analysis: number of pathologists by country

[scienceguy19]

---

Members don't see this ad.

So I did a little bit of research....

Country Number of pathologists/1 million people
Israel 15.3
Canada 25.5
Taiwan 14.8
Japan 14.9
Korea 11.7
USA 44.3

I just don't see how people can say there's an impending shortage of pathologists. Other countries are able to get by. Why do we keep training so many?

 

[neulite30]

An interesting read from a report here in Australia, for comparison: http://www.aims.org.au/documents/item/197

 

[KeratinPearls]

So I did a little bit of research....

Country Number of pathologists/1 million people
Israel 15.3
Canada 25.5
Taiwan 14.8
Japan 14.9
Korea 11.7
USA 44.3

I just don't see how people can say there's an impending shortage of pathologists. Other countries are able to get by. Why do we keep training so many?[/QUOTE]

This is why:

 

[mlw03]

So I did a little bit of research....

Country Number of pathologists/1 million people
Israel 15.3
Canada 25.5
Taiwan 14.8
Japan 14.9
Korea 11.7
USA 44.3

I just don't see how people can say there's an impending shortage of pathologists. Other countries are able to get by. Why do we keep training so many?

Where are those numbers from, scienceguy? And while you say other countries get by, I know there is a bit of a shortage here in Canada, at least in certain provinces.

 

[path12]

How can you compare those countries, first check on population number, then rate of people/ pathologists per capita. USA is humongous compared to the others, that's why... Simple reaserch, by the way.......

 

[Enkidu]

So I did a little bit of research....

Country Number of pathologists/1 million people
Israel 15.3
Canada 25.5
Taiwan 14.8
Japan 14.9
Korea 11.7
USA 44.3

I just don't see how people can say there's an impending shortage of pathologists. Other countries are able to get by. Why do we keep training so many?

Perhaps cross reference these numbers to indexes of population health in these countries. I think that Japan and Korea both have longer lifespans and much less obesity. Israel is a country in which every person serves in the military - and they're mostly pretty fit.

I bet that we have more physicians per capita in general than these countries because we simply have higher demand.

 

[path12]

Perhaps cross reference these numbers to indexes of population health in these countries. I think that Japan and Korea both have longer lifespans and much less obesity. Israel is a country in which every person serves in the military - and they're mostly pretty fit.

I bet that we have more physicians per capita in general than these countries because we simply have higher demand.

Nice to read a PhD input, and not some random thought to bring more despair tho this forum.

 

[rollwithit]

How can you compare those countries, first check on population number, then rate of people/ pathologists per capita. USA is humongous compared to the others, that's why... Simple reaserch, by the way.......

Do what now?

 

[rollwithit]

Perhaps cross reference these numbers to indexes of population health in these countries. I think that Japan and Korea both have longer lifespans and much less obesity. Israel is a country in which every person serves in the military - and they're mostly pretty fit.

I bet that we have more physicians per capita in general than these countries because we simply have higher demand.

Also, I'd like to see how many of these are academic oriented pathologists. I'm sure that skews this quite a bit.

 

[path12]

Do what now?

I say, consider ALL variables, and maybe that's why we need more pathologists. You can' t just throw a number and ask why we need more pathologists, the explanation to the comparison must be in the variables....

 

[scienceguy19]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21377061

Here's a source.

Where are those numbers from, scienceguy? And while you say other countries get by, I know there is a bit of a shortage here in Canada, at least in certain provinces.

 

[pianoguy05]

Is the term "Pathologist" constant across these countries? I was once told that outside of the US, Pathology is "AP + some Heme"; all CP specialties and forensics are separate. I don't know if that would dramatically effect the numbers, but it's important to compare apples to apples....

 

[scienceguy19]

those numbers are per million people...

How can you compare those countries, first check on population number, then rate of people/ pathologists per capita. USA is humongous compared to the others, that's why... Simple reaserch, by the way.......

 

[scienceguy19]

People in Japan and Korea might live longer, but they still will eventually get disease (cancer) and need pathologists too. People with a long life span don't just suddenly die at 100, not requiring any doctor. Unless you are implying that the increased demand in the United States is due to the average person gets multiple cancers in their life, multiple resections, and survives them.

Perhaps cross reference these numbers to indexes of population health in these countries. I think that Japan and Korea both have longer lifespans and much less obesity. Israel is a country in which every person serves in the military - and they're mostly pretty fit.

I bet that we have more physicians per capita in general than these countries because we simply have higher demand.

 

[Enkidu]

People in Japan and Korea might live longer, but they still will eventually get disease (cancer) and need pathologists too. People with a long life span don't just suddenly die at 100, not requiring any doctor. Unless you are implying that the increased demand in the United States is due to the average person gets multiple cancers in their life, multiple resections, and survives them.

My thought was simply that having poorer overall health results in more illness and requires more doctor visits. In order to accommodate the greater number of visits, we need a greater number of doctors.

Even if people in Japan eventually get cancer, which I'm sure they do, over the course of their lifetime I imagine that they require less care and the demand for physicians might be lower.

Now - I'm just saying that this is a plausible explanation. I don't have any data, of course, but the simple fact that we have a higher density of pathologists in the US does not necessarily mean we have more than we need, because we may also need more.

 

[Thrombus]

The longer people live, in general, the more biopsies they get and the more likely they are to get cancer. This makes me think pathologists are in greater need in areas with increased lifespans.

Nice data by the way!!!!!

From my experience, we only need 1 pathologist for every 70-80k people.

This data seems to suggest we have 3 times more pathologists than we need!!!!!!!

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

We need to use our labor surplus to steal business from those countries. China has like 300 million smokers and fewer people are smoking here in US. Face it, pathologists owe their livelyhoods to smoking, sex and sun worship.

 

[Path or bust]

The longer people live, in general, the more biopsies they get and the more likely they are to get cancer. This makes me think pathologists are in greater need in areas with increased lifespans.

Nice data by the way!!!!!

From my experience, we only need 1 pathologist for every 70-80k people.

This data seems to suggest we have 3 times more pathologists than we need!!!!!!!

Do you think this will stop CAP and academia from crying that there will be a shortage of pathologists in the near future? Even without any study or data they already falsely make this claim. I've never seen a more pathetic set of leaders, albeit CAP economic group has done very well to mitigate cuts to the PC component recently so I will highlight their efforts.

 

[torero]

I bet that the number of biopsies per capita in these countries is way lower than the biopsies per capita in the US. It is just the way medicine is practiced here. That is by far the main reason that explains the disparity. I also bet that in these countries the average pathologist is by far less busy (sees less cases) than the average pathologist here in the US.

 

[rollwithit]

I bet that the number of biopsies per capita in these countries is way lower than the biopsies per capita in the US. It is just the way medicine is practiced here. That is by far the main reason that explains the disparity. I also bet that in these countries the average pathologist is by far less busy (sees less cases) than the average pathologist here in the US.

And again, the US is the research capital of the world. Our numbers are going to be significantly higher than others based on this alone. Not to mention, we probably train a fair amount of the pathologists that are included in the other countries' per capita amounts as well...

 

[LADoc00]

We could close EVERY pathology training program tomorrow and not have any real shortages of manpower for HALF A BLEEPING CENTURY!

People in the know realized this 20 years ago. They went to the rooftops and shouted this, they screamed, threw tantrums...some programs DID close but nearly enough.

If the CAP does anything for the field it would be to close 1/2 of all training programs immediately and perhaps accept only 1/10 the number of applicants for the next decade.

You overtrain for 1 reason and for 1 reason only: to create a large and desperate talent pool from which to abuse and make money off. People who have student loans to pay back, mortgages to pay, gas to buy and families to support.

Academic Pathology created a slave class beginning far back as a quarter century ago. They filled the ship with poor IMG souls from Asia and Europe and set sail for the new World to toil for the profit of companies like IOP, Quest, Ameripath etc.

Disgusting to think about tbh.

 

[lipomas]

I would bet that if you looked at the # of specimens per 1 million people, US would also be way ahead. So ahead that I suspect that each pathologist in the US handles more specimens on average than other countries.

People in the US just use more healthcare.

Increasing specialization and efficiency has allowed # of specimens / pathologist to increase vastly over the last 10-20 years.

 

[veo1]

We could close EVERY pathology training program tomorrow and not have any real shortages of manpower for HALF A BLEEPING CENTURY!

People in the know realized this 20 years ago. They went to the rooftops and shouted this, they screamed, threw tantrums...some programs DID close but nearly enough.

If the CAP does anything for the field it would be to close 1/2 of all training programs immediately and perhaps accept only 1/10 the number of applicants for the next decade.

You overtrain for 1 reason and for 1 reason only: to create a large and desperate talent pool from which to abuse and make money off. People who have student loans to pay back, mortgages to pay, gas to buy and families to support.

Academic Pathology created a slave class beginning far back as a quarter century ago. They filled the ship with poor IMG souls from Asia and Europe and set sail for the new World to toil for the profit of companies like IOP, Quest, Ameripath etc.

Disgusting to think about tbh.

LADoc. I've been reading your negative posts since I was a med student and used to view them with skepticism. I've gotta say now that I'm a pathologist in practice you were, and continue to be, spot on in your criticisms of our field. What a joke.

 

[yaah]

You overtrain for 1 reason and for 1 reason only: to create a large and desperate talent pool from which to abuse and make money off. People who have student loans to pay back, mortgages to pay, gas to buy and families to support.

Actually that's not true. You can also overtrain because you are working with bad data and/or flawed assumptions.

Years ago practicing pathologists would shudder in fear and scream if they saw the number of specimens that the average pathologist handles these days. While some of the growth in specimens was foreseen, the increase in efficiency of pathologists didn't seem to be. To me that's the main reason. There aren't any vast conspiracies.

 

[Enkidu]

Actually that's not true. You can also overtrain because you are working with bad data and/or flawed assumptions.

Years ago practicing pathologists would shudder in fear and scream if they saw the number of specimens that the average pathologist handles these days. While some of the growth in specimens was foreseen, the increase in efficiency of pathologists didn't seem to be. To me that's the main reason. There aren't any vast conspiracies.

What was the cause of this increase in efficiency?

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

What was the cause of this increase in efficiency?

Everyone has to sign out more cases because we are sharing so much profit with other physicians. Labs are more productive because they have to be. We could have handled a lot more cases in the past but didnt have to because the money was good. There wasnt the pressure to be productive. Thanks to good old client billing, the labs have become slide mills. I have worked for some of the worst of the worst, with specimen mix ups commonplace and staff turnover virtually monthly. It is pathetic how reckless some of these labs have become.

 

[KCShaw]

I see a lot of "bets" but not a lot of data.

 

[yaah]

Everyone has to sign out more cases because we are sharing so much profit with other physicians. Labs are more productive because they have to be. We could have handled a lot more cases in the past but didnt have to because the money was good. There wasnt the pressure to be productive. Thanks to good old client billing, the labs have become slide mills. I have worked for some of the worst of the worst, with specimen mix ups commonplace and staff turnover virtually monthly. It is pathetic how reckless some of these labs have become.

No, that's really not the reason.

Pathologists became more efficient mostly because of technology and specialization. All of the following led to pathologists doing more cases per person:

1) Specialization which leads to focus on a narrow area of cases, allowing you to be more efficient and plow through cases quicker
2) Technology has increased the ways that clinicians can get smaller biopsies (which are quicker to read than resections, and also more prone to specialization).
3) Increasing utilization of laboratory tests and screening has led to more biopsies and more diagnoses.
4) Technology has allowed pathologists to be freed up from things they used to spend more time on: Autopsies, clinical lab administration, clinical path in general.

There are other reasons but biopsy mills and reference labs are responses to this increase in efficiency, not really a cause of it. Although they have somewhat perpetuated it.

 

[Substance]

How can you compare those countries, first check on population number, then rate of people/ pathologists per capita. USA is humongous compared to the others, that's why... Simple reaserch, by the way.......

Ladies and gentlemen, this is your future colleague!

Pathology is where the winners go.