where there's greater demand. But you can't fix this by cranking out more doctors -- you just create more of a glut in the desirable places, a tighter market, while doing very little to entice doctors to the less desirable locales. There have been attempts to incentivize people to move, and in some cases give med school preference to people who express a desire to work with the underserved, but thus far the problem has proved difficult to fix. But the fact is that number of new doctors is pretty similar to number of new jobs, and so to the extent we would define a shortage as fewer doctors than jobs there really isn't one now or looming. So it's a tough fix and not one going to be solved by simply admitting more people with the same geographic and career aspirations. There probably needs to be some longterm post-residency obligation to distribute people to the fields and locations they are needed, and nobody is really excited about that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
It isn't even necessary to create a new, separate pathway. You can pare down the existing pathway and/or offer earlier branching points. For example, Texas only requires 90 undergraduate hours to apply to medical school. Why can't all medical schools nationwide require only 60 undergraduate hours? Another example is the new Dell Medical School, which has a 1-year pre-clinical curriculum. Why can't all medical schools move to a 1-year pre-clinical curriculum? Most medical students treat fourth year like a joke anyway, so why can't we reduce that to half a year or eliminate it altogether? Pretty soon, what was an 8-year track from high school to MD is now only 4 years long.
Having completed my schooling and training I have to say there are plenty of serious gaps in education as is, and you could probably make the argument that more, not fewer years would actually be of benefit. If the fourth year is "a joke", which I don't think was true for everyone, maybe the answer is to make that a more valuable year rather than get rid of it. The goal isn't really to get a half baked product out of the oven faster, even if you (wrongly) believe there to be a shortage. Besides, residencies crank the same number out each year regardless of the pace and there's no shortage of people willing to subject themselves to the long path as is, so this doesn't really fix anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
It isn't even necessary to create a new, separate pathway. You can pare down the existing pathway and/or offer earlier branching points. For example, Texas only requires 90 undergraduate hours to apply to medical school. Why can't all medical schools nationwide require only 60 undergraduate hours? Another example is the new Dell Medical School, which has a 1-year pre-clinical curriculum. Why can't all medical schools move to a 1-year pre-clinical curriculum? Most medical students treat fourth year like a joke anyway, so why can't we reduce that to half a year or eliminate it altogether? Pretty soon, what was an 8-year track from high school to MD is now only 4 years long.

I can think of a variety of reasons off of the top of my head and @gyngyn could probably give a more exhaustive list of reasons given he is an attending working in academe.

1. Competition. In spite of schools requiring X or Y number of hours to apply to medical school the truth is that without earning an undergraduate degree one would not be competitive enough to earn a seat in a US MD/DO school. You might argue that increasing the number of seats would fix this, but again you run into the problem that this would not actually produce more physicians. You would create a market where there would be more medical school graduates going unmatched after four years than there are now (currently the number of unmatched US grads is very low). It is a very bad thing for incredibly expensive public/private "investments" - medical students - to end up under or unemployed not only for the individual but for the country. You would need to convince Congress to increase the number of residency slots. This would also be an expensive endeavor and with the scheme you are talking about it is not an attractive arrangement because............

2. The bare minimum is not good enough. Undergraduate education serves a more important, broader purpose than preparing students for pre-professional programs or providing them with employment. You are asking undergraduate institutions with their own personal missions to forego it in order to work towards a solution that has no guarantee or evidence of working (that shortening and lowering the bar for medical training would increase the quality and accessibility of healthcare in the US; other countries do not follow such a model and there is not an advanced country on the planet where medical training can be called "watered down" in comparison to the US even if they stretch it out over a longer period).

Moreover, undergraduate education serves an important purpose for the individual pursuing it. It is a personal and liberal endeavor left mostly to the discretion of the individual. I believe this to be a plus of the higher education system in the US. If someone wants explicitly technical training then as @gyngyn suggested there are ways to do that but becoming a physician ought not be one of them.

3. Preparation. A good reason for the bar being set as high as it is is that medical training is difficult in more ways than one. Medical schools prepare physicians but they also prepare biomedical investigators, advocates, and educators. It is unreasonable to expect that an expedited pathway, especially one that overlooked or skipped an undergraduate education would prepare an individual spiritually, academically, physically, emotionally for such a type of training. It is not only about understanding how to learn, being scientifically literate, understanding other human beings while learning the actual nuts and bolts of taking care of sick people but it is also about being able to sustain oneself through the actual work of medical training. If you are asking the bar to be lowered then you are asking for medical students who are potentially unprepared for their training. This will do nothing but harm the system, creating more dropouts, more jaded physicians that are likely to quit practicing medicine altogether, etc.

The reason that schools like Dell, Duke, Harvard etc have shortened curricula is not because students are learning less or because things are being left out altogether but because the curriculum is more integrated and fast-paced. These curricula are also implemented with the expectation that the time earned in the shortened pre-clinical path will be put towards scholarship, typically in scientific or clinical research. Scholarship is very important to the practice of medicine in the US. Arguably, it is important everywhere but I believe it is a good thing that scholarship in discovery, service, etc is expected of medical students and physicians. The best preparation for this is an undergraduate and medical education steeped in scholarship. The alternative is training people to follow rules, protocols, follow orders and fall into routine as opposed to thinking critically and objectively about what they are doing and why they do it. That being said, there are certainly gaps in the current system given headlines. That is how mistakes get made. Mistakes are very expensive - economically, ethically, physically - in medicine.

Also I think it's inappropriate to assess that most medical students take fourth year as a joke therefore we should replace or cut out fourth year when you are not yourself a medical student or professional. Even if it is true, which I doubt it is, it is fallacious to suggest that it should be that way.

edit: @Law2Doc beat me to the punchline
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
You've been studying Economics too much. Medicine in the US doesn't work like toothpaste at Walmart vs KMart.

And as a medical educator, given the explosion of knowledge, if anything, a fifth year of medical would be vastly more beneficial than these novel 1 +3 curricula which are the latest fad in medical education.

But going to a five year program will probably lead to too many Deans being burned at the stake by mobs of angry students.


This statement flies in the face of basic economic principles. If the supply of doctors is large enough and the competition in desirable locations is great enough, then eventually doctors will be forced to go to underserved areas to find any work at all. Of course, in such market conditions, the average salary for all doctors will be much lower than what they are at now. This outcome is undesirable for doctors but would probably be very good for patients.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
And as a medical educator, given the explosion of knowledge, if anything, a fifth year of medical would be vastly more beneficial than these novel 1 +3 curricula which are the latest fad in medical education.
Unless desirable programs are willing to accept such "expedited" graduates (sight unseen), I doubt this will catch on quickly. 3 year programs require buy-in from PD's who will take them and students willing to commit to programs before significant clinical training has begun.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physician supply is not determined by med school seats, it is determined by residency slots.

Not true. There are many unfilled residency slots every year. Only when there are more med school graduates than residency slots will this become a factor.

You've been studying Economics too much. Medicine in the US doesn't work like toothpaste at Walmart vs KMart.

I respectfully disagree. If you pump out enough doctors, there will eventually be too many earning too little, and those high-paying rural jobs will look better and better. When the day comes that the salary for an orthopedic surgeon in a desirable area is $100,000, and a rural area of a fly-over state is paying $500,000, then you'll start to see those rural jobs filled very quickly. The same goes for primary care. If we got to where you could earn, say, $75,000 in NY, or $250,000 in say, Montana, you would suddenly see med school graduates flocking to rural areas to pay off their debts, and they may well end up staying there. You can take a lot of 2 weeks trips to NY with all that extra money. It's just that we haven't reached the point yet where doctors have enough pressure for all of the rural jobs to be filled. A few dozen more med schools and we may get there sooner than you think.

I hope that day never comes, but I'm quite sure that there is some number of doctors which will get all the undesirable jobs filled. Then you'll start to see the downward pressure on salaries, especially since most doctors are now employed.

I'll be exhibit A. I remember telling an attending that I would never take a job as an employee, not in my specialty, where private practice can be lucrative. He scoffed and told me that when I'm offered a job in an HMO for $xxx dollars, I would jump at it. Guess what? 5 years later, I took just such a job, and for a few thousand less than the number he had suggested. Why? The money looked good at the time. I hadn't planned on staying, but I did. Now, that job was in a desirable area, just not a desirable situation, at least back then, but if there are few options, the options you have look good. Like the song says, "they all look beautiful at closing time".

I knew a married pair of doctors, both in a very lucrative specialty, who left California for Alaska because there was a great job offer there. They did it for the money, not for the great outdoors. I know someone else who commutes from California to Alaska to do 2 week shifts. He too does it for the money. The laws of economics are more powerful than even the laws of physics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Not true. There are many unfilled residency slots every year. Only when there are more med school graduates than residency slots will this become a factor.



I respectfully disagree. If you pump out enough doctors, there will eventually be too many earning too little, and those high-paying rural jobs will look better and better. When the day comes that the salary for an orthopedic surgeon in a desirable area is $100,000, and a rural area of a fly-over state is paying $500,000, then you'll start to see those rural jobs filled very quickly. The same goes for primary care. If we got to where you could earn, say, $75,000 in NY, or $250,000 in say, Montana, you would suddenly see med school graduates flocking to rural areas to pay off their debts, and they may well end up staying there. You can take a lot of 2 weeks trips to NY with all that extra money. It's just that we haven't reached the point yet where doctors have enough pressure for all of the rural jobs to be filled. A few dozen more med schools and we may get there sooner than you think.

I hope that day never comes, but I'm quite sure that there is some number of doctors which will get all the undesirable jobs filled. Then you'll start to see the downward pressure on salaries, especially since most doctors are now employed.

I'll be exhibit A. I remember telling an attending that I would never take a job as an employee, not in my specialty, where private practice can be lucrative. He scoffed and told me that when I'm offered a job in an HMO for $xxx dollars, I would jump at it. Guess what? 5 years later, I took just such a job, and for a few thousand less than the number he had suggested. Why? The money looked good at the time. I hadn't planned on staying, but I did. Now, that job was in a desirable area, just not a desirable situation, at least back then, but if there are few options, the options you have look good. Like the song says, "they all look beautiful at closing time".

I knew a married pair of doctors, both in a very lucrative specialty, who left California for Alaska because there was a great job offer there. They did it for the money, not for the great outdoors. I know someone else who commutes from California to Alaska to do 2 week shifts. He too does it for the money. The laws of economics are more powerful than even the laws of physics.
The cost to society of training a huge oversupply of physicians is prohibitive.
There are inducements that could reasonably make the current supply adequate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Not true. There are many unfilled residency slots every year. Only when there are more med school graduates than residency slots will this become a factor.

The point is that you can build 10 million medical schools but if you dont raise the fixed number of residency slots you won't create a single additional physician per cycle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
The cost to society of training a huge oversupply of physicians is prohibitive.

I hope you're right. But if someone decides to get those rural positions filled, that's how they would do it.
Meanwhile, all the new schools seem to be increasing student populations faster than the increase in the general population, so strap in for a rough ride.

The point is that you can build 10 million medical schools but if you don't raise the fixed number of residency slots you won't create a single additional physician per cycle

Someday that will be the problem, but that's not the situation right now. There were 17,000 allopathic graduates applying for 30,000 residency spots. Many of the excess spots go to IMGs, and FMGs, and some to DO graduates, but many go unfilled. The number of residency spots won't be the limiting factor until there are no unfilled spots, and we aren't there yet. Sorry I don't have the exact figures for unfilled slots, but they've been cited here before. I don't want to look them up, sorry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Most other countries do not require nearly as much education or training for their physicians, especially for general practitioners, as the United States does. This is one of the barriers to market entry that can be removed to increase physician supply. It would cost no resources to implement this policy change. We merely have to lower the education and training requirements.
With the amount of profit that med schools generate from the current process, i hardly believe that changing the process even in the slightest will happen. Note: this is not a rant, and doesn't express an opinion, but is merely an observation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Not true. There are many unfilled residency slots every year. Only when there are more med school graduates than residency slots will this become a factor.



I respectfully disagree. If you pump out enough doctors, there will eventually be too many earning too little, and those high-paying rural jobs will look better and better. When the day comes that the salary for an orthopedic surgeon in a desirable area is $100,000, and a rural area of a fly-over state is paying $500,000, then you'll start to see those rural jobs filled very quickly. The same goes for primary care. If we got to where you could earn, say, $75,000 in NY, or $250,000 in say, Montana, you would suddenly see med school graduates flocking to rural areas to pay off their debts, and they may well end up staying there. You can take a lot of 2 weeks trips to NY with all that extra money. It's just that we haven't reached the point yet where doctors have enough pressure for all of the rural jobs to be filled. A few dozen more med schools and we may get there sooner than you think.

I hope that day never comes, but I'm quite sure that there is some number of doctors which will get all the undesirable jobs filled. Then you'll start to see the downward pressure on salaries, especially since most doctors are now employed.

I'll be exhibit A. I remember telling an attending that I would never take a job as an employee, not in my specialty, where private practice can be lucrative. He scoffed and told me that when I'm offered a job in an HMO for $xxx dollars, I would jump at it. Guess what? 5 years later, I took just such a job, and for a few thousand less than the number he had suggested. Why? The money looked good at the time. I hadn't planned on staying, but I did. Now, that job was in a desirable area, just not a desirable situation, at least back then, but if there are few options, the options you have look good. Like the song says, "they all look beautiful at closing time".

I knew a married pair of doctors, both in a very lucrative specialty, who left California for Alaska because there was a great job offer there. They did it for the money, not for the great outdoors. I know someone else who commutes from California to Alaska to do 2 week shifts. He too does it for the money. The laws of economics are more powerful than even the laws of physics.
This assumes that 1. all rural hospitals can pay $500,000 for specialists (spoiler: a lot can't) and 2. said rural hospitals only ever hire physicians to work full time (spoiler: they don't). I live in a rural area. The hospital here has been looking to hire an ER physician for over 3 years. They're offering a very competitive pay per hour. So why can't they fill the spot? Well, they already have 2 ER physicians that cover weekdays and daytime during weekends. They only need someone to cover the ER weekend nights. That's 24 hours a week. Competitive pay per hour or not, the overall pay is far too low to attract physicians. And the hospital can't just offer them full time hours - they're too small to support 2 physicians in the ER at the same time.

If other rural areas are having this same problem, it suddenly becomes much more clear why they are having trouble attracting physicians.
 
This assumes that 1. all rural hospitals can pay $500,000 for specialists (spoiler: a lot can't) and 2. said rural hospitals only ever hire physicians to work full time (spoiler: they don't). I live in a rural area. The hospital here has been looking to hire an ER physician for over 3 years. They're offering a very competitive pay per hour. So why can't they fill the spot? Well, they already have 2 ER physicians that cover weekdays and daytime during weekends. They only need someone to cover the ER weekend nights. That's 24 hours a week. Competitive pay per hour or not, the overall pay is far too low to attract physicians. And the hospital can't just offer them full time hours - they're too small to support 2 physicians in the ER at the same time.

If other rural areas are having this same problem, it suddenly becomes much more clear why they are having trouble attracting physicians.

First of all, your hospital is not offering a competitive salary, because they are only offering a part time position. Maybe a city hospital will find a part time doc easily, but less so a rural one. ( Reductio ad absurdium: offer 10 times the top salary, but for only one hour a week. No one will move for that, either).

But your case aside, if salaries get low enough in the big cities, people will take better paying jobs in rural areas. There is some disparity of salaries that will compel enough people to move. Maybe the rural hospitals won't be able to pay more, but if the city jobs pay less, or if there are simply no more jobs, then doctors will have to move if they want to make any money at all, especially when it's no longer feasible to open your own practice.
 
Someday that will be the problem, but that's not the situation right now. There were 17,000 allopathic graduates applying for 30,000 residency spots. Many of the excess spots go to IMGs, and FMGs, and some to DO graduates, but many go unfilled. The number of residency spots won't be the limiting factor until there are no unfilled spots, and we aren't there yet. Sorry I don't have the exact figures for unfilled slots, but they've been cited here before. I don't want to look them up, sorry.
See chart 1 for applicants:
http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Charting-Outcomes-2014-Final.pdf
Here are the outcomes:
http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Main-Match-Results-and-Data-2015_final.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
But your case aside, if salaries get low enough in the big cities, people will take better paying jobs in rural areas. There is some disparity of salaries that will compel enough people to move. Maybe the rural hospitals won't be able to pay more, but if the city jobs pay less, or if there are simply no more jobs, then doctors will have to move if they want to make any money at all, especially when it's no longer feasible to open your own practice.
This has not been shown to be true. Physicians increase demand even in low demand geographies and will accept lower pay to stay in them!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
First of all, your hospital is not offering a competitive salary, because they are only offering a part time position. Maybe a city hospital will find a part time doc easily, but less so a rural one. ( Reductio ad absurdium: offer 10 times the top salary, but for only one hour a week. No one will move for that, either).

But your case aside, if salaries get low enough in the big cities, people will take better paying jobs in rural areas. There is some disparity of salaries that will compel enough people to move. Maybe the rural hospitals won't be able to pay more, but if the city jobs pay less, or if there are simply no more jobs, then doctors will have to move if they want to make any money at all, especially when it's no longer feasible to open your own practice.
Right. That's my point. People are assuming that all rural hospitals have competitive salaries because they see that the per hour pay is higher than in a city. They don't see that rural hospitals are trying to only hire people for a small number of hours a week.

As for your second point, forcing physician salaries down to the point that they must take very low-paying jobs in undesirable areas does not seem like a particularly well thought-out plan.
 
First of all, your hospital is not offering a competitive salary, because they are only offering a part time position. Maybe a city hospital will find a part time doc easily, but less so a rural one. ( Reductio ad absurdium: offer 10 times the top salary, but for only one hour a week. No one will move for that, either).

But your case aside, if salaries get low enough in the big cities, people will take better paying jobs in rural areas. There is some disparity of salaries that will compel enough people to move. Maybe the rural hospitals won't be able to pay more, but if the city jobs pay less, or if there are simply no more jobs, then doctors will have to move if they want to make any money at all, especially when it's no longer feasible to open your own practice.

This simply isn't true because people aren't widgets and aren't only motivated by money. Physicians generally have to live where they work. They often have spouses, children, other family members. There are quality of life issues. Physicians are highly educated and tend to seek out cultural and social experiences that match their background and training. When you have children you worry about the quality of schools they are in, the diversity of their experiences. When you are married, you want your spouse to be happy and content and to have access to the activities and work opportunities that line up with those offered by your own work location. There is a dollar amount that I personally would sacrifice to assure that everyone in my home life is happy, and that dollar amount is high. They don't say "Happy wife/happy life" for nothing.

It's got to be at least part of the reasoning for focusing on med school applicants from rural and underserved areas. If your family is from an underserved area, it seems more likely that you will return to the area where your family is from when you have your own family. Blood is thicker than water (and dollars, sometimes).

I know a couple of newly minted doctors who took jobs in primary care fields in crazy places (very rural Alaska and New Mexico) for crazy pay. Both lasted 2 years and then moved closer to family to raise their families at a close to 50% pay cut.

The UAE actively recruits American-trained physicians to practice in the UAE at crazy, tax-free salaries way above what physicians make here in the US with all kinds of perks. Supply and demand says new physicians should be flocking over there, but they don't. You want to move your family to the UAE? Think your wife will want to live there no matter how much extra money you're making?

If/when I become a physician I would like to serve in an underserved area for some period of time. But by then my spouse will likely be retired and my kids will be in college. I would have had a very different answer for you if I was 15 years younger.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Thank you! If I'm reading the data correctly, there were 40,000 total applicants for 27,000 places. 17,000 senior us med student applicants, plus various re-applicants, FMGs and IMGs, some DOs. Result: 26,000 matches, 1000 empty spots, presumably because there weren't enough qualified FMG/IMGs to fill the remaining slots. So, residency spots are not yet the bottleneck.

As for your second point, forcing physician salaries down to the point that they must take very low-paying jobs in undesirable areas does not seem like a particularly well thought-out plan.

That's not my plan. I'm just suggesting that sooner or later, if there are enough doctors, economics will force doctors to fill any and all available slots.

This has not been shown to be true. Physicians increase demand even in low demand geographies and will accept lower pay to stay in them!


More doctors might mean more expenditures now, but that will peak eventually also. Lets look at ER docs. People know that ER waits are long, so they don't go. but then Urgent care clinics open, and people go there. More docs work in the urgent cares, and so there are more doctor visits. But now ERs are competing and adding more doctors to decrease wait times. So now the ERs need more docs. But once all the ERs have a zero wait time, and there's an Urgent care on every street corner, and every Walgreens and Walmart and Costco has a walk-in doc in the box ( maybe all board certified in ER medicine ) then ER salaries will stagnate and then decrease. Sooner or later, that rural 24 hour spot will be filled, because there's no other job available.

That's why doctors join IPOs and PPOs. The insurers say, " you want our patients, give us a discount". That only works if there are doctors willing to agree. If the doctors all had a 3 month waiting list of patients waiting to be seen, they won't take the bait. The reason they agree is because there aren't enough patients to go around, and the more doctors, the worse it is.

Look at Lasik. At first, when a few doctors did it, it was a few thousand dollars an eye. Now it's a commodity, every ophthalmologist does it, and it's a couple of hundred an eye. Supply and demand. It's new technology, and a new procedure, and more utilitzation, but with more supply than demand, the price came down, and there's less income for the doctors.

This simply isn't true because people aren't widgets and aren't only motivated by money. Physicians generally have to live where they work. They often have spouses, children, other family members. There are quality of life issues. Physicians are highly educated and tend to seek out cultural and social experiences that match their background and training. When you have children you worry about the quality of schools they are in, the diversity of their experiences. When you are married, you want your spouse to be happy and content and to have access to the activities and work opportunities that line up with those offered by your own work location. There is a dollar amount that I personally would sacrifice to assure that everyone in my home life is happy, and that dollar amount is high. They don't say "Happy wife/happy life" for nothing.

It's got to be at least part of the reasoning for focusing on med school applicants from rural and underserved areas. If your family is from an underserved area, it seems more likely that you will return to the area where your family is from when you have your own family. Blood is thicker than water (and dollars, sometimes).

I know a couple of newly minted doctors who took jobs in primary care fields in crazy places (very rural Alaska and New Mexico) for crazy pay. Both lasted 2 years and then moved closer to family to raise their families at a close to 50% pay cut.

The UAE actively recruits American-trained physicians to practice in the UAE at crazy, tax-free salaries way above what physicians make here in the US with all kinds of perks. Supply and demand says new physicians should be flocking over there, but they don't. You want to move your family to the UAE? Think your wife will want to live there no matter how much extra money you're making?

If/when I become a physician I would like to serve in an underserved area for some period of time. But by then my husband will likely be retired and my kids will be in college. I would have had a very different answer for you if I was 15 years younger.

I agree completely with everything you wrote.

"Happy wife, happy life" indeed, but if the wife needs food on the table in order to be happy, living in rural Alaska or in the UAE will look a lot more attractive than being unemployed in Manhattan.

All I'm saying is, that if there are enough more doctors, all those empty residency slots will be filled, and all those rural jobs will be taken. It might take 1,000 more doctors a year, or maybe 100,000 more, but at some point, if the rate of medical school formation exceeds the rate of population growth, then sooner or later every doctor's job will be filled, there will be unemployed doctors, and salaries will come down. Doctors are not immune from the laws of supply and demand.
 
Indeed! In fact, while DO programs are known to train mostly Primary Care physicians, if you map where they are, they're in big cites and suburbs, where everyone wants to be.


This has not been shown to be true. Physicians increase demand even in low demand geographies and will accept lower pay to stay in them!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I agree completely with everything you wrote.

"Happy wife, happy life" indeed, but if the wife needs food on the table in order to be happy, living in rural Alaska or in the UAE will look a lot more attractive than being unemployed in Manhattan.

All I'm saying is, that if there are enough more doctors, all those empty residency slots will be filled, and all those rural jobs will be taken. It might take 1,000 more doctors a year, or maybe 100,000 more, but at some point, if the rate of medical school formation exceeds the rate of population growth, then sooner or later every doctor's job will be filled, there will be unemployed doctors, and salaries will come down. Doctors are not immune from the laws of supply and demand.

My reaction to this is that before physician salaries dropped to a level where putting food on the table was a serious concern, you would see a lot of pre-meds deciding medicine isn't the career for them after all. The training is long, the hours are long, the sacrifices are many. To make your scenario work you would still need enough people who actually want to BE doctors to keep the flow steady through the pipeline. When people decide it's just not worth it, you've got a supply problem again. (And a supply problem with a significant lag time--if there's a 10 year period where the physician job market everywhere is oversaturated, you will have existing physicians looking for other jobs/lines of work PLUS you'll have students who may be looking to become physicians look for other career paths instead. So med school apps plummet, fewer doctors are minted, etc etc. Salaries have to go up before you attract a high number of students--additional lag time there--plus the time it takes to actually educate and train those students. You could conceivably have a 15-20 year span with few new doctors in the pipeline--now you're back to low supply and higher demand.)

In many underserved and rural areas, the social problems are staggering. Some jobs come with such a high rate of burnout, it's impossible to keep anyone for any length of time.
 
My reaction to this is that before physician salaries dropped to a level where putting food on the table was a serious concern, you would see a lot of pre-meds deciding medicine isn't the career for them after all. The training is long, the hours are long, the sacrifices are many. To make your scenario work you would still need enough people who actually want to BE doctors to keep the flow steady through the pipeline. When people decide it's just not worth it, you've got a supply problem again. (And a supply problem with a significant lag time--if there's a 10 year period where the physician job market everywhere is oversaturated, you will have existing physicians looking for other jobs/lines of work PLUS you'll have students who may be looking to become physicians look for other career paths instead. So med school apps plummet, fewer doctors are minted, etc etc. Salaries have to go up before you attract a high number of students--additional lag time there--plus the time it takes to actually educate and train those students. You could conceivably have a 15-20 year span with few new doctors in the pipeline--now you're back to low supply and higher demand.)

If you want to see what will happen if we ever had a drastic oversupply of doctors, just take a look at the legal profession. There has been a massive oversupply of lawyers for years, and it's finally caught up with the profession. Most graduates of law schools don't get jobs requiring a legal degree, and yet the students keep paying tuition. They have 3 years of tuition, paying what med students pay, with poor job prospects. This has been true for decades, but things got worse with the recession, and warnings went out on the pre-law websites about 8 years ago, but students refused to believe the warnings. Now it's well known, with front page articles in the NY Times, and now finally there's a drop in enrollment. But this was decades in the making. Graduates of lower ranked schools haven't been able to get jobs for years, while schools lied and fudged their numbers ( if students worked at McDonalds, they were called "employed". If they couldn't get jobs, the schools would give them work in the library )

See here: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/law-school-enrollment-falls-to-lowest-level-since-1987/

Do you really think that immigrant parents will stop pushing their kids into med school? Students won't stop until there are unemployed US grads panhandling on the streets, carrying signs "will do laparotomy for food". Don't believe me? Look how many keep going Caribbean despite all the SDN warnings. People will still want to be doctors, no matter what. Medicine is more attractive than law, and the law students don't stop coming, why would med students stop? After all, when you graduate, you will be a doctor.

Again, I'm not in favor of this, and I'm not saying it's imminent, but I am saying that medicine will not be immune from an infinite oversupply of doctors. Yes, demand for medical services is elastic, but at some point, all demand will be met, and then salaries will come down and jobs hard or impossible to find for many. You have been warned!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Who is saying there's so many doctors? Not me. Law2Doc is saying there are sufficient doctors, but I am not in agreement with him.

Look at the data - this kind of thing is not a mystery. What @Law2Doc is saying isn't really opinion. It's easily appreciable if you look at the data (physicians per capita in the US vs. other countries, physicians per capita in counties across the US vs. other counties vs. in other countries). If you disagree, then you disagree with objective data.

Now, you might argue that the answer to the problem of distribution is to train more physicians, but that is to address a problem with distribution, not with shortage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
To be clear:

Physicians per 1k population: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.MED.PHYS.ZS/countries/1W?order=wbapi_data_value_2010 wbapi_data_value wbapi_data_value-first&sort=desc&display=default (notice, for example, that the US has more physicians per capita than the oft-venerated Canadian system and a roughly equivalent number compared to the UK - based on the 2010 data as this is the most complete dataset)

US physician per 100k population by hospital referral region (2011 data): http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/data/map.aspx?ind=136

So, based on these together, there are areas in the US - New England, the west coast, the Colorado area, and larger cities - where physicians per capita surpasses that of most first world countries while in many areas (i.e., everywhere that's light yellow on the second map) that number is comparable to third world countries. Overall, however, the number of physicians in the US compares favorably to many other first world countries.

Ergo, the problem is distribution, not supply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Thank you! If I'm reading the data correctly, there were 40,000 total applicants for 27,000 places. 17,000 senior us med student applicants, plus various re-applicants, FMGs and IMGs, some DOs. Result: 26,000 matches, 1000 empty spots, presumably because there weren't enough qualified FMG/IMGs to fill the remaining slots. So, residency spots are not yet the bottleneck.

There is no presuming to be made. If you actually look at the data, it is very clear that residency spots are the bottleneck. You are not reading the data correctly.

http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Main-Match-Results-and-Data-2014.pdf

This is pretty straight forward.

26,678 Positions offered in the Match
25,687 Positions filled via the Match
991 Positions NOT filled via the Match (This is your "1000 empty spots")
882 Positions were filled via the SOAP
109 Positions were NOT filled via either the Match or the SOAP

Of those 109 positions
61 were not offered in the SOAP (generally spots that disappeared because the programs dissolved or the programs were downsized)
26 were Surgery prelim
6 were Medicine prelim

So, in the end 16 actual residency positions were not filled. When you look at the Family Medicine or Pathology positions that didn't get filled, they are in less desirable locations or in programs undergoing transition, etc. There are maybe 2-3 programs a year who say "There weren't enough qualified applicants to fill the spots." Anyone that sits on the residency admissions side of things sees this clear as day.

Even if you say that 109 positions weren't filled, every process is going to be imperfect. Not every applicant applies to every program. Not every program sees every applicant. There are always going to be spots that go unfilled because the right people didn't interview at the right places. But, when you consider that we are talking 0.4% inefficiency, clearly there are enough applicants and not enough positions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
General question: if there's a predicted physician shortage in America, then how is it that these days competition to get into medical school has risen so much?

I would think that I natural solution would be to accept more applicants. Anyone have any explanation or theories?

Sorry if the question has an obvious answer. This was just something that I'd been thinking about recently.

There is no physician shortage in America, there is a problem with the distribution of physicians in this country, you find a shortage of them in rural areas and inner cities, but not in affluent suburbs and more affluent areas of major cities.

Also one of the reasons medical school admissions has become more competitive in recent years is due to the economy, more college graduates are applying to graduate schools, a couple of decades ago when there was a dotcom boom, things were different, admissions to graduate school was not as competitive because most undergraduates were heading straight to work after school, but these days many people are going to postgraduate study, that is why its getting harder to get into medical school and other graduate programs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
If you want to see what will happen if we ever had a drastic oversupply of doctors, just take a look at the legal profession. There has been a massive oversupply of lawyers for years, and it's finally caught up with the profession. Most graduates of law schools don't get jobs requiring a legal degree, and yet the students keep paying tuition. They have 3 years of tuition, paying what med students pay, with poor job prospects. This has been true for decades, but things got worse with the recession, and warnings went out on the pre-law websites about 8 years ago, but students refused to believe the warnings. Now it's well known, with front page articles in the NY Times, and now finally there's a drop in enrollment. But this was decades in the making. Graduates of lower ranked schools haven't been able to get jobs for years, while schools lied and fudged their numbers ( if students worked at McDonalds, they were called "employed". If they couldn't get jobs, the schools would give them work in the library )

See here: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/law-school-enrollment-falls-to-lowest-level-since-1987/

Do you really think that immigrant parents will stop pushing their kids into med school? Students won't stop until there are unemployed US grads panhandling on the streets, carrying signs "will do laparotomy for food". Don't believe me? Look how many keep going Caribbean despite all the SDN warnings. People will still want to be doctors, no matter what. Medicine is more attractive than law, and the law students don't stop coming, why would med students stop? After all, when you graduate, you will be a doctor.

Again, I'm not in favor of this, and I'm not saying it's imminent, but I am saying that medicine will not be immune from an infinite oversupply of doctors. Yes, demand for medical services is elastic, but at some point, all demand will be met, and then salaries will come down and jobs hard or impossible to find for many. You have been warned!

This future may be possible but I still doubt that junior docs will be pushed towards the rural areas. They might do something else besides medicine but I still doubt they will move to where the demand is plentiful and the supply is low for purely economic reasons. Most adults work in this day and age. If you are a physician you will typically marry another educated individual who will have their own professional aspirations as well as individual desires. Educated people for the most part don't want to live in rural areas, period. What @Snakes said above is also very true, working in an underserved area comes with a ton of asterisks.

You also assume that the number of desirable areas is static. If we are talking about long periods of time (and it would take a very long time for docs to get where lawyers are) then you must also take into consideration the development and expansion of currently small cities and suburban areas. Houston is growing very rapidly in every direction and the TMC is not the only place to work within driving distance of the museum district. Cities in the southwest like Pheonix, Austin, Albequerque are growing as well. More areas will become desirable as time goes on and other markets appear saturated. Even in a doomsday scenario with the way America's cities are growing you would have to pump out several folds more physicians than we are currently to reach such a glut.
 
With the amount of profit that med schools generate from the current process, i hardly believe that changing the process even in the slightest will happen. Note: this is not a rant, and doesn't express an opinion, but is merely an observation.
The medicals students are actually where medical schools lose money.
It is the rest of the enterprise that generates capital.
With the development of new business models (e.g. CNU) we shall see if that remains true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Look at the data - this kind of thing is not a mystery. What @Law2Doc is saying isn't really opinion. It's easily appreciable if you look at the data (physicians per capita in the US vs. other countries, physicians per capita in counties across the US vs. other counties vs. in other countries). If you disagree, then you disagree with objective data.

Now, you might argue that the answer to the problem of distribution is to train more physicians, but that is to address a problem with distribution, not with shortage.

So just because the United States has equal numbers of physicians per capita to other countries, does not mean that there is no physician shortage in the US. You are making the assumption that Canada and the UK have sufficient physicians. This is a terrible assumption. In fact, both of these countries also have physician shortages and medical services shortages in general. In a market at equilibrium, no buyer would have to wait months in line to obtain the goods or services they desire. Having queues for goods and services is the classic presentation of a market that is suffering from a shortage in supply.

The supply curve in the physician services market in the urban/suburban areas of the country keeps moving to the right, yet physicians are still flooding into those markets. By definition, this means that the market has yet to reach equilibrium in even the most desirable locations in the country. Ergo, there is still a shortage of physicians.
 
There is no presuming to be made. If you actually look at the data, it is very clear that residency spots are the bottleneck. You are not reading the data correctly.

Thanks for clarifying the data. So, residency spots are not the bottleneck for US grads, but are a bottleneck for the total number of doctors entering residency.

This appears to have been the case since around 1981. In the late 1970's, there were enough spots for US grads, and all the FMGs who wanted to apply, with some unfilled spost. That seems to have changed around 1982.

See the chart on page 12. http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/resultsanddata1984.pdf

So, there has been a bottleneck for FMGs since 1981, but still an excess of residency spots for US grads.

Page 29 was very interesting. In 1984, Plastic surgery, Derm , and Ortho were the most competitive specialties, contrary to the myth that back then, if you wanted to go into ortho, all you had to do was apply. Derm, had 0.47 spots per applicant, Plastic surgery 0.28 spots, and ortho had 0.56 spots per applicant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top