Shortage of Pathologists?

[Enkidu]

I kid you not. Below is a cut and paste from today's CAP STATline.

Pathologist shortage? Really CAP RF? Really?


CAP, ASCP Residents Urge Super Committee to Protect Medicare GME Funding

The CAP Resident Forum Executive Committee and the American Society for Clinical Pathology (ASCP) Resident Council urged the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction to protect existing Medicare financing for Graduate Medical Education (GME).

Identified as a potential target for spending cuts in December 2010 by the Bowles-Simpson Commission, GME cuts could negatively impact residency programs, thus worsening the projected pathologist shortage by decreasing the number of young pathology-trained physicians, noted both groups in a Nov. 14 letter to Joint Committee members.

The Bowles-Simpson Commission proposed two levels of cuts—unding reductions at 30% and 50%, explained Nicole Riddle, MD, Chair of the CAP Residents Forum Executive Committee, who added that these cuts are likely to hit medical specialties like pathology particularly hard. “If hospitals have to make decisions in terms of cutting residency programs, pathology is likely to suffer greater compared to other specialties,” she told Statline. “This is daunting, considering the predicted shortage of pathologists and the great need for new physicians to enter this specialty.”

But these academic pathologists must have the data showing that there will be a shortage, or they must honestly believe that there will be one. It seems like a lot of people on these forums are downright conspiracy theorists about this. We have to give them the benefit of the doubt. They may be wrong, but a lot of smart people who are entrusted with steering the profession of pathology have this belief, then it may be worth provisionally trusting them until we have a chance to evaluate the data that they're looking at.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[scienceguy19]

I guess we will see in the future whether or not the predicted shortage holds true. If not, we can all hold Nicole Riddle MD responsible for her comments.

 

[hallucinated]

So I've been to 10 interviews for pathology residency thus far, and I've been to hardcore-AP heavy programs to balanced AP/CP programs to superacademic research programs. Nowhere did get a sense of impending doom of not finding a job from senior residents/fellows. If anything, I feel like people on student doctor forums in general (not just this pathology forum) are anxious, defensive people who want to seek comfort on internet forums?

Most programs were recruiting new attendings, offering new positions, many programs were filling in these openings with their past residents. Most programs were looking to expand, move to new facilities or renovate. Some residents even decided to go out straight into practice, skipping fellowships/academic field altogether.

I don't know about everyone but I'm looking to expanding this field, practicing proactive medicine to make pathology more visible to everyone involved. Many complaints I hear about this fields are regarding marginalized payments and protecting our reimbursements. I really want to ask where everyone is from, where everyone is practicing to maybe get a better idea. Regardless, I am committed to this field for life.

 

[pathstudent]

But these academic pathologists must have the data showing that there will be a shortage, or they must honestly believe that there will be one. It seems like a lot of people on these forums are downright conspiracy theorists about this. We have to give them the benefit of the doubt. They may be wrong, but a lot of smart people who are entrusted with steering the profession of pathology have this belief, then it may be worth provisionally trusting them until we have a chance to evaluate the data that they're looking at.

A shortage be a good thing because it would mean more work to go around for motivated people.

If I got paid twice as much money I could sign out twice as many cases.

 

[Leukocyte]

Shortage or no shortage, how whould this change anything as far as a person's desire to persue Pathology as a career? Yes, it sucks if a person did 5 years of residency/fellowship training and not find a job...but what other medical specialty would that person had persued other than Pathology? Should a "pathology type" person pursue FM just because of the job market, if there is no shortage in Pathology? Should a "FM type" person pursue Pathology just because there is a predicted shortage? I mean, how is this information helpful?

 

[2121115]

Supply and demand matters.

 

[Enkidu]

Shortage or no shortage, how whould this change anything as far as a person's desire to persue Pathology as a career? Yes, it sucks if a person did 5 years of residency/fellowship training and not find a job...but what other medical specialty would that person had persued other than Pathology? Should a "pathology type" person pursue FM just because of the job market, if there is no shortage in Pathology? Should a "FM type" person pursue Pathology just because there is a predicted shortage? I mean, how is this information helpful?

That's the million dollar question, I guess. I suppose that I could be pushed into a different specialty if I thought there was no career in pathology. Radiology, maybe...

 

[yaah]

I agree with your comments for the most part, yaah, but I have to disagree a little with the notion that someone may not be getting a job because of weak performance/poor evaluations/lack of ability. At least for new people coming out of training, I don't think employers have enough info on this kind of thing to really evaluate. In my experience, program directors do not like to say negative things about a resident's/fellow's performance when asked. And most people pass the boards. I have seen many lackluster residents and fellows get good jobs, because they were simply in the right place at the right time and had impressive-looking CVs. In other words I think the things that make a person a good pathologist are more difficult for a potential employer to evaluate in someone right out of training than in someone who's been around the block.

Yes, hence why many private groups have been burned and do not hire new grads. If they do, it is reserved for those with stellar credentials. It sucks for new grads but that is the way it is. This happens in other fields too. If you end up in a private group you will quickly realize how much time and effort goes into finding a new pathologist, and how careful you will be to not make a bad decision.

However, you would be surprised at how well faculty are able to evaluate residents. Most of what you do in residency is noticed - the good and the bad. People talk. You are probably right that faculty do not typically say bad things about residents/fellows. They focus on the positive. But truly stellar residents and fellows do stand out, and this comes across when you talk to them.

 

[2121115]

I find it interesting that CAP RF went from heated discussion at USCAP a few years ago about oversupply and the job market to now all of the sudden petitioning the federal government with their official position being that there is a shortage of pathologists. Why? What happened in the meantime to cause such a drastic change? All of the sudden residents are cool with the current situation and have done a complete 180 from being concerned about over-training to feeling it would detrimental to reduce the over-training? To all of you residents that think the job market is suboptimal, just remember that your representatives at CAP think there are too few pathologists.

 

[Tissue issue]

So I've been to 10 interviews for pathology residency thus far, and I've been to hardcore-AP heavy programs to balanced AP/CP programs to superacademic research programs. Nowhere did get a sense of impending doom of not finding a job from senior residents/fellows. If anything, I feel like people on student doctor forums in general (not just this pathology forum) are anxious, defensive people who want to seek comfort on internet forums?

Most programs were recruiting new attendings, offering new positions, many programs were filling in these openings with their past residents. Most programs were looking to expand, move to new facilities or renovate. Some residents even decided to go out straight into practice, skipping fellowships/academic field altogether.

I don't know about everyone but I'm looking to expanding this field, practicing proactive medicine to make pathology more visible to everyone involved. Many complaints I hear about this fields are regarding marginalized payments and protecting our reimbursements. I really want to ask where everyone is from, where everyone is practicing to maybe get a better idea. Regardless, I am committed to this field for life.

Dear Hallucinated,

I very recently joined this forum- this is not usually my cup of tea, if you will. My main concern is that medical students have an awareness of our job market situation. Be armed with the knowledge that you are going to have to work harder than most of your peers to stand out- and that will continue on in the fellowship that you will need to do. I feel comfortable with the statement that barring an unusual set of circumstances a resident going straight into practice without any fellowship training (if by practice you mean community practice) isn't realistic these days. Patients will continue to need dedicated pathologists who are committed to the field. I just don't like to encounter residents/fellows who are distraught about the current situation. Awareness going into path residency will hopefully lead to less unhappiness coming out.

 

[Gene_]

For the record, I don't know of anyone who has not found a job. This is my sixth year of training, so I have met quite a few trainees who were looking for jobs. I am not saying that things are great, but they could be worse.

 

[DIce3]

IMHO, one would actually have to be out practicing to understand the real market. A viewpoint from inside a training program is maybe like looking at the retina with a direct ophthalmoscope versus an direct one-- a tiny keyhole view versus an IMAX projection.

 

[yaah]

I find it interesting that CAP RF went from heated discussion at USCAP a few years ago about oversupply and the job market to now all of the sudden petitioning the federal government with their official position being that there is a shortage of pathologists. Why? What happened in the meantime to cause such a drastic change? All of the sudden residents are cool with the current situation and have done a complete 180 from being concerned about over-training to feeling it would detrimental to reduce the over-training? To all of you residents that think the job market is suboptimal, just remember that your representatives at CAP think there are too few pathologists.

Part of it though is a strategy to attempt to prevent GME funding reduction. The main point is not "there are too few pathologists," the main point is,"don't cut GME funding."

 

[cjw0918]

Thinking about the residents and fellows I know who have gotten GOOD jobs after training, many of them moonlighted at the places where they are now employed. I think this can be a great way for practicing pathologists to get to know paths in training for when hiring time comes.

 

[mlw03]

Thinking about the residents and fellows I know who have gotten GOOD jobs after training, many of them moonlighted at the places where they are now employed. I think this can be a great way for practicing pathologists to get to know paths in training for when hiring time comes.

What does that mean? I've never heard of a group wanting to hire a pathologist-in-training. What would they do? Unless you're talking about moonlighting as a grosser. I have heard of this for aspiring forensic pathologist moonlighting at the local ME/coroner office, or even other path residents doing this for some side money (and just doing likely natural and/or drug deaths). It does seem like a good idea though, if it's an option where one lives.

 

[Sulfinator]

What does that mean? I've never heard of a group wanting to hire a pathologist-in-training. What would they do? Unless you're talking about moonlighting as a grosser.

I think that is what cjw is talking about.

 

[Leukocyte]

I am wondering...if a person had a hard time getting into a pathology residency (got into a pathology residency after multiple attempts..was not attractive to programs the first time he/she applied)...................., does this mean that he/she will get a harder time getting a Job after getting out of residency? I am assuming that most groups prefer to hire an AMG over any IMG, right? Thanks.

 

[Gene_]

IMHO, one would actually have to be out practicing to understand the real market. A viewpoint from inside a training program is maybe like looking at the retina with a direct ophthalmoscope versus an direct one-- a tiny keyhole view versus an IMAX projection.

Uhhh...care to explain? Supply and demand is equally understood by the buyer and the seller. How are pathology services different than any other commodity?

 

[DIce3]

Uhhh...care to explain? Supply and demand is equally understood by the buyer and the seller. How are pathology services different than any other commodity?

I agree. Pathology services have become a commodity. Hospitals and groups buy and sell to the lowest bidder continuously. There is an ample supply of pathologists in order to hire good stock any time, any where. Unlike clinicians who build a patient base and have significant political power to wield. Pathologists and radiologists have zero political power. Pathologists work on a year to year basis. There is zero job security and zero loyalty from hospital administration. In one hospital where I round, there have been four high quality radiology groups in less than four years. The situation is tragic. I love the IR doc where I work and he is gone at the end of December. It is horrid. The pathology department at this hospital hires and fires new residents so fast that I can't even figure out who staffs the lab. I have been watching things deteriorate for these two specialties and I think they are going to stay in free fall for years to come..

 

[pathstudent]

For the record, I don't know of anyone who has not found a job. This is my sixth year of training, so I have met quite a few trainees who were looking for jobs. I am not saying that things are great, but they could be worse.

I agree, pretty much everyone I know got a job. I do know of a few people that I don't know if they got jobs. They sort of disappeared after residency and I don't know what happened to them.

But I also know people that took quasi-jobs, for example one of my colleagues went to a prestigious NYC academic department and worked for about 80k a year for 3 (and that was signing out a full time load) years before finally making asst prof and now is making closer to 140. I read a stunning stat recently that the median salary for a NYC public school teacher is almost 50 an hour. That means teachers earn as much as newly minted pathologists on an hourly basis. That seems crazy to me given the pressure and responsibility of signing out surg path. Then I recall reading an article in the NYT recently where some Columbia academic economist published an article saying doctors are overpaid in the US relative to the rest of the world.

 

[2121115]

Whether or not people are underemployed or unemployed or adequately employed, I find it very interesting that the official position of CAP and CAP RF is that there is an *undersupply*. In other words officially there is a pathologist shortage according to CAP and CAP RF. All of the posts we constantly see about decreasing supply, decreasing training programs, etc in order to improve the job market are never going to materialize - not because nobody can get it done or because it is not feasible but because according to CAP RF there is no over-training problem that needs to be corrected in the first place and, moreso, there is an undersupply of pathologists.

Well, there is your answer. The issue is put to bed. The issue has been brought before CAP and their offical position is that there is not a problem with over-training.

 

[pathstudent]

Whether or not people are underemployed or unemployed or adequately employed, I find it very interesting that the official position of CAP and CAP RF is that there is an *undersupply*. In other words officially there is a pathologist shortage according to CAP and CAP RF. All of the posts we constantly see about decreasing supply, decreasing training programs, etc in order to improve the job market are never going to materialize - not because nobody can get it done or because it is not feasible but because according to CAP RF there is no over-training problem that needs to be corrected in the first place and, moreso, there is an undersupply of pathologists.

Well, there is your answer. The issue is put to bed. The issue has been brought before CAP and their offical position is that there is not a problem with over-training.

CAP can certainly chime in but, FTR, they do not have any direct control over number of training spots.

 

[2121115]

CAP can certainly chime in but, FTR, they do not have any direct control over number of training spots.

But in this situation they do have some amount of input. They are actively lobbying Congress to not reduce training spots and they are doing so for a particular reason, which is that there is an undersupply of pathologists.

 

[pathstudent]

But in this situation they do have some amount of input. They are actively lobbying Congress to not reduce training spots and they are doing so for a particular reason, which is that there is an undersupply of pathologists.

Technically they are lobbying to not reduce funding. The number of spots wouldn't necessarily change. Departments would have to find other means to fund resdients. Or residency might become like some dermpath fellowships where you pay for the privledge.

 

[2121115]

Technically they are lobbying to not reduce funding. The number of spots wouldn't necessarily change. Departments would have to find other means to fund resdients. Or residency might become like some dermpath fellowships where you pay for the privledge.

I thought it was implied that $$ cuts would reduce residency spots from the below phrasing...

"GME cuts could negatively impact residency programs, thus worsening the projected pathologist shortage by decreasing the number of young pathology-trained physicians"

 

[malchik]

I am a member of the CAP RF, and I have not heard anything about this. Granted I am not on the executive committee. It is interesting that the RF would do something like this without even informing, let alone asking for input from, its members.

 

[kruppe]

Technically they are lobbying to not reduce funding. The number of spots wouldn't necessarily change. Departments would have to find other means to fund resdients. Or residency might become like some dermpath fellowships where you pay for the privledge.

I've heard this rumor abt paying for dermpath fellowships a few times but have never come across it before. I heard in the past at Ackerman foreign pathologists would pay to sit and learn with the MAN but have residents graduating from US programs ever paid to be anywhere for fellowships

 

[Entgegen]

I am a member of the CAP RF, and I have not heard anything about this. Granted I am not on the executive committee. It is interesting that the RF would do something like this without even informing, let alone asking for input from, its members.

And the thick plottens...

 

[2121115]

I've heard this rumor abt paying for dermpath fellowships a few times but have never come across it before. I heard in the past at Ackerman foreign pathologists would pay to sit and learn with the MAN but have residents graduating from US programs ever paid to be anywhere for fellowships

Actually there are a number of fellowship positions that are open if you "have your own funding" (IOW, pay for it yourself). I have seen this happen several times. Once in hemepath. Once in cytopath. Once in dermpath. For example, some programs out there are approved for 2 fellowship spots but only offer one funded spot.

I have seen pathologists come in from private practice to do a fellowship and remain funded by their group because the group really needed someone with XYZ training but did not want to hire an additional pathologist. So the group just sent one of their members to do the fellowship while remaining on the payroll and in his absence staffed with locums for a year. Then at the end of the fellowship they took him back into the group. In the end that is much cheaper than hiring an additional full time partner (eventually) pathologist.

The other way I have seen it done is pathologists who are in the military and do a civilian fellowship (for whatever reason, I don't really understand that process). They came with their own funding, benefits, health insurance, etc.

In all these situations, the fellowship is much less competitive to obtain (for obvious reasons) and it is basically a lock. The faculty get free help for a year from an experienced pathologist. Why would they say no? They will take as many like that as want to come.

 

[KCShaw]

Not entirely sure how it 'used to be,' if any different, but currently the 'Ackerman Academy of Dermatopathology' offers what appears to be a fairly traditional fellowship although I'm not sure if it's ACGME accredited. It also offers a 'visiting fellowship', for which it does charge tuition -- not just an unfunded position. However, it's very clear on the website that the visiting fellowship position is not meant to make one eligible for dermpath boards, and is designed for those who specifically want more derm experience/exposure for whatever other reasons.

I'm not aware of any ACGME accredited fellowship position where one has to -pay- out of pocket tuition in order to be there (not sure if ACGME has rules against that either), although yes there are certainly a number of accredited but unfunded positions out there where one could, in theory, do it without a salary or benefits (or have a temporary salary/benefits from some other source) -- it's just not the same as having to pay additional out of pocket to show up.

 

[cliquesh]

Shortage or no shortage, how whould this change anything as far as a person's desire to persue Pathology as a career? Yes, it sucks if a person did 5 years of residency/fellowship training and not find a job...but what other medical specialty would that person had persued other than Pathology? Should a "pathology type" person pursue FM just because of the job market, if there is no shortage in Pathology? Should a "FM type" person pursue Pathology just because there is a predicted shortage? I mean, how is this information helpful?

I am a MS-3 and I was pretty dead-set on pathology until a few months ago when several pathologists advised me against going into the field due to the job market. I'd like to have a family one day and provide for them, and I'd rather be less happy with my career than have to struggle with finances.

 

[Enkidu]

I've never known a pathologist to struggle with finances. I think the main problem is a relative lack of choices in where you can work, but actual surveys show that all pathologists get jobs and earn a respectable income and there is some suggesting that the oversupply may be soon to end. All in all, I'd prefer a tighter job market in pathology to a good job market in any other field.

 

[Thrombus]

I am a MS-3 and I was pretty dead-set on pathology until a few months ago when several pathologists advised me against going into the field due to the job market. I'd like to have a family one day and provide for them, and I'd rather be less happy with my career than have to struggle with finances.

You are wise for seeking opinions of those who are in "the trenches" practicing this field and who have the pulse of the current situation. Unfortunately, I received a few warnings and red flags including one guy who's job was eliminated in private practive and who was new to academics. This gentlemen said he could not recommend anyone going into the field and that was a decade or so ago. I went against these warnings after being told otherwise with the myth of all these retiring pathologists in the next 5 years (that never materialized) in addition to other sooth-saying that was blatantly false.

You cannot practice this field on your own terms. You cannot work as hard as you want and receive due payment for the fruits of your labor in this field in virtually all practice situations for young pathologists. You are either exploited or severely limited in your practice as you are competing for specimens with shady practice schemes from others. There is simply not enough work to go around and it is a RACE TO THE BOTTOM.

If you desire work where you are JUSTLY paid and you can CONTROL your terms by how hard and effective you work, there are plenty of other fields of medicine where you can do this.

 

[Leukocyte]

I am confused...if Pathology indeed has such poor job prospects as MOST of you here say (which I do believe there is truth to this), then why in the world are there "over 600 applications for only 3 PGY-1 positions" as one pathology PD said on his rejection letter to me?

 

[Thaitanium]

I am confused...if Pathology indeed has such poor job prospects as MOST of you here say (which I do believe there is truth to this), then why in the world are there "over 600 applications for only 3 PGY-1 positions" as one pathology PD said on his rejection letter to me?

There are a lot of IMGs looking to get into path. Some are applying to two specialties like IM and pathology (as a backup). Pathology is not a competitive field (except at the top tier institutions) so most IMGs apply. Some IMGs, however, are truly interested. As a PD you really have to screen for those that are truly interested and those that aren't. Some may apply in hopes of landing a path residency and decide to bail for a IM/FP residency which they initially wanted and made the excuse "Pathology isn't really for me." In that case, the program has lost a resident during the year (while current residents pick up the slack) and have to find someone else to fill the position. The resident then gets what he/she wanted initially (an IM/FP spot that had an opening)

It seems like the number of IMG applicants have increased and getting a position has become competitive overall. Applicants have resorted to applying to less competitive specialties in hopes of getting ANY position (includes psych, FP).

I bet you most of those 600 apps are IMGs.

 

[DIce3]

I suspect a decrease in AMGs apply to pathology, but FMG pools probably increase yearly as IM and FM become more competitive. The number of AMG MS4 MD and DOs is increasing significantly faster than the number of ACGME PGY1 spots.

 

[Entgegen]

I'm currently a 1st-year at a pretty big-name institution, and the most recent applicant stats are that of the >500 applicants, only 80 are AMGs, while all the rest are IMGs. I have no idea if this AMG:IMG ratio is different from previous years though.

 

[Tissue issue]

I am a MS-3 and I was pretty dead-set on pathology until a few months ago when several pathologists advised me against going into the field due to the job market. I'd like to have a family one day and provide for them, and I'd rather be less happy with my career than have to struggle with finances.

I don't think that our undesirable job market situation means that you unequivocally cannot go into pathology. My take is that in our specialty it is much harder to get a good job- and to keep the job good (yes, I mean it that way). A lot of the misunderstanding (and I was definitely guilty of this) revolves around the concept of "everyone is getting a job- it can't be that bad". The oversupply continues to affect us when we're in that job position, which really took me by surprise There is a large pool not only of new grads but also of practicing pathologists looking to get out of their current situation. All the mailing of CV's, cold calling, etc. that has been going on for years starts to put ideas in the heads of group leaders, chairmen, administrators and businesspeople (Ameripath for example). Finding your niche in an evolving area such as molecular pathology or becoming an "expert" in a specific area are examples of things you may consider as a way to still do pathology. Only trying to help with these thoughts.

 

[2121115]

The oversupply continues to affect us when we're in that job position, which really took me by surprise There is a large pool not only of new grads but also of practicing pathologists looking to get out of their current situation.

But there is NOT an oversupply, just ask CAP Residents Forum. They have officially stated that there is an undersupply. Not enough pathologists to go around out there, don't you see? Too many pathologists? Ha! Absurd. They just lobbied the federal government in the name of a pathologist shortage. So there is no way there could be an oversupply.

 

[Thrombus]

All the mailing of CV's, cold calling, etc. that has been going on for years starts to put ideas in the heads of group leaders, chairmen, administrators and businesspeople (Ameripath for example).

This itself describes why we are in such peril. Young pathologists in the majority of situations are being exploited and most new grads should expect only worse. I encourage anyone and everyone applying to get their pulse on this situation and look elsewhere. You cannot say you were not warned properly.

 

[KCShaw]

I'm currently a 1st-year at a pretty big-name institution, and the most recent applicant stats are that of the >500 applicants, only 80 are AMGs, while all the rest are IMGs. I have no idea if this AMG:IMG ratio is different from previous years though.

There's also usually a lot of applicants who really aren't even qualified; no recognized MD/equivalent degree, no USMLE/equivalent exam or passing score, nothing toward ECFMG certification, and so on and so forth. So of that large reported pool, only a fraction are going to make it past the first quick screen -- but it still sounds like a good excuse to give otherwise reasonable applicants who they're turning down for an interview for one reason or another. Perhaps unfortunately the sometimes large overall applicant numbers provide programs all the more reason to screen and crudely initially rank with some simple and familiar number, like Step I scores, rather than really carefully look at every application in its entirety. A few programs may get "screwed", so to speak, because they offer interviews to people with no interest in pathology but just enough paranoia to apply to path programs as well as their specialty of actual interest -- a different but related issue -- and end up not filling in the match. Some programs are concerned enough about this that even very competitive applicants may not get taken seriously unless they express reasons to want to be at that particular program, not because the program doesn't want them but because the program thinks the applicant prefers other institutions and doesn't want to waste time/interview spots/ranking debate/etc. on uninterested applicants. So...sometimes the process is fairly straightforward and sometimes it's rather complicated.

 

[Sir James Bond]

This was a deal breaker for me (along with wanting to see patients). While the comments on this website didn't change my mind, they did raise the questions I needed to ask during my pathology rotations. Did residents talk about how hard it is for them to find a single job straight out of residency? Yes. Did residents complain that their program was doing very little in way of job hunting assistance? Yep. Were residents pursuing fellowships to improve their job prospects? Nearly all. So this is from the horses mouth per se.... Not for me.

 

[scienceguy19]

Maybe we should start some sort of lobby organization to tell Washington DC the truth about the state of pathology. We should send representatives including people who have done multiple fellowships and unemployed pathologists...

 

[KCShaw]

Part of it though is a strategy to attempt to prevent GME funding reduction. The main point is not "there are too few pathologists," the main point is,"don't cut GME funding."

I think this could be a pretty insightful comment.

Either way, evidencing courses of action of this magnitude probably need to be based on something better than limited surveys and/or a hodgepodge of personal communications and opinions. I think it can be misleading to say that the "buyer" and "seller" equally understand the market, as each constantly tries to fool the other into a deal which suits them better. It's hard to go shopping for a house, car, TV, etc. when the seller, most other nearby sellers -and- most other nearby buyers, aren't giving you much consistent reliable information you can count on to make an informed decision. Can't go scouting pathology jobs on Amazon.com just yet.

 

[2121115]

But there could have been a number of reasons given to the government for why they should prevent reductions in GME funding. The one that CAP RF chose was that there are too few pathologists. That is fine with me if that is true. I am not trying to hate on the RF. Do they have data showing a shortage or something? I'm confused. All we used to hear about from residents at CAP RF meetings was about over supply and a poor job market. Did the CAP RF constituents change their mind all of the sudden? I would like to hear from CAP RF members about this. I have recently finished training and I am in practice, so maybe I am unaware of things being different now. Maybe residents are all easily finding jobs now because of this shortage. I don't know. I'd like to hear current CAP RF members chime in.

 

[Rudy1223]

But there could have been a number of reasons given to the government for why they should prevent reductions in GME funding. The one that CAP RF chose was that there are too few pathologists. That is fine with me if that is true. I am not trying to hate on the RF. Do they have data showing a shortage or something? I'm confused. All we used to hear about from residents at CAP RF meetings was about over supply and a poor job market. Did the CAP RF constituents change their mind all of the sudden? I would like to hear from CAP RF members about this. I have recently finished training and I am in practice, so maybe I am unaware of things being different now. Maybe residents are all easily finding jobs now because of this shortage. I don't know. I'd like to hear current CAP RF members chime in.

I was just at the RF in Dallas this fall. Nothing about this was mentioned in the meeting. I believe Jerad Gardner is the president of the RF and he frequents this forum. He didn't mention any of this. Maybe we can get insight as to whether this is true?

 

[Arctic Char]

i was also in Dallas . . . if there really was a shortage of pathologists, then there would be a demand for pathologists which would prompt recruiting firms to set up booths at meetings like CAP. has anyone ever seen a recruiting firm at CAP? USCAP? ASCP?

i'd guess 10-20% of attendees are there primarily to find a job, at least. whereas no one is setting up booths for hiring, except maybe that joke of a fellowship "fair", which consisted of the top 10 academic institutions with waiter's cards popped up only because the CAP brass probably begged them to participate to pass off the illusion that they care about young trainees.

there is no shortage of pathologists. but perhaps in the minds of those at the top, there is a shortage of people willing to work twice as hard for half the money.

 

[yaah]

But there could have been a number of reasons given to the government for why they should prevent reductions in GME funding. The one that CAP RF chose was that there are too few pathologists. That is fine with me if that is true. I am not trying to hate on the RF. Do they have data showing a shortage or something? I'm confused. All we used to hear about from residents at CAP RF meetings was about over supply and a poor job market. Did the CAP RF constituents change their mind all of the sudden? I would like to hear from CAP RF members about this. I have recently finished training and I am in practice, so maybe I am unaware of things being different now. Maybe residents are all easily finding jobs now because of this shortage. I don't know. I'd like to hear current CAP RF members chime in.

I am not an RF member, but like I said this sounds more like a political strategy.

There are plenty of data showing pathology specimen growth as well as number of actual practicing pathologists and their ages. This can be easily taken to show a "future need" based on both growth and attrition. It may be misleading and ignore pathology practice trends, but for political purposes it is easier to "understand."

I don't think anyone's mind has changed. The data have always been there that show this potential shortage, although it is typically vague and has not come to fruition. And the data purported by many on these forums to show a "poor job market" are taken by others to mean a good job market. It depends on your perspective and your bias. I have not seen a good study on the job market - unfortunately most studies seem to focus too much on those who try to get a job without doing fellowships (i.e. not a realistic representation of the path resident population) or they for some reason include fellowships with real jobs. I wish the boards would take the lead on getting a real survey conducted since they have the database and the captive audience. However, the main problems with collecting such data are:

1) Data will be contaminated by people who haven't yet looked for a job or aren't completed with their search yet
2) Practicing pathologists simply do not answer surveys. Even if you were able to contact everyone with an easy, quick survey, you would probably still not get more than a 20% response rate.

 

[Tissue issue]

But there could have been a number of reasons given to the government for why they should prevent reductions in GME funding. The one that CAP RF chose was that there are too few pathologists. That is fine with me if that is true. I am not trying to hate on the RF. Do they have data showing a shortage or something? I'm confused. All we used to hear about from residents at CAP RF meetings was about over supply and a poor job market. Did the CAP RF constituents change their mind all of the sudden? I would like to hear from CAP RF members about this. I have recently finished training and I am in practice, so maybe I am unaware of things being different now. Maybe residents are all easily finding jobs now because of this shortage. I don't know. I'd like to hear current CAP RF members chime in.

1. I am a member of the CAP RF, and I have not heard anything about this. Granted I am not on the executive committee. It is interesting that the RF would do something like this without even informing, let alone asking for input from, its members.

2. I was just at the RF in Dallas this fall. Nothing about this was mentioned in the meeting. I believe Jerad Gardner is the president of the RF and he frequents this forum. He didn't mention any of this. Maybe we can get insight as to whether this is true?

3. i was also in Dallas . . . if there really was a shortage of pathologists, then there would be a demand for pathologists which would prompt recruiting firms to set up booths at meetings like CAP. has anyone ever seen a recruiting firm at CAP? USCAP? ASCP?

i'd guess 10-20% of attendees are there primarily to find a job, at least. whereas no one is setting up booths for hiring, except maybe that joke of a fellowship "fair", which consisted of the top 10 academic institutions with waiter's cards popped up only because the CAP brass probably begged them to participate to pass off the illusion that they care about young trainees.

there is no shortage of pathologists. but perhaps in the minds of those at the top, there is a shortage of people willing to work twice as hard for half the money.
__________________


Well I've been out of training for a long time. Is there a disconnect here? Another thing that struck me was that the letter to the Congressional Council is only from residents- not from a chairperson or practicing pathologist group.

 

[Torsed]

From what I've heard anecdotally, yeah GI is competitive too. Not a ton of slots out there, and people seem to realize it's a good thing to have for going into private practice.

You mean for going into pod labs, ****** of the clinicians. Makes me low.