Rhode Island College of Osteopathic Medicine

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


On a nother note... it says in the article that "the provide a medical education at roughly half the cost of a typical medical school "? Hmmm...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
The future of Higher Education in America in general is turning out to be the for-profit model. Its really the only way to bring down tuition costs. Its a shame though/..
 
dntke1518 said:
On a nother note... it says in the article that "the provide a medical education at roughly half the cost of a typical medical school "? Hmmm...
Click to expand...

They mean at half the cost of the state's investment. Most of these schools are opened, mostly, out of grants from state societies and payments directly from the state. Obviously there is millions of dollars of input by whomever opens it, but there is still massive state investment in the opening of any medical school.

donkeykong1 said:
The future of Higher Education in America in general is turning out to be the for-profit model. Its really the only way to bring down tuition costs. Its a shame though/..
Click to expand...

:eyebrow: umm.... the for-profit model has done nothing but show that it drives UP tuition. So ummm. I know you were sort of basing your comment on the same misunderstanding that dntke seemed to have, but there is no basis for for-profit doing anytihng but increasing the cost of education. (not that private or public have done much to drive it down, but categorically for-profit has reason to be the highest, and generally is)
 
DocEspana said:
:eyebrow: umm.... the for-profit model has done nothing but show that it drives UP tuition. So ummm. I know you were sort of basing your comment on the same misunderstanding that dntke seemed to have, but there is no basis for for-profit doing anytihng but increasing the cost of education. (not that private or public have done much to drive it down, but categorically for-profit has reason to be the highest, and generally is)
Click to expand...

nah, i meant what i said. as more and more for-profits develop, competition between for-profit schools should bring costs down. completely for profit institutions would also be held more accountable on the product (students) they graduate each year--otherwise their shareholders lose. again, im no fan of the for-profit schools..i'd rather follow the german model of higher education.
 
donkeykong1 said:
nah, i meant what i said. as more and more for-profits develop, competition between for-profit schools should bring costs down. completely for profit institutions would also be held more accountable on the product (students) they graduate each year--otherwise their shareholders lose. again, im no fan of the for-profit schools..i'd rather follow the german model of higher education.
Click to expand...

But that has not been the case in the american for-profit education system (not talking medical school here, since n=1. simply all higher education.) The prices have gone up higher annually with competition as a permissive effect of a demand that FAR outnumbers the supply and most for-profit schools in america began as a bit of a joke, but a joke that created well educated graduates with valid degrees. (devry, UoP, ITT, and many vocational schools). But as they develop shareholders continue to benefit as quality goes down (and schools are repeatedly put on probation) because the demand is so much higher than the supply that hiring professors does become the "lowest bidder wins" scenario, while keeping the tuition the same or rising it.

Your understanding of education in Germany may be correct, but its ass backwards based on the rather rich data set from America.
 
DocEspana said:
But that has not been the case in the american for-profit education system (not talking medical school here, since n=1. simply all higher education.) The prices have gone up higher annually with competition as a permissive effect of a demand that FAR outnumbers the supply and most for-profit schools in america began as a bit of a joke, but a joke that created well educated graduates with valid degrees. (devry, UoP, ITT, and many vocational schools). But as they develop shareholders continue to benefit as quality goes down (and schools are repeatedly put on probation) because the demand is so much higher than the supply that hiring professors does become the "lowest bidder wins" scenario, while keeping the tuition the same or rising it.

Your understanding of education in Germany may be correct, but its ass backwards based on the rather rich data set from America.
Click to expand...

i get what you're saying about the demand>>>>>supply which corrupts the model, since in theory if quality sucks then the consumer should respond by moving on to a different product

but how has the quality gone down? if we're talking distance based learning that's a different story
 
As much as the various for profit schools in america have always been a bit of a punch-line, if you look into them, most of them have actually put out many highly respected graduates and generally are seen as giving a good education. Or more accurately *were*. The current advertisements utilize the successes of students from 10 years ago, who did receive what was casually viewed as a good education. There has been a rash of probations and investigations of UoP, ITT-T, DeVry, etc in recent years because they've decided to increase profit margins by making teaching spots a "lowest bidder" position, where you compete against other PhD's to request the lowest salary if you want the job. This tends to lead to the least qualified PhD (or Masters degree) getting the job. There are also questionable purchases by DeVry and the others, but thats my opinion on their acquisition of failing schools, not something theyve been formally criticized for.

and it does boil down to "it would be different if demand wasnt so much higher than supply". But they can afford to raise prices and lower quality when there are 3 or more people vying for every spot out there if you decide to walk away. I believe in medicine the number works out to 5 applicant per spot in America (but I may be totally wrong on this, because I cant even remember where I read that stat. I just know its what I recall)
 
Maybe one day we'll see the Devry College of Medicine :laugh:
 
Members don't see this ad :)
DocEspana said:
Ross University and American University of the Caribbean. Both owned by DeVry. The latter of which was owned by the same guy who currently owns RVU before he sold it to DeVry.
Click to expand...

:smack: I shan't say I'm surprised.
 
The AOA came and visited my school last semester and someone asked them if they saw more for-profit schools on the rise. The guy said, without hesitation, "Sure! Why not? Money makes the world go 'round!"

... and here we are.
 
To be completely honest, so long as adequate, non-partisan licensing boards exist. As well as third-party regulations and accreditation committees are around, I don't see a problem with for-profit education. The problem isn't the school existing, the problem is the potential misuse, manipulation, or degradation of medical training. As it stands, it's the responsibility of the for-profit school to ensure their students get an education better than they can get elsewhere, or else they would go elsewhere (ideally).

*Think back to when UPS was developed. A lot of people were shaky on the idea that Postal Services be handled by something other than the government, or public interests. It's worked pretty well. Granted, education and delivering mail aren't really that comparable.
 
crmellon said:
The problem isn't the school existing, the problem is the potential misuse, manipulation, or degradation of medical training. As it stands, it's the responsibility of the for-profit school to ensure their students get an education better than they can get elsewhere, or else they would go elsewhere (ideally).
.
Click to expand...
It could end up being a significant social problem if the glut of new schools causes a lot of bright young adults to end up with crushing debt that they will never be able to repay. The DO schools are expanding without regard to the number of residency spots available. At first the only effect will be that more and more people will be forced into primary care even if they hate primary care. Eventually people may not be able to get a residency spot at all, and that's when the REAL problems will begin.
Then we will be in the same position that many unemployed law school graduates currently are in: http://jdscam.blogspot.com/

The powers that be see a chance to make a big cash grab, so they'll keep opening schools as long as student loans are non-dischargeable in bankruptcy and are given freely without regard to the employment prospects of the degree. Things have ALREADY gotten to the point that some schools have absolutely atrocious clinical rotations (like the stories I've seen on here about people being supervised by non-MDs on rotations).
It is extremely short-sighted to just keep expanding without regard for maintaining a standard of quality and making sure there are enough residency spots for the graduates. It's embarrassing to our profession.
 
peppy said:
It could end up being a significant social problem if the glut of new schools causes a lot of bright young adults to end up with crushing debt that they will never be able to repay. The DO schools are expanding without regard to the number of residency spots available. At first the only effect will be that more and more people will be forced into primary care even if they hate primary care. Eventually people may not be able to get a residency spot at all, and that's when the REAL problems will begin.
Then we will be in the same position that many unemployed law school graduates currently are in: http://jdscam.blogspot.com/

The powers that be see a chance to make a big cash grab, so they'll keep opening schools as long as student loans are non-dischargeable in bankruptcy and are given freely without regard to the employment prospects of the degree. Things have ALREADY gotten to the point that some schools have absolutely atrocious clinical rotations (like the stories I've seen on here about people being supervised by non-MDs on rotations).
It is extremely short-sighted to just keep expanding without regard for maintaining a standard of quality and making sure there are enough residency spots for the graduates. It's embarrassing to our profession.
Click to expand...

Well said. I wasn't even thinking that far down the road.
 
I'm just happy that I'll be graduating before this school opens.
 
crmellon said:
To be completely honest, so long as adequate, non-partisan licensing boards exist. As well as third-party regulations and accreditation committees are around, I don't see a problem with for-profit education. The problem isn't the school existing, the problem is the potential misuse, manipulation, or degradation of medical training. As it stands, it's the responsibility of the for-profit school to ensure their students get an education better than they can get elsewhere, or else they would go elsewhere (ideally).

*Think back to when UPS was developed. A lot of people were shaky on the idea that Postal Services be handled by something other than the government, or public interests. It's worked pretty well. Granted, education and delivering mail aren't really that comparable.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you don't see a problem now, but wait until these for profit colleges have enough money to push around their will on COCA. A for profit group will, inevitably, always have upper hand due to their money.
 
TriagePreMed said:
Yeah, you don't see a problem now, but wait until these for profit colleges have enough money to push around their will on COCA. A for profit group will, inevitably, always have upper hand due to their money.
Click to expand...

California Northstate University College of Medicine will also push around the LCME side of things

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramen...ofit-medical-school-moves-ahead.html?page=all

I also find it kind of strange that the LCME rejected accreditation for the proposed med school at UC Riverside but is seemingly going along with the for profit California Northstate University College of Medicine or even Palm Beach Medical College

http://www.lcme.org/newschoolprocess.htm
 
Last edited:
donkeykong1 said:
California Northstate University College of Medicine will also push around the LCME side of things

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramen...ofit-medical-school-moves-ahead.html?page=all

I also find it kind of strange that the LCME rejected accreditation for the proposed med school at UC Riverside but is seemingly going along with the for profit California Northstate University College of Medicine or even Palm Beach Medical College

http://www.lcme.org/newschoolprocess.htm
Click to expand...
Then it sounds like both sides are going to have trouble into the future. It's just the way it is. Money talks. We don't live in a country with standards anymore where we put the value of the spirit of academia first.
 
DocEspana said:
Pre-health.

Really?

I'll develop terciary neurosyphillis before you graduate. Your graduation is a long time away and the turnover on these schools is not quite *that* long.
Click to expand...
Unless THIS SPECIFIC SCHOOL is opening up next year, I'll be graduating before their inaugural class, and thus, won't have to compete against them for residency spots. That's my point.

Wait, there is a For-Profit Allopathic school opening up?
 
Last edited:
TriagePreMed said:
Then it sounds like both sides are going to have trouble into the future. It's just the way it is. Money talks. We don't live in a country with standards anymore where we put the value of the spirit of academia first.
Click to expand...

Yup Money Talks, and so does Big Tobacco who is the main sponsor of King School of Medicine and Health Science Center--- a supposed "non-profit"

The for-profit school business concerns all US trained physicians MD/DO.

LCME
California Northstate University College of Medicine
Palm Beach Medical College

COCA
RVU
Rhode Island College
 
Wow so it's happening, LCME is doing it too. This will become standard in US education.
COCA was just ballsy enough to do it first.

:boom:
 
Not only is it happening, but the owners of AUC were the first ones smart enough to envision the future in medical school profit will be in the United States. It's only time until DeVry gets rid of its 2 Caribbean campuses and SGU too to come and make universities with a million branches. Think LECOM is big enough being non-profit? Imagine how SGU will be with its giant pockets. In 20 years, no surprise if they have at least 3 branch campuses on mainland. The only thing that will stop medicine from becoming like law school is residency, but when these power players come lobby to congress, I can guarantee you the profession goes down hill. Wouldn't be surprised if we move back to the 1 year internship to be a GP model. We're all perhaps on the last boats before you get Walmart greeters with an MD/DO in 50 years, especially after the baby boomer peak falls off.
 
TriagePreMed said:
Not only is it happening, but the owners of AUC were the first ones smart enough to envision the future in medical school profit will be in the United States. It's only time until DeVry gets rid of its 2 Caribbean campuses and SGU too to come and make universities with a million branches. Think LECOM is big enough being non-profit? Imagine how SGU will be with its giant pockets. In 20 years, no surprise if they have at least 3 branch campuses on mainland. The only thing that will stop medicine from becoming like law school is residency, but when these power players come lobby to congress, I can guarantee you the profession goes down hill. Wouldn't be surprised if we move back to the 1 year internship to be a GP model. We're all perhaps on the last boats before you get Walmart greeters with an MD/DO in 50 years, especially after the baby boomer peak falls off.
Click to expand...

That sounds so grim and apocalyptic lol :eek:
 
DocEspana said:
Pre-health.

Really?

I'll develop terciary neurosyphillis before you graduate. Your graduation is a long time away and the turnover on these schools is not quite *that* long.
Click to expand...

Terciary? Really?
 
Dissected said:
Terciary? Really?
Click to expand...

I really hate penicillin?

Also to the guy I originally directed it to, I read your post to imply you'd graduate medical school before this one even opens. Which seemed unlikely. But you seemed to have meant you're graduating undergrad (and getting into a school) before this school opens. Which, sure, is much more believable. Not enough time to develop terciary syphillis in that case.
 
DrMediterranean said:
That sounds so grim and apocalyptic lol :eek:
Click to expand...
Tell that to law school graduates in 1990 and they'd have laughed saying it was impossible their profession would go to the toilet with the opening of a new school for every starbucks being opened. Grim and apocalyptic? Yes, but it's also possible.
 
I'm not opposed to for-profit schools....the less government involvement the better
 
There should be a minimum # of well diversified osteopathic specialty spots for each school that is approved. It's getting out of hand.
 
Planets said:
There should be a minimum # of well diversified osteopathic specialty spots for each school that is approved. It's getting out of hand.
Click to expand...

Without a doubt. Don't have 150 residency spots...then no new DO school.
 
Colle05 said:
Without a doubt. Don't have 150 residency spots...then no new DO school.
Click to expand...

:thumbup: Split it up. 60-70% primary care, 30-40% other specialties. I guess the ACGME programs will have to cut off DOs like we cut off MDs from AOA programs before this happens.
 
Colle05 said:
Less Obama and more Yife Tien
Click to expand...

One quick political note, and I'm not even sure if its the correct political note to respond to your comment (my apologies if thats the case): the fact is that physicians, who ostensibly understand how it impacts their income, are much more friendly to the PPACA then students who have no idea of how this actually impacts their income. Seeing a med student ripping PPACA and Obama doesnt even phase me any more.

Back to the real point: The fact of the matter is that the AAMC and AACOM are the regulatory agents that are pushing for expansion right now. But at the same time they are also the people who will put the breaks on totally when we approach the critical number of graduates equalling residency spots. The regulation you come out against is literally the only thing preventing medicine from taking a head first dive into the cesspool that law is in.

BTW, if you haven't seen, applications to law school are at an 20 year low. The system of law education was allowed to expand without oversight and expanded until the system collapsed in a terribly unique way. Everyone saw it coming but assumed that the crappy tier 4 schools would be the ones to fold. Turns out that the tier 4 schools (which might as well be cardboard cut-outs of a building) put out enough good candidates that its the mid-level schools feeling the squeeze. Obviously the elite schools are still walking their students down a golden road to major firms, but the collapse has left many mid-level schools with gluts of unemployed graduates and the tier 4 schools continue, not thriving, but not suffering either.

Without regulation we end up with med students, burdened with $200,000+ in debt with interest accruing and no job in sight. Its unconscionable. Give me regulation any day of the week, because I like to know that there is a job waiting for me at the end of the tunnel. I don't want to find out if medical education will fold in the middle the way law education did, particularly given DO is "the middle" in this example.
 
DocEspana said:
The fact of the matter is that the AAMC and AACOM are the regulatory agents that are pushing for expansion right now. But at the same time they are also the people who will put the breaks on totally when we approach the critical number of graduates equalling residency spots.

I don't want to find out if medical education will fold in the middle the way law education did, particularly given DO is "the middle" in this example.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the AAMC and AACOM will have their pockets filled by for-profit schools that don't care about job placement. AAMC and AACOM people don't have to worry about getting a job. For profit will only care about getting paid for the education they provide, and since the money is fronted by the government, they can walk away with money, easily. AAMC and AACOM only have as much power as the influence of money that is exerted on them.

The one thing I don't agree with is that we are the middle. It'll be the Caribbean being hit, hard. Why? The simple fact that 1) DO school and DO graduates are getting better known and respected in industry, but, more importantly, 2) DO schools are in the United States. No dealing with international BS, which is what deterred many people in the late 80's, when DO school wasn't very well known and Caribbean was a path, to choose to gamble with DO education. Location is power. Rhode Island people will love to stay in-state, and I wouldn't be surprised if they start targeting other states with few or no medical schools.
 
Oh i agree with you whole heartedly. And I believe youre right on both parts. I actually initially wrote something closer to your first comment, but deleted it before posting because I felt that I was rambling rather than "hitting the point" on the argument.

As for the second part: I'm just saying that law education felt the same way we feel now. That the lowest common denominator will be the first pushed out in a crunch. But in Law's case, the crunch happened differently than anticipated. Law and Medicine aren't equivalent and not every comparison carries over 100%. But I don't want to be around to find out what cracks first when that pressure arrives by a saturation of the market; just in case all of our prognostication is wrong.
 
DocEspana said:
One quick political note, and I'm not even sure if its the correct political note to respond to your comment (my apologies if thats the case): the fact is that physicians, who ostensibly understand how it impacts their income, are much more friendly to the PPACA then students who have no idea of how this actually impacts their income. Seeing a med student ripping PPACA and Obama doesnt even phase me any more.

Back to the real point: The fact of the matter is that the AAMC and AACOM are the regulatory agents that are pushing for expansion right now. But at the same time they are also the people who will put the breaks on totally when we approach the critical number of graduates equalling residency spots. The regulation you come out against is literally the only thing preventing medicine from taking a head first dive into the cesspool that law is in.

BTW, if you haven't seen, applications to law school are at an 20 year low. The system of law education was allowed to expand without oversight and expanded until the system collapsed in a terribly unique way. Everyone saw it coming but assumed that the crappy tier 4 schools would be the ones to fold. Turns out that the tier 4 schools (which might as well be cardboard cut-outs of a building) put out enough good candidates that its the mid-level schools feeling the squeeze. Obviously the elite schools are still walking their students down a golden road to major firms, but the collapse has left many mid-level schools with gluts of unemployed graduates and the tier 4 schools continue, not thriving, but not suffering either.

Without regulation we end up with med students, burdened with $200,000+ in debt with interest accruing and no job in sight. Its unconscionable. Give me regulation any day of the week, because I like to know that there is a job waiting for me at the end of the tunnel. I don't want to find out if medical education will fold in the middle the way law education did, particularly given DO is "the middle" in this example.
Click to expand...

I don't know for sure but I thought that you had posted somewhere that you wanted to do urology. Now I've seen a bunch of pro PPACA and Obama med students who also happen to want to do uro, ortho, ophtho, and radiology and I laugh at every single one of them. The point of this forum is about people pissed at having for-profit schools (and 99% of them don't know the actual logistics and implications of it other than they are opposed to it from some righteous highround, and that is totally fine). You must be a smart kid if you are gonna do uro. You've made financial sacrifices for at least 8 years and purely from an academic and to some degree, likeability standpoint, have established yourself in the upper echelon of med students. From purely a financial standpoint, people that do urology, neurosurgery, orthopedics, etc. deserve to be paid higher than an average person because again, you are the upper echelon (and anyone who argues this is lying because people blatantly ripped the RVU thread for not having enough of these super competitive specialties). Your salary as a urologist will drop over time with socialized medicine. There is no question about it. The one's who's salaries will not drop as much are 1) the people who work in areas predominantly where there is 0 health insurance and 2) PCPs. If you think that it is fair for those people to make less money, then I suppose our votes will cancel out come November.
 
Colle05 said:
I don't know for sure but I thought that you had posted somewhere that you wanted to do urology. Now I've seen a bunch of pro PPACA and Obama med students who also happen to want to do uro, ortho, ophtho, and radiology and I laugh at every single one of them. The point of this forum is about people pissed at having for-profit schools (and 99% of them don't know the actual logistics and implications of it other than they are opposed to it from some righteous highround, and that is totally fine). You must be a smart kid if you are gonna do uro. You've made financial sacrifices for at least 8 years and purely from an academic and to some degree, likeability standpoint, have established yourself in the upper echelon of med students. From purely a financial standpoint, people that do urology, neurosurgery, orthopedics, etc. deserve to be paid higher than an average person because again, you are the upper echelon (and anyone who argues this is lying because people blatantly ripped the RVU thread for not having enough of these super competitive specialties). Your salary as a urologist will drop over time with socialized medicine. There is no question about it. The one's who's salaries will not drop as much are 1) the people who work in areas predominantly where there is 0 health insurance and 2) PCPs. If you think that it is fair for those people to make less money, then I suppose our votes will cancel out come November.
Click to expand...

There is no socialized medicine here. The only socialized medicine in america was created in 1965 and continues to be the only socialized medicine we have ever known. Nothing about the passed PPACA law is anything like socialized medicine in the least. This is a law that aims to accomplish (and likely will barring supreme court cutting out the manadate) three things. Everyone has to get insurance. All medicine needs to be computerized and have better practitioner-to-practitioner communication. And insurance companies will be given benefits to offset the cost of covering people they do not wish to cover.

There is absolutely zero in PPACA that will cost physicians money unless they actively attempt to *not* to make changes the government is paying for. Actually those who buy in early and make all the changes required get (I believe) $40,000, 20,000 and 10,000 a year for 3 or 4 years (there may be a 5,000) from the government just for being early adopters. There is also nothing in PPACA that will raise payments either. That's ticked off a lot of physicians because it was supposed to be in there, but was cut. And actually, go ahead and poll the people who support vs oppose PPACA. Youll find specialists are much more in support than primary care. This will be good for specialists (who arent in cash-only practices). They can finally see everyone. Insurance acceptance and turning away patients because of the wrong kind of coverage is the bane of their existence, financially. Primary care loaths this because it just massively ups their patient load without bettering their lot in life monetarily.

You'll find plenty of people, specialist or primary care, who hate it for a number of reasons. The PPACA has huge flaws because of the nature of how it was passed. Democrats had a fully functional bill ready to pass and republicans blocked it. So they passed a earlier version that had huge flaws in it, to stick it to the republicans. The assumption was the republicans would go "well f*** we have to fix these problems now that this is the law". But instead republicans said "dont touch it. we like it flawed, so now we can sue to abolish it all together". Huge flaws in funding some of the execution and in random pork spending attached to it need to be changed. The mandate needed to be closer to the version in the "almost passed" version, but instead is a shade more draconian. There are flaws.Some people will hate it because they fear change or oppose the government oversight on principle alone, regardless of the malignancy or benevolence of it. Some people will hate it because it puts the squeeze on cash only practices. Some people will try to bury it because they don't want to modify their practice to conform with the edicts set by the law. Some people will try to sink the whole thing because its no longer as cost efficient as it could be.... but it cutting physicians pay? Never heard that argument from a physician before, because it wont. Thats not one of the issues with it.

Also some people feel that it paves the way for a gatekeeper model, which was tried in the past and isn't all that effective. But that's based on it setting up the communication channels to enable such a model, not that its necessarily going to actually go that way.
 
I dont mean to be a shill for this stuff. especially on a thread not even about it. Have the last word on this matter if you want. :p I'm gonna go back to worrying about for-profit education expanding. I just know PPACA is an unbelievably misunderstood law and its defenders have done a craptacular job actually explaining its impact on the regular person, the insurance industry and physicians, and instead fear based out of a mixture of misunderstanding, fragments of truth, straight out lies, and references to parts that have long since been excised from the bill is what runs the debate.

I give full disclosure that I drink heavily of the AMA kool-aid and the AMA (with much internal dissent and contention, which i think enriches my understanding) supports PPACA. So its through the lens of an organization that backs it that I have learned everything about it... cause I aint reading no 1,000 page law or whatever it is.
 
You've never heard that argument that obamacare will cut physician's salaries??!!! I'm not saying everything on this website is correct but if you type in a search of how it will affect different specialties salaries, there are definitely a number of people on this website who certainly feel it will (and certainly a few that say it won't). I've shadowed a number of ortho docs and subspecialists who think it will absolutely decrease their salaries. Currently 25-30% of medicaid and medicare funds doesn't even go towards health care itself so how would such inefficiency at an even bigger level benefit us as a whole.

Anyways, this isn't the point of this thread so I'll refrain from any more remarks so that the for-profit bashing can continue. You are an educated guy but I 100% think that obamacare will decrease the salaries of the subspecialists (and I'm definitely not the only one).
 
Now that the topic is up, I really should ask. How does PPACA actually cut Physician salaries? I've done research on this, and there doesn't seem to be anything in there really that will cut Physician salaries, or that isn't offset by the greater number of patients that will now have insurance. Most claims seem to be centered around misinformation about other bills passed in the past that may cut salaries (medicare reimbursement cuts, for instance). Most other complaints seem to be centered around a philosophical debate about how this will lead us down the road to socialized medicine (having everyone carry private insurance is far from that, imo) and will eventually cut physician salaries. However, there doesn't seem to be any substantive in the bill that actually cuts Physician salaries. If I'm wrong, could someone point it out to me?
 
DocEspana said:
I really hate penicillin?

Also to the guy I originally directed it to, I read your post to imply you'd graduate medical school before this one even opens. Which seemed unlikely. But you seemed to have meant you're graduating undergrad (and getting into a school) before this school opens. Which, sure, is much more believable. Not enough time to develop terciary syphillis in that case.
Click to expand...

hehe :whistle:
 
DocEspana said:
They mean at half the cost of the state's investment. Most of these schools are opened, mostly, out of grants from state societies and payments directly from the state. Obviously there is millions of dollars of input by whomever opens it, but there is still massive state investment in the opening of any medical school.
Click to expand...


:thumbup: Thanks, I assumed they were talking cost to student. I stand corrected.
 
SoulinNeed said:
Now that the topic is up, I really should ask. How does PPACA actually cut Physician salaries? I've done research on this, and there doesn't seem to be anything in there really that will cut Physician salaries, or that isn't offset by the greater number of patients that will now have insurance. Most claims seem to be centered around misinformation about other bills passed in the past that may cut salaries (medicare reimbursement cuts, for instance). Most other complaints seem to be centered around a philosophical debate about how this will lead us down the road to socialized medicine (having everyone carry private insurance is far from that, imo) and will eventually cut physician salaries. However, there doesn't seem to be any substantive in the bill that actually cuts Physician salaries. If I'm wrong, could someone point it out to me?
Click to expand...

Physician salaries get slashed mainly due to the 27% cut to medicare reimbursements that are set to take effect. That 27% cut means a $70 reimbursement for a check-up, now is around $50. This heavily affects Primary Care.

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/12/primary-care-doctors-set-lose-salary.html

PPACA puts an emphasis on training more mid-levels i.e NP, PA, DNP by subsidizing these programs at colleges/universities..hence cutting into the Physician niche. Basically you'll find more nurse anesthesiologists..NP-FPs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

DoctorDean
Osteopathic Medical Student Opportunity-OMS1/OMS2
Replies
11
Views
1K
DoctorDean
DoctorDean
D
Feedback on Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine?
Replies
3
Views
1K
Lawpy
Lawpy
Rogue42
Official 2023 Osteopathic Match Thread
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
262
Views
75K
wellbutrin.girlfriend
W
T
Anesthesia vs IM - Matching in Specific Location
Replies
6
Views
1K
Terpsfan96
T
E
Step 2 for DO osteopathic students?
Replies
5
Views
2K
JimBone905
J
Top