.

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Yeah this is bad. Not so much Tennessee law in and of itself, but that this was done by Republicans. If the Trans-healthcare bills have taught me anything, they are not above copy pasting to every legislature they control.

I’m 100% certain this was a gift to HCA.
 
Maybe I'm just getting mixed up here but I'm failing to see how this increases the number of board certified rads. The rate limiting step is the board cert, not the licensure.

Under the previous model, an IMG with no stateside training had to either redo internship/residency or do the ABR alternate pathway which was a minimum of 4 years at a department with a training program (with a mininum of 1 year being a trainee). If they did the alternate pathway, they could have a training license for that 1 year of fellowship and then get a provisional full license and serve as an attending for the next 3 years... or do all 4 years as a trainee fellow.

Under this paradigm, they can get their full license after 2 years.... but they're still not board eligible. They still have to do 4 years at a training institution (and pass the core after the 3rd year) to become board eligible.

Am I missing something here?
 
guytakingboards said:
Maybe I'm just getting mixed up here but I'm failing to see how this increases the number of board certified rads. The rate limiting step is the board cert, not the licensure.

Under the previous model, an IMG with no stateside training had to either redo internship/residency or do the ABR alternate pathway which was a minimum of 4 years at a department with a training program (with a mininum of 1 year being a trainee). If they did the alternate pathway, they could have a training license for that 1 year of fellowship and then get a provisional full license and serve as an attending for the next 3 years... or do all 4 years as a trainee fellow.

Under this paradigm, they can get their full license after 2 years.... but they're still not board eligible. They still have to do 4 years at a training institution (and pass the core after the 3rd year) to become board eligible.

Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...
Vanderbilt, HCA, et al, anyplace with a residency, could hire these people as faculty. Forget the fellowships requirement.

The ABR alternative pathway has 4(5) years of fellowships or you do 2 and then remain on staff for the total of 4 years.

Well. Now they can hire attendings and pay them fellow wages. There’s also no “cap” like there is on number of fellows.

Good luck having them pay fair market for a rad in TN again.

The big problem is HCA.


This line from the ABR website is the line where this can get bad.

“The Alternate Pathway may be completed with four years as a resident; as a fellow (in an ACGME-accredited or a non-accredited fellowship); as a faculty member; or as any combination of residency, fellowship, or faculty service in a single institution with an ACGME- or RCPSC (Canadian)-accredited residency program. Research may be credited for a maximum of 12 months if it is part of a pre-approved four-year plan.”
 
Last edited:
guytakingboards said:
Maybe I'm just getting mixed up here but I'm failing to see how this increases the number of board certified rads. The rate limiting step is the board cert, not the licensure.

Under the previous model, an IMG with no stateside training had to either redo internship/residency or do the ABR alternate pathway which was a minimum of 4 years at a department with a training program (with a mininum of 1 year being a trainee). If they did the alternate pathway, they could have a training license for that 1 year of fellowship and then get a provisional full license and serve as an attending for the next 3 years... or do all 4 years as a trainee fellow.

Under this paradigm, they can get their full license after 2 years.... but they're still not board eligible. They still have to do 4 years at a training institution (and pass the core after the 3rd year) to become board eligible.

Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...

I don't think you're missing anything. I don't see any reason why this affects radiology more so than any other specialty.

The problem with "outsourcing" radiology, which I will take to mean "offshoring" in this context, was never licensure or even certification. It's compensation. If CMS ever decides to change its rules, then I'll start paying attention and/or worrying.
 
maxxor said:
Vanderbilt, HCA, et al, anyplace with a residency, could hire these people as faculty. Forget the fellowships requirement.

The ABR alternative pathway has 4(5) years of fellowships or you do 2 and then remain on staff for the total of 4 years.

Well. Now they can hire attendings and pay them fellow wages. There’s also no “cap” like there is on number of fellows.

Good luck having them pay fair market for a rad in TN again.

The big problem is HCA.
Click to expand...

Yea, but again the limiting step is the IMG's still have to spend 4 years to become ABR board eligible. This doesn't really impact the broader board-certified rad market, but it does give Vanderbilt/UT/etc... some more faculty options.

I know people see HCA as the boogeyman, particularly in TN, but as far as I can tell none of the 4 residency programs in TN are affiliated with HCA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top