Save The Merger

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
well for most DO schools, do the vast majority of their operating budgets not come from student tuition? If not, then where else? State/government funds (other than the public schools)? Research grants? endowments?

Their funds come from ALL of those sources, yes. DO schools, even the private ones, get government funds and endowments. They also get research grants. Again, do your research before you repeat falsehoods as facts.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Their funds come from ALL of those sources, yes. DO schools, even the private ones, get government funds and endowments. They also get research grants. Again, do your research before you repeat falsehoods as facts.

I am sure RFU was as well when they were placed on probation by the LCME. At the time, approximately 60% of their revenue came from student tuition. This was enough to be seen as overly "tuition driven" and put the school at risk for closure. Are you telling me that most DO schools derive over 40% of their revenue from sources other than tuition?

My original post was referring to the difficulty DO schools would have meeting this standard.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...ison-committee-medical-education-student-debt
 
I am sure RFU was as well when they were placed on probation by the LCME. At the time, approximately 60% of their revenue came from student tuition. This was enough to be seen as overly "tuition driven" and put the school at risk for closure. Are you telling me that most DO schools derive over 40% of their revenue from sources other than tuition?

My original post was referring to the difficulty DO schools would have meeting this standard.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...ison-committee-medical-education-student-debt

What I'm telling you is that for-profit MD schools have received initial approval from the LCME, so all of this is essentially crap. I hate to keep repeating myself, but do your research! Seriously, posting an article from TEN years ago to prove a point that no longer exists?

The LCME has amended some of their guidelines, most notably admitting that accreditation should be based on the school and not on its governance. You're using information from a decade ago to make your argument.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
Even if what you say is true, I don't see how it goes against anything in the LCME guidelines. There is nothing to suggest the mission of the school is compromised nor the reliance on tuition that the quality of the program is compromised. None of this suggests that osteopathic schools wouldn't meet the standard for LCME accreditation, should that ever become a possibility.
 
.
 
Last edited:
I was able to pull up a independent auditor's report for a PUBLIC DO school within the last 4 years.
Revenue:
~70% Student tuition and fees (down 4-6% from previous year) That's close to 90% operating revenue.
~20% from state appropriations (up 4-5% from previous year)
rest from others (investments, interest on student loans receivables, contracts and grants)

Which school is this? Tuition was 4% of revenue at UNTHSC/TCOM the last time I looked into it.
 
I don't think it downplays anything. Just because one type of discrimination is more egregious (racism), it doesn't mean another lesser type (degree) is not a cause to take.

Race, age, gender, etc. -- Legally protected classes from discrimination.

Your qualifications, degree, whatever -- NOT legally protected from discrimination. Suck it up. No legal basis, then there's no "moral mommy" to run to and cry on. She's not going to come make your siblings play nicer with you.
 
Race, age, gender, etc. -- Legally protected classes from discrimination.

Your qualifications, degree, whatever -- NOT legally protected from discrimination. Suck it up. No legal basis, then there's no "moral mommy" to run to and cry on. She's not going to come make your siblings play nicer with you.
Straw man argument. Nobody here is currently making the argument that it is illegal. The last post to that effect was several months ago.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Straw man argument. Nobody here is currently making the argument that it is illegal. He last post to that effect was several months ago.
I wasn't "arguing" the legality. I was stating the FACT that since it is legal, my argument is that nobody in the big, bad grownup world cares.
 
Straw man argument. Nobody here is currently making the argument that it is illegal. He last post to that effect was several months ago.
I do see what you mean that the thread has gone an entirely different route. My bad.
 
Race, age, gender, etc. -- Legally protected classes from discrimination.

Your qualifications, degree, whatever -- NOT legally protected from discrimination. Suck it up. No legal basis, then there's no "moral mommy" to run to and cry on. She's not going to come make your siblings play nicer with you.

Whether you're right or not, you don't have to be such a tool about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Interesting that the discrimination in the case you linked above was based on his board certification and not the degree. Most instances of DO discrimination I have heard of are similar. Not all states have the same protections for DOs. This is another reason why we need the merger: to make the ABMS board certification available to graduates of any accredited residency.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
Race, age, gender, etc. -- Legally protected classes from discrimination.

Your qualifications, degree, whatever -- NOT legally protected from discrimination. Suck it up. No legal basis, then there's no "moral mommy" to run to and cry on. She's not going to come make your siblings play nicer with you.
I never said I was making a legal argument. Half you guys probably barely got an acceptable score on verbal.

The argument is simple. If the merger goes through, which means that residencies are now owned by both parties, degree discrimination must end.

And no, there's no "suck it up," jerk off. Just like the DOs before me fought for equal rights across all the states, I'm not going to just sit and take it. Degree discrimination must end. Go ahead and enjoy your bending over. I don't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I never said I was making a legal argument. Half you guys probably barely got an acceptable score on verbal.

The argument is simple. If the merger goes through, which means that residencies are now owned by both parties, degree discrimination must end.

Comment about VR is just silly and uncessary. Although I assume you're including yourself in that revered group, no?

To your second point, I agree that degree discrimination exists. Perhaps if the merger goes though, a real dialogue can begin to make headway in that arena.

The good news is that the HOD meeting starts on Friday so we'll soon know a little more about how this is going to all play out.
 
Comment about VR is just silly and uncessary. Although I assume you're including yourself in that revered group, no?

To your second point, I agree that degree discrimination exists. Perhaps if the merger goes though, a real dialogue can begin to make headway in that arena.

The good news is that the HOD meeting starts on Friday so we'll soon know a little more about how this is going to all play out.

The AOA has been publishing pro-merger articles in the JAOA and they sent most of us an email warning us to think hard before signing any anti-merger petitions. It would seem they are trying to shore up support.
Does anyone know how voting works in the HOD? Are resolutions approved or rejected based on a simple majority vote? Or is it a 2/3rds kind of thing?
 
I believe that the AOA has invested far to much time, effort, and resources to see that the unified accredidation goes forward. Furthermore, I believe that there is some external (read: government as it relates to GME funding) pressure that may ultimately force the issue. The ACOFP, the Dermatologists, et. al can complain and circulate petitions, but at the end of the day (or next weekend) I believe that unified GME will be the law of the land.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I can't post the source file since it has very sensitive information

Of course.

Are you arguing about the tuition issue or LCME standards in general? I'll admit some MD schools get up to 75% revenue from tuition

I'm arguing the point I've been arguing since I first chimed in. A poster claimed that because DO schools were tuition-driven, they'd have a hard time with LCME accreditation. This is absolutely untrue, on all fronts.

You think DO schools would last for longer than a year?

That would be a resounding YES and through all your talk, you have yet to give a shred of proof of why they wouldn't.

How many schools outside TX have such low tuition?

There are other DO schools that have lower tuition than MD schools. LECOM for one.
 
I've heard that some DOME's (Director of Osteopathic Medical Education) feel that if the merger does go through that it could be a slippery slope and that LCME accreditation could be the next big issue. If the feds did have a hand at pushing the merger, what's to say that not only do they want unified standards in graduate medical education vis a vis ACGME, but they also want unified standards in undergraduate medical education vis a vis LCME. It's certainly an interesting time to be a DO...

Sidenote: Ever notice how the word Osteopathic is in EVERYTHING. Why not just DME? In the email from the AOA (or maybe COSGP?) last week the first question was "What year are you in Osteopathic Medical School?" and OMS vs MS? I highly doubt when AAMC sends emails to MD students they ask what year they are in Allopathic medical school or refer to them as AMS'.
 
Guys:

Most (I'm saying most, because I have not researched all DO schools) DO schools function in a healthy manner. They are also profitable. A lot of MD & most DO schools are pretty tuition driven.

If the DO schools were suddenly told they would have to abide by LCME accreditation rules within 5 years or be shut down, guess what, most would. It might be rocky at first, but it'll happen, because regardless of whether they abide by LCME requirements or not, med schools are money makers.

Now, does any of this matter? No. The LCME is not accrediting DO schools, and even if it wanted to, such a change wouldn't happen for at least 10-20yrs. Its not happening now, and it sure as heck won't happen before we're physicians.
 
I believe that the AOA has invested far to much time, effort, and resources to see that the unified accredidation goes forward. Furthermore, I believe that there is some external (read: government as it relates to GME funding) pressure that may ultimately force the issue. The ACOFP, the Dermatologists, et. al can complain and circulate petitions, but at the end of the day (or next weekend) I believe that unified GME will be the law of the land.
I sure hope so.
 
Does anyone know if DO's will still be considered "Independent Applicants" in the NRMP is the merger goes through?
There have been no comments released by any of the involved parties directly addressing this issue.
 
Has this issue specifically been asked in the negotiations?
Not as far as I've seen.
What has been asked is whether the ACGME will ensure that DO students are treated the same as MD students during the application process, to which the response was circumlocutory.
 
Last edited:
Not as far as I've seen.
What has been asked is whether the ACGME will ensure that DO students are treated the same as MD students during the application process, to which the response was ambivalent.

What does "treated the same as MD students" mean exactly? Classified the same as "US Applicants"? "Removing "DO" as a filter?
 
What does "treated the same as MD students" mean exactly? Classified the same as "US Applicants"? "Removing "DO" as a filter?
Again, your specific question has not been answered yet. This is the closest thing we've gotten to an answer on the subject (from Dr. Vinn's FAQ):

I feel insulted and disrespected. They are treating us like we are second-class citizens; like we are not “the same.”
As DOs, we have been misunderstood before. But where some see walls, we see windows. We have faced down established systems of medicine and climbed our way to parity by rolling up our sleeves, digging in, and distinguishing ourselves. We earned respect. It’s time to once again to believe in ourselves, believe in our historic ability to adapt, survive and prosper, and do what we do best: be great DOs. That approach has worked for 140 years, and it will serve us well as we navigate the uncertainties that lie ahead.

We also need to give the ACGME some time to get to know us better and realize both where we are different, and where we are not different. We need to give them time to understand what our boards mean and what our skills are. Then we can use their existing processes to initiate changes in their standards to codify our role and parity in the system.

If we’re honest with ourselves, we don’t treat all DOs like they’re “the same” either—in particular, ACGME-trained DOs. At points in the not-so-distant past, we have claimed that these DOs were not loyal to the profession and put burdensome hurdles in place to gain “re-entry” to the profession. Apparently we think our own DOs are different and need to be put through stringent hoops. We must demonstrate that we believe otherwise.

tl;dr we don't know; just give it more time and eventually DOs will be treated as equals some time after the merger

I would be shocked and amazed if your question gets a straight answer any time soon. But I guess it wouldn't hurt to ask.
 
Certainly a diplomatic answer. I wish in the FAQ they would have touched on the treatment of DO applicants who have taken both parts of the USMLE scored well, and are still unable to even have their applications looked at by certain ACGME programs.

Perhaps it's just SDN hot air being blown around, but when you look at the Allo forum and people are (supposedly) getting interviewing and matching at mid-tier ACGME orto and urology programs with step 1's in the 230's, it becomes frustrating to be a DO with the same stats and knowing your application wouldn't even make it to someone's desk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Does anyone know if DO's will still be considered "Independent Applicants" in the NRMP is the merger goes through?

There isn't even an official claim that there will absolutely be a match merger, let alone how the NRMP will classify DOs after such a merger. Everyone has said that there would be no reason for there to be two matches after all are accredited by the ACGME (which is probably right), but there really hasn't been anything ironed out about a combined match, and probably won't be until we get closer to that 2020 completion date for the GME merger. I think its a bit premature to expect an answer to this question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
There isn't even an official claim that there will absolutely be a match merger, let alone how the NRMP will classify DOs after such a merger. Everyone has said that there would be no reason for there to be two matches after all are accredited by the ACGME (which is probably right), but there really hasn't been anything ironed out about a combined match, and probably won't be until we get closer to that 2020 completion date for the GME merger. I think its a bit premature to expect an answer to this question.
Good point. I think a lot of us have taken for granted that there will be a combined match but neither the AOA, ACGME, or NRMP have confirmed that there would be one, particularly in the near future.
 
Good point. I think a lot of us have taken for granted that there will be a combined match but neither the AOA, ACGME, or NRMP have confirmed that there would be one, particularly in the near future.

My understanding is that busine$$ factors are a big part of the move to a single match.

From what I've learned, the ACGME has a contractual relationship with NRMP to use their sy$tem to run the match whereas the AOA has a contractual arrangement with some other company to admini$ter their match.
 
Apparently Osteo1st is taking out an ad in the Chicago Sun-Times on Friday. They posted it on their website so I am quoting it below along with a few of my own thoughts.
Osteopathic medicine as a distinct, unique profession, is under attack

Why is it that when making this point they always use both of these two adjectives? Unique and distinct. It's annoyingly redundant. Is it possibly because they are trying to make a bigger deal out of something than it really is? Is it because they find it difficult to find more specific adjectives to describe what makes DOs different?

The American Osteopathic Association is conducting its annual Business Meeting in Chicago July 15-19, at The Fairmount Hotel. Out of public eye, the AOA has agreed to a single accreditation system for Graduate Medical Education which could mean the end of the Osteopathic Medical Profession.

If A Single Accreditation System Becomes Reality

• Osteopathic Specialty colleges will decline in membership. Osteopathic residents will be inclined to join allopathic (M.D.) specialty colleges and not our own.
Maybe they should spend a little time pondering why residents will be more likely to join allopathic specialty colleges.

• The Osteopathic profession is essentially admitting it cannot govern its own educational affairs. This will inevitably lead to a unified undergraduate system and an end to Osteopathic Medicine as a unique and distinct profession.

Unified GME is a long way from unified undergraduate accreditation. Slippery slope argument.

• The ACGME standards place an unreasonable financial burden on hospitals that currently support AOA-accredited programs.

So in one breath you warn against admitting that DO GME isn't up to par and then in the next breath you say that it isn't up to par.

As medical professionals, we would never recommend a course of treatment for a patient WITHOUT conducting a comprehensive and thorough examination and diagnosis.

That same approach must be applied to determining the best long term interest of Osteopathic medicine. Rushing into a single accreditation system WITHOUT a comprehensive and thorough examination of the potential impacts of such a merged system is reckless and potentially very damaging to our profession.

There is a better way ...

OSTEO 1st’s ALTERNATVE RESOLUTION – we call on the American Osteopathic Association to:

• POSTPONE any immediate vote for a merged accreditation system
• RETAIN an independent consultant to conduct a comprehensive and thorough study of a merged accreditation system
• SUSPEND all transition activities until this study is complete
• SHARE all of the findings of this study at the 2015 House of Delegates meeting in an open and transparent process
• CONDUCT a full and open discussion and debate on this study’s findings BEFORE any vote is taken

Let's save OGME!

Now It looks like you're just stalling.
 
My understanding is that busine$$ factors are a big part of the move to a single match.

From what I've learned, the ACGME has a contractual relationship with NRMP to use their sy$tem to run the match whereas the AOA has a contractual arrangement with some other company to admini$ter their match.

I've heard that too. I would assume that as programs gain full accreditation they will move to the NRMP match. I could be wrong though.
 
Aside from commuters who want to read the sports section, the Sun Times doesn't even have a big following. Who the heck are they trying to target anyway?
Just shows how old and outdated they are if they think anyone gives a **** about a newspaper. The only times I ever use one is to take out the poop in my cat's litterbox.
 
The AOA has had 100+ years to make DO's a household name. Why not hire some Madison Ave PR shop and try to get a meeting with the writers of something like Grey's Anatomy and have a DO written into the show. I'm pretty sure that would reach more households than some ad in a newspaper...
 
I've heard that too. I would assume that as programs gain full accreditation they will move to the NRMP match. I could be wrong though.

This is likely what will happen, programs that gain ACGME accreditation will act the way dual-accredited programs do now, or just go all ACGME. That said, the fact that all programs likely won't be ACGME accredited until at least 2020, means that there will probably still be 2 matches until then.
 
After months and months of speculation, the HOD kicks off tomorrow. Hopefully we'll have a clearer picture in the coming days.

So for those of us that don't fully understand the power structure of the AOA, how much power does the House have? Can they completely shut down the merger with a wave of their hand? From what I had heard, the merger isn't exactly super popular inside the HoD and that makes me nervous.
 
So for those of us that don't fully understand the power structure of the AOA, how much power does the House have? Can they completely shut down the merger with a wave of their hand? From what I had heard, the merger isn't exactly super popular inside the HoD and that makes me nervous.

This is what I have been wondering, too.
 
So for those of us that don't fully understand the power structure of the AOA, how much power does the House have? Can they completely shut down the merger with a wave of their hand? From what I had heard, the merger isn't exactly super popular inside the HoD and that makes me nervous.

1) no. They can't. It would actually be a very elaborate process for the HoD to fight it. Think of this as the affordable care act in those first few months after it was passed. Namely, the process of starting is already all agreed upon and starting no matter what. Even if the republicans/A.T.Still Acolytes want to stop it, they need to pull off a very elaborate and time consuming vote that would take so long that it would effectively occur too late to make a difference. So could they get rid of it? Yes. But not any time soon and not without a number of victories without a single defeat over a prolonged period of meetings.

2) talking with my multiple people in the AOA, it's overwhelmingly popular though many have small reservations about some aspects. reservations won't stop anyone, but it may cause some uncomfortable debate. Whomever is telling you it's unpopular in the AOA is either making a completely wrong assumption by assuming a few small groups have any significant say in the HoD, or they know of a secret resistance that both my old and new guard AOA connections don't know about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Thanks Doc you the man.
 
So how do we get DocEspana elected as the next AOA president?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
So how do we get DocEspana elected as the next AOA president?

Never. Im AMA all the way, baby!

Also, even though I did a TRI... I'm probably blacklisted for choosing an ACGME program over the many strong AOA programs I could have picked from (that last part is not sarcasm.... I think).
 
Never. Im AMA all the way, baby!

Also, even though I did a TRI... I'm probably blacklisted for choosing an ACGME program over the many strong AOA programs I could have picked from (that last part is not sarcasm.... I think).
And this is why our profession is still in the past. People that are reasonable and could take us somewhere don't bother to join the AOA so it is left off to the unreasonable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
And this is why our profession is still in the past. People that are reasonable and could take us somewhere don't bother to join the AOA so it is left off to the unreasonable.

Things are getting better though, I'd say. The merger is a positive step that I would have thought impossible not long ago.
 
FWIW, at the National Osteopathic Student Caucus (NOSC) on Wednesday, students voted to support unified GME. At the HOD meeting this weekend, this will serve as the unified student opinion. So... the students have spoken.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
FWIW, at the National Osteopathic Student Caucus (NOSC) on Wednesday, students voted to support unified GME. At the HOD meeting this weekend, this will serve as the unified student opinion. So... the students have spoken.
I'm glad that my representative voted in favor of the merger before we were even told the details. What is odd is that several of the resolutions regarding the merger were not included in the document sent to us by our representatives, while most of the other resolutions were.

Do you have a link to the text of the resolutions approved by the NOSC?
 
Top