Am I crazy for not supporting this? (AAMC residency petition)

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
The problem is there is no demand (from the applicants I mean) for more primary care residency slots. Especially not in the areas of geographic need.
But if they're all that is available, and it's primary care or nothing, people will take them. And if they don't, FMGs will. Either way, the residencies will fill, and we'll have more physicians in primary care.

Members don't see this ad.
 
How do you know that the people who come here are the best physicians from those countries? What makes you so sure that they're better than what we produce here? And why do you think the best physicians should come to America? Why shouldn't they stay and innovate in their home countries? Also, what makes you so special that you can denigrate people as "bottom of the barrel" and say that these "best physicians" from abroad are better than them?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for protecting AMGs and making sure that our grads get preference over 99% of IMGs. However, there are some people who are just way too good to pass up (270+, 50 pubs, clear future leader in the field) that I wouldn't mind training. A lot of our major academic centers could definitely benefit by bringing them here.

Just one of many examples: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/prof...CHE=false&appRedirRef=https://www.google.com/

I'm very glad that Cincinnati trained him over one AMG grad even though he's from Italy. Johns Hopkins neurosurgery and the field as a whole has definitely benefited.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I would never support this simply because all of the blustering about a doctor shortage is a myth. There is a maldistribution of physicians, not a shortage. This is just the lobby's way of making things easier for itself in the short term, but completely dicking over our profession in the long term. What will happen when the demand levels out or begins to drop (e.g the baby boomers die)? This is exactly what happened with radiology. Everyone was screaming shortage, residency spots were drastically increased in expectation of higher demand, and now voila they're left with a horrific job market and a collapse in competitiveness. Btw, good luck closing residency programs once they're up and running. We need to learn from the mistakes of other specialties and not simply listen to people screaming shortage without researching all of the facts.

Liberal pharmacy organizations were also screaming shortage just a couple of years ago. Now look where they are. Residency spots are the last "barrier" before practice. We should not demolish it so easily.
Actually, reimbursement cuts are also a huge part of what happened to radiology. The number of studies ordered is still far higher than it was in 2003, by well over 100 million reads/year. But reimbursements were slashed substantially, so many radiologists are doing far more reads to make up for the lost income. If they were doing reads at the same rate as in the past, the market would be fine, but salaries would be much lower. No one ever saw such huge cuts coupled with such large reimbursements coming, however.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
The increase in match spots was primarily due to changes forcing residency programs to go "all in" for the match. They can't hold back spots anymore for out of match applicants.
Wildly expanding spots is not a good idea and will decrease compensation. Of course each specialty will continue to police its numbers to maintain competition. We don't need any more anesthesia positions.

Out of match applicants? Does this mean like holding a few hoping some higher quality candidates that didn't match into say derm or ortho, will SOAP in or can you further explain what you mean?
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for protecting AMGs and making sure that our grads get preference over 99% of IMGs. However, there are some people who are just way too good to pass up (270+, 50 pubs, clear future leader in the field) that I wouldn't mind training. A lot of our major academic centers could definitely benefit by bringing them here.

Just one of many examples: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/profiles/results/directory/profile/0003041/alessandro-olivi?CLEARPAGECACHE=false&appRedirRef=https://www.google.com/

I'm very glad that Cincinnati trained him over one AMG grad even though he's from Italy. Johns Hopkins neurosurgery and the field as a whole has definitely benefited.

I don't think people like that get commonly passed up though. It's not like there are 270s with 50 pubs from (insert random nation here) where a 215 US grad is taking their spot.
 
I agree with you. I'm just saying, most expansion efforts are pushing for most new residencies to be in FP, peds, and IM. If we have enough physicians trained in primary care fields, some of them will have to start taking jobs farther out as markets saturate. Once people can actually find physicians that are willing to take them due to us having enough PCP docs available, the nurses won't be able to push their BS excuse of "not enough providers" anymore, and will have to take a stand on pushing for expanded scope based on their training and experience, which is something that is much less likely to fly.

If you think we don't have a shortage of primary care physicians, try finding a FM or IM physician to see you in the next week. There was one PCP in my entire county that was taking new patients- every other provider that was taking people on was an NP or PA. If you want to see a physician for primary urgent primary care services (being sick or whatever), it's pretty damn hard to arrange.

If we've got way more PCP residency positions (due to a residency expansion bill) than we have fellowship positions for those IM grads to match into afterward, then being a specialist in a desirable locale won't be an option. It'll be hospitalist or PCP for all but the most competitive applicants, and eventually the hot markets will saturate for those fields and you'll have to go elsewhere if you want a job, just like damn near every other career available in the country.

Where are you located? Because I have no trouble seeing an FM or IM being in a large coastal city. As we've noted, there is a maldistribution, not a shortage,

And as southernIM noted, we already have too many FM and IM spots that EVERY year fail to fill with US grads (Both MD and DO). Why do we need more? The only way to "force" US grads into primary care specialties is to drastically reduce the number of specialist residency slots so the choice becomes: either don't match or match primary care. I am pretty vehemently against forcing students into anything, since I don't believe forcing people to do things flies for very long, but that's another issue entirely.

And btw, if this is actually something you're advocating for (cutting specialty positions), this will hurt the DOs/FMGs/IMGs before it actually trickles down to the US MDs. That seems contrarian to what you've been arguing about for half the thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Further, I don't even think trying to legislate away the PCP shortage like this would work.

People would gun even harder for those competitive slots, making med school more miserable. You'd see an uptick of people going "ortho or bust" - literally choosing to walk away and do something else with their lives rather than become a PCP. You'd see people trying to fund their own residencies or forego pay, or work as indentured servants in a lab for a few years to try and beef up their CVs and re-apply.

Precisely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'm a medical student that worked at clinically at a big name teaching hospital for the better part of a decade previously.

Your status says "non-student." Hence the confusion. With regards to your statements, I respectfully disagree. You will encounter many FMGs throughout your training in mostly clinical roles. It sounds like you are extrapolating your observations on talented foreign trained researchers (who likely did some fellowship in the US) to most clinical FMGs.
 
It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out in a few years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Where are you located? Because I have no trouble seeing an FM or IM being in a large coastal city. As we've noted, there is a maldistribution, not a shortage,

And as southernIM noted, we already have too many FM and IM spots that EVERY year fail to fill with US grads (Both MD and DO). Why do we need more? The only way to "force" US grads into primary care specialties is to drastically reduce the number of specialist residency slots so the choice becomes: either don't match or match primary care. I am pretty vehemently against forcing students into anything, since I don't believe forcing people to do things flies for very long, but that's another issue entirely.

And btw, if this is actually something you're advocating for (cutting specialty positions), this will hurt the DOs/FMGs/IMGs before it actually trickles down to the US MDs. That seems contrarian to what you've been arguing about for half the thread.
I never said a thing about cutting specialty positions. As it stands now though, there will be a number of graduates (MD and DO) that equal the number of available residency positions by 2020 or so. Without residency expansion, once the number of grads exceeds the number of residency positions, they will be left with no way to complete their medical training. I'm simply proposing that, should GME expansion occur, it should mostly be relegated to PCP fields (which it currently mostly is, as the proposed bill stands now 2/3 of positions would likely be in primary care).
 
Your status says "non-student." Hence the confusion. With regards to your statements, I respectfully disagree. You will encounter many FMGs throughout your training in mostly clinical roles. It sounds like you are extrapolating your observations on talented foreign trained researchers (who likely did some fellowship in the US) to most clinical FMGs.
I was just defending the right of PDs to pick exceptional FMGs over US grads in the future. It was sort of off topic. I'm well aware that the vast majority of FMGs aren't astounding applicants.
 
Precisely.

Yes, there's this myth that everyone wants ortho, derm, or optho (or whatever), and those in other specialties are only there because they didn't get one of those 3. The truth is that most people choose their specialty based on their interests, and this remains true for the highly competitive ones. (And if their interest is money, they may very well leave medicine for wall street as pointed out!)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Further, I don't even think trying to legislate away the PCP shortage like this would work.

People would gun even harder for those competitive slots, making med school more miserable. You'd see an uptick of people going "ortho or bust" - literally choosing to walk away and do something else with their lives rather than become a PCP. You'd see people trying to fund their own residencies or forego pay, or work as indentured servants in a lab for a few years to try and beef up their CVs and re-apply.
It's hard to pack up and walk away when you're 300k+ in the hole with no marketable skills.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
I was just defending the right of PDs to pick exceptional FMGs over US grads in the future.

I don't know about the future, but I'm not aware of any PDs in any field who currently choose to exercise this right. It's pretty much a fact that an AMG is a lower risk gamble than an FMG, and resident selection is all about minimizing risk from the program's perspective.
 
Easier when you don't like the alternatives.

I think this is funny that you've been backed so far into a corner by your circular logic that you are now advocating for forcing US grads into primary care slots

Why is forcing US grads into primary care slots a bad thing?
 
No there won't. The current plans will be for the number of US grads (MD and DO, now that DO capitulated to the residency merger) to approximate but not equal/exceed the number of slots.

What proposed bill?
The same bill they've been pushing forever that keeps getting recycled. 15,000 new residency positions split up with 1/3 going to current teaching hospitals that have unfunded programs and the other 2/3 going to development of community residencies designed to mostly train PCPs.

http://articles.philly.com/2014-06-11/news/50482200_1_casey-primary-care-physicians-federal-funding

Casey basically just reintroduced this bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1201/text

It basically requires that at least half of positions be allocated to primary care at low priority hospitals and 30% at high priority hospitals. The rest of the non-hospital funding is targeted at community residencies which are largely primary care in their composition.
 
Easier when you don't like the alternatives.

I think this is funny that you've been backed so far into a corner by your circular logic that you are now advocating for forcing US grads into primary care slots
Not advocating that they be forced into them, just that most of the new residencies be in primary care should they arise. That isn't forcing anything, it's just providing an alternative to "not matching" that won't exist without residency expansion a few years down the road.

And having 300k of debt that is nondischargeable is a death sentence financially for most people. Just the interest on my loans is going to be greater than my post-tax salary in my prior career, and even if I did PAYE I would end up with a tax bomb greater than my initial debt once forgiveness hit. Only people with back up plans that can earn them physician levels of income can afford to get out, which isn't many of us.
No there won't. The current plans will be for the number of US grads (MD and DO, now that DO capitulated to the residency merger) to approximate but not equal/exceed the number of slots.

What proposed bill?
The COCA cannot control the expansion of DO schools. Legally, they must approve a school regardless of the residency issues we will soon face. If a school applies and meets the minimum standards the COCA sets forth, they are legally required by educational antitrust law to approve that program to grant degrees. The only real option they would have is to tighten up standards, which I don't see them doing anytime soon.
 
1201 is the last bill I knew of and it was dead in the water from day one. you are arguing about scenarios that aren't happening
This whole thread is in regard to AAMC Action. The biggest bill they have backed thus far is Casey's, so it is worthwhile to discuss in a thread where we are determining whether joining AAMC Action is a wise decision.
 
Because as I said I don't think trying to force people into career paths they aren't interested in is a tenable solution

Limiting non-primary care options will redistribute MD AMGs to underserved/undesirable areas.

It could be one of those humanitarian, public service things. :)
 
Which was why in the very first response to the OP I asked if they had gotten any other info from the aamc aside from a blind "sign up here" petition. I wanted to see if there was new legislation that I hadn't heard about - legislation with a snowballs chance of passing in a conservative controlled congress
With the right riders, Casey's bill could pass. The only real obstacle at that point would be Obama- and the sorts of riders that would be required would keep him from signing it with certainty, as they'd likely require cuts from areas a Democrat would find untenable.
 
Would you like it if someone told you you must do psych if your dream was to become a radiologist?

I'd say Psych is friggen* wonderful and nothing could be more boring in the world than looking at pictures all day except for possibly pathology slides or watching paint dry.

I love psych!

Where do you think AMGs are gonna end up with the combined match and IMG/FMG being forced out? Derm?! There are some things people just have to learn the hard way. Over time, perhaps medical school will be a path for those truly interested in primary care and the problem will solve itself.

* Don't want to get hit with the WS's ban-shoe, LOL!
 
Out of match applicants? Does this mean like holding a few hoping some higher quality candidates that didn't match into say derm or ortho, will SOAP in or can you further explain what you mean?
Yes. Holding spots out of the match to select candidates who apply directly. They wouldn't be part of the SOAP. You can't do that anymore for residency spots. Though there may still be a back door route for some candidates.
Some examples-
You train in FM and practice for a few years. You realize FM isn't for you and you want to do anesthesia instead. You could call the PDs or chairmen to interview for an out of the match spot.
Paloma is a superstar neonatologist in Rome, she wants to move to the U.S. and train in Peds Anesthesia.
Or maybe they are a practicing anesthesiologist in Japan and they want to repeat residency and relocate to the U.S. They take their USMLE while working at home and apply for an out of match anesthesia residency spot.
It was common at some programs, including prominent ones in anesthesia, to hold a spot for these special kinds of applicants. They may or may not qualify for GME funding and they may not take anyone.
Peds Anesthesia has a match now, but not all the programs put all of their spots in the match, particularly the large big name programs. They want everyone to do it, but they have not required it, yet. We hold a few spots out of the match to directly accept a few superior candidates each year who apply directly.
 
Last edited:
They absolutely do. It just, as the current bar is set, requires a truly exceptional FMG (esp at prestigious programs)

There are FMGs in competitive fields at MGH, Yale, Mayo, UCLA, etc.
You are correct. There are some superior FMG residents and fellows at the best programs. They often have years of research or clinical experience or are graduates from premier foreign medical schools. FMGs are not all created equal. And the US>Carib>FMG isn't always true.
(Some minds are blowing again)
Some prominent programs always have a(n experienced) FMG fellow, who runs circles around the fresh out of residency co fellow(s).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Yes. Holding spots out of the match to select candidates who apply directly. They wouldn't be part of the SOAP. You can't do that anymore for residency spots. Though there may still be a back door route for some candidates.
Some examples-
You train in FM and practice for a few years. You realize FM isn't for you and you want to do anesthesia instead. You could call the PDs or chairmen to interview for an out of the match spot.
Paloma is a superstar neonatologist in Rome, she wants to move to the U.S. and train in Peds Anesthesia.
Or maybe they are a practicing anesthesiologist in Japan and they want to repeat residency and relocate to the U.S. They take their USMLE while working at home and apply for an out of match anesthesia residency spot.
It was common at some programs, including prominent ones in anesthesia, to hold a spot for these special kinds of applicants. They may or may not qualify for GME funding and they may not take anyone.
Peds Anesthesia has a match now, but not all the programs put all of their spots in the match, particularly the large big name programs. They want everyone to do it, but they have not required it, yet. We hold a few spots out of the match to directly accept a few superior candidates each year who apply directly.

studying for step 1 while already being a physician in another country would be god awful, but I guess you'd have crap tons of clinical knowledge where most of the stuff would seem more logical
 
They didn't make it in spite of any policies, as such laws do not yet exist. Or PDs are currently free to pick and choose applicants as they see fit. The policies I am referring to are possible US-grad first legislation that would tie Medicare reimbursement for residency slots to legislation that forces PDs to accept US graduates first, essentially pushing FMGs out of the match. If such legislation were to pass, it would be illegal for my institution to take such individuals over US graduates. The AOA had already officially endorsed such legislation, and I guarantee that as the residency crunch approaches, the AAMC will warm to such policies as well. Protectionist BS like that only serves to protect the weakest applicants while ultimately costing us the best and brightest the rest of the world has to offer.
it will be interesting to see what unfolds once we are near that point.
 
As to other countries- this is America. We're the land of opportunity, and the nation that is supposed to be the exception to many of the rules. I want the best doctors here, regardless of where they came from, and if they are out there and want to make a better life for themselves in our country and have the stats to earn a place, I'm all for letting them.

I don't really get this argument. I do not dislike the US or believe it to be a ****hole, but the fact we labeled and still label ourselves as the land of opportunity is no different than the nursing lobbying many of us detest labeling their education as equivalent to physicians. Obviously, we are a strong economic country and hard working people can do well here, but there is no inherent fundamental part of our legislation or society that makes us this long standing myth. It's frankly a load of rhetoric. There are dozens of other sovereign nations where one could flourish. It is a very elitist attitude and in my opinion shows a lack of understanding of the national and global economy.

On an another side and much less important note, I don't see why people use the term "America." Our nation has a name. If it were just a harmless word that was truly unique to us than I wouldn't give a ****, but it's not. It is representing many countries in two continents. And frankly most of the people living in the other countries that associate with American have been here much longer than us.
 
The racism and xenophobia displayed in this thread is repugnant
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I don't really get this argument. I do not dislike the US or believe it to be a ****hole, but the fact we labeled and still label ourselves as the land of opportunity is no different than the nursing lobbying many of us detest labeling their education as equivalent to physicians. Obviously, we are a strong economic country and hard working people can do well here, but there is no inherent fundamental part of our legislation or society that makes us this long standing myth. It's frankly a load of rhetoric. There are dozens of other sovereign nations where one could flourish. It is a very elitist attitude and in my opinion shows a lack of understanding of the national and global economy.

On an another side and much less important note, I don't see why people use the term "America." Our nation has a name. If it were just a harmless word that was truly unique to us than I wouldn't give a ****, but it's not. It is representing many countries in two continents. And frankly most of the people living in the other countries that associate with American have been here much longer than us.
Point to another county in the Americas that is both as diverse and successful as us. Historically, we had some of the most lax immigration policies in the world. Which wasn't saying much in the 18th and 19th centuries, but attracting people to go on a death-defying journey over the oceans back then wasn't easy, so we had to be welcoming. We didn't really tighten up immigration at all until 1880, which was only slightly restrictive, and then began ratcheting down in the late 1910s and on. Even with those changes, we still have nearly as many immigrants currently living in the United States as the next 5 most immigrated to countries combined. 45.79 million people have come (and are currently living) here in search of a better life. We've got some of the lowest total taxes of any developed economy, the highest average wages in the world when adjusted for PPP (care of some of the cheapest consumer goods, commodities, and housing in the developed world), fairly decent free speech laws (a guy like Fred Phelps would have been imprisoned long ago in France, Germany, or the UK), and what is historically a fairly decent economy (we're still doing better than most of the developed world post recession). America is awesome. I'm not saying it's the best country in the world, as different countries offer people different things, but if you want to make a decent life for yourself, America is alright.

As to the use of "America"- we use it because it makes sense given the name they decided to call our country. The United States us a descriptor, America is our name. If we'd gone communist we'd probably have been the United Socialist States of America, or if we didn't have states we'd have been the Democratic Republic of America. But for the same reason we didn't call the Democratic Republic of the Congo the Democratic Republic, we don't have to call the United States of America the United States if we don't feel like it. We're not called "United Statesians," we're called "Americans." It's simply a side effect of unfortunate naming. Also note that we are not the "United States of the Americas" or the "United States of North America." Those would designate us as a group of United States within our geographic nation. No, when we picked a name we were arrogant enough to say "yeah, we get that these two continents already have America in their name, but we're just going to take that, thanks" and threw America in our name because the Founding Fathers were masters of not giving a ****. People from South America may say they're South American or from the Americas, but they can't say they're American, because by virtue of the pen of our forefathers, we own that one.

'Murrica.
wallpaper_20080726114836_20811067632.jpg


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_foreign-born_population

As to how this relates to the main thread topic, more residency positions=more opportunity for FMGs (and AMGs)=America gets to remain one of the top destinations for foreign born physicians to immigrate to, because America is awesome.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Point to another county in the Americas that is both as diverse and successful as us.


We are the most successful country by accident. After WWII, we were the only country left standing that wasn't a bombed out ****hole. The US has been riding inertia for the past 30 years and the only reason this doesn't get more play is because our media is "**** yea, 'murica" because we are incapable, as a society, to recognize that many other countries have surpassed in quality of life, social/economic mobility and many other metrics of livability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
We are the most successful country by accident. After WWII, we were the only country left standing that wasn't a bombed out ****hole. The US has been riding inertia for the past 30 years and the only reason this doesn't get more play is because our media is "**** yea, 'murica" because we are incapable, as a society, to recognize that many other countries have surpassed in quality of life, social/economic mobility and many other metrics of livability.
But if you want money and consumerism, America is the place to be. There's no comparison.
 
Why is forcing US grads into primary care slots a bad thing?

Limiting non-primary care options will redistribute MD AMGs to underserved/undesirable areas.

It could be one of those humanitarian, public service things. :)

I agree. Increased physician suicide rates will thin out the crowd after the baby boomer generation dies off, thus preventing an oversupply of physicians.

But if you want money and consumerism, America is the place to be. There's no comparison.

Lol have you heard of Dubai? Major chinese cities? Planting your flag in being the most crass superficial country is pretty weird anyhow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Oh man. I feel like I am reading Facebook comments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
I agree. Increased physician suicide rates will thin out the crowd after the baby boomer generation dies off, thus preventing an oversupply of physicians.



Lol have you heard of Dubai? Major chinese cities? Planting your flag in being the most crass superficial country is pretty weird anyhow.
I'm not a consumer myself, but money is pretty damn important. Try living or retiring without it. The excess money I can make in America versus most other nations allows me a much greater chance of retiring at a much younger age and being free to travel and do as I please while I'm still healthy enough to enjoy myself.

So far as Dubai and major Chinese cities have massive underclasses. They're less the land of opportunity and more the land of exploitation for anyone that isn't wealthy or highly educated.
 
The racism and xenophobia displayed in this thread is repugnant

lol you're one of those people that say anyone against gay marriage is a homophobe, arent you
 
I agree. Increased physician suicide rates will thin out the crowd after the baby boomer generation dies off, thus preventing an oversupply of physicians.



Lol have you heard of Dubai? Major chinese cities? Planting your flag in being the most crass superficial country is pretty weird anyhow.

Can't make an Omelette without breaking a few eggs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
We (US grads) already don't fill the IM and FP slots that are out there.

The only ways to fill those spots with US grads is to forcibly reduce the number of available slots in desirable fields
I have kind of a silly thought. What if PCPs had shorter training. I mean what would happen if an aspiring PCP could go straight to medical school with a binding commitment to FP or primary care? Since there is such a large shortage, that would give incentive to fill spots by skipping undergrad. I realize this is somewhat of a ridiculous question but it's just a though.
Moreover, as population grows, won't there eventually be saturation in every field? I'm trying to picture how competitive medical school admissions will be in the next two decades.
 
I have kind of a silly thought. What if PCPs had shorter training. I mean what would happen if an aspiring PCP could go straight to medical school with a binding commitment to FP or primary care? Since there is such a large shortage, that would give incentive to fill spots by skipping undergrad. I realize this is somewhat of a ridiculous question but it's just a though.
Moreover, as population grows, won't there eventually be saturation in every field? I'm trying to picture how competitive medical school admissions will be in the next two decades.

Alternatively, perhaps there could be pathways of significantly lower tuition for students who commit from the beginning to primary care specialties. Note that I do not consider "repayment" track to be the same thing, as they give students the chance to be drawn toward lucrative specialties while in school and abandon their plans to practice primary care.

Such programs may exist, but I am not aware of any.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Alternatively, perhaps there could be pathways of significantly lower tuition for students who commit from the beginning to primary care specialties. Note that I do not consider "repayment" track to be the same thing, as they give students the chance to be drawn toward lucrative specialties while in school and abandon their plans to practice primary care.

Such programs may exist, but I am not aware of any.
Didn't think about it that way; lowering tuition would be a good idea.
I am busting my ass in undergrad, and I will continue to do this until I die.. I want to be a surgeon. I do not think going to school for 8 years is worth it to be a PCP. The salaries between sub-specialists and FD/PCP are strikingly different. From my perspective, it seems primary care could be its own entity, have it's own school.. When I shadow physicians, it seems like the PA does most of the pre and post op interviewing. I think I would go PA if I wanted to practice as a PCP. 8 years, in my opinion, is a little excessive, especially if there is a shortage.
Edit: Another smart move would be to go NP..
 
I have kind of a silly thought. What if PCPs had shorter training. I mean what would happen if an aspiring PCP could go straight to medical school with a binding commitment to FP or primary care? Since there is such a large shortage, that would give incentive to fill spots by skipping undergrad. I realize this is somewhat of a ridiculous question but it's just a though.
Moreover, as population grows, won't there eventually be saturation in every field? I'm trying to picture how competitive medical school admissions will be in the next two decades.
I don't think I would have been anywhere near ready for the medical school workload going from high school directly to medical school.

As far as shorter training, my school is starting a new 3 year MD program for people who will go into family medicine
 
I don't think I would have been anywhere near ready for the medical school workload going from high school directly to medical school.

As far as shorter training, my school is starting a new 3 year MD program for people who will go into family medicine
Well, I volunteer with a bunch of high schoolers, who major in high school. One is pre-dental, and the rest are pre-med. They will be applying to BS-MD programs but they are already the typical neurotic premeds.
A 3 year MD? Hm.
 
Well, I volunteer with a bunch of high schoolers, who major in high school. One is pre-dental, and the rest are pre-med. They will be applying to BS-MD programs but they are already the typical neurotic premeds.
A 3 year MD? Hm.
There's a huge difference there. BS-MD programs do 3 years in undergrad and 4 in med school. You still get that 3 years in undergrad.
 
There's a huge difference there. BS-MD programs do 3 years in undergrad and 4 in med school. You still get that 3 years in undergrad.
Derp; you're right.
Still, isn't it done this way in other countries, and working successfully?
 
Top