Bad news about the combined match

[Malph]

Okay, I too stayed up last night and read all the replies. I think that we are making head-way. Let me list a few things that combining the match might help:

1. Although the match is not involved with curriculum, you are correct that the combination may make the AOA programs become more competitive and pressure changes in what has been called the "perceived quality of education"--which is one of the top three reasons listed for non-AOA match participation over the last three years as reflected in an internal AOA taskforce survey. The other two top reasons being: Geographic location and lack of specialty opportunity.

2. Second, combining the match will--based on statistics--possibly improve AOA program funded/filled rates--if we look at the data over the last several years.

3. For any organization, membership is always a target. Many of you have mentioned your frustration with the AOA and stated that you might leave or not renew. I submit that if the combined match is put into place that is will have a positive effect on membership. As stated, more students will be satisfied with their distribution, leading to more retention during residency, then a greater involvement upon post-graduate practice entry.

4. Since the AOA is going to ERAS now, the combination might also result in lower application cost--besides the mental relief from being able to rank order in one place.

5. For the MD side, many DOs are presently strictly applying to ACGME programs and the numbers, based on current statistics, will only continue to climb. By combining the matches, DOs who purposely miss the AOA match will now place themselves back in it--leading to less competition in the end.

These are not all the advantages, but some to work towards. I may append this more later when time permits.

One of the largest fears of the AOA is that all students will rank ACGME programs first and that the numbers of AOA funded/Filled programs will drop. I challenge anyone to find data that supports this view. If one looks at the reports in both JAMA and JAOA, one will find that the downward spiral of these rates happened as a result of the AOA/AMA pulling applicants form the match after matching to an AOA program. This occurred in 2000. Look at the data and judge for yourself. I truly believe that a combined match will help students and the AOA and NOT hurt as it has been portrayed.

I will end for now and look for replies. Thanks again for your interest in preserving our profession, and I could not agree more that this is an education issue and not one of identity as it is being portrayed!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[OldManDave]

Would anyone be so kind as to update me on where this project stands?

 

[jgrady]

Would anyone be so kind as to update me on where this project stands?

Ditto, how's the latest draft of the petition coming along? I frankly lost track of who was updating it.

 

[Bookworm]

hello everybody!

here is the latest version of the petition that i put together. it's a bit shorter. i basically went through the thread picking up the key points from the posters and then put it together.

i know that the overall notion is that we want to keep it as short as possible, but we do not want it to be too short so that the main points are not clearly expressed.

looking forward to everyone's feedback

========================================================

George Thomas, DO
President
American Osteopathic Association

Philip L. Shettle, DO
President-Elect
American Osteopathic Association

Chicago Office – Main Headquarters
142 East Ontario Street
Chicago, IL 60611

CC:
Darryl A. Beehler, DO
Immediate Past President
American Osteopathic Association

RE: Combined AOA/ACGME Match for 4th Year Medical Students

Respected President and President Elect:

We, the undersigned osteopathic medical students and osteopathic physicians, are writing this letter asking you, Dr. Thomas and Dr. Shettle, to make the official stance of the American Osteopathic Association in support of a combined AOA/ACGME match.

We are proud to be part of the profession founded by Andrew Taylor Still and are very much invested in a strong future for the osteopathic profession. We are concerned for the future of the AOA and the survival of osteopathic principles as a separate entity. We all have a vested interest in the success of not only ourselves, but the organization as well. We want to continue the great strides that past DOs have made to allow our generation to work in environments free of stereotype and animosity toward our education.

We believe that a combine match will serve to further strengthen osteopathic identity and benefit osteopathic students, the AOA, and osteopathic physicians as a whole.

1. There will be a great potential for DO students to fill AOA residency spots that are in danger of losing funding. Many DO's that would list DO residencies as #2, 3 or 4 for match seem to participate in the allopathic match and forego any chance of a DO spot in order to try for their first choice(s). A combined match would keep a lot more DOs "in system". DO residency programs are likely to get happier, more satisfied residents. For example, they wouldn't be stuck with DOs who only chose their program because they couldn't pick other allopathic programs for their 3rd or 4th choices.
2. Students going into an ACGME residency will be doing so to further educate our allopathic colleagues and continue the great strides that past DOs have made. Students will be choosing residency programs based on a number of criteria without regard to whether it's DO or MD. We're choosing the best training for the treatment of our future patients.
3. It will offer more choices for osteopathic students. A combine match would give credibility to those students who wish to match into allopathic residencies where there are no osteopathic programs.
4. DO residency programs would strengthen into models for both the allopathic and osteopathic communities as a result of increased competition for students.
5. There would be a greater potential for retention of osteopathic graduates as AOA members as students and physicians are more satisfied with their match placement.

We ask that you support a combined AOA/ACGME match. We sincerely believe it is the right step for the continued strength and future of the osteopathic profession.
Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Name/School/Year/Phone Number/Email

 

[Gunner04]

The AOA obviously has no confidence in their residency programs. I would have considered DO residencies if I would not have been strongarmed into accepting one. The AOA match is a joke anyway, there are so many behind the scenes shenanigans that go on. Most applicants are forced into taking positions well before the match. This is a mute point anyway, any organization that refuses to join the 20th century and update their board exams will never put themselves into a fair match with MD residencies. I think that a little competition would force DO residencies and the AOA into a little modernization. I think that would be good for the entire profession.

 

[JohnDO]

We believe that a combine match will serve to further strengthen osteopathic identity


..

A combine match would give credibility to those students who wish to match into allopathic residencies where there are no osteopathic programs.

Be sure to add the "d".


edit: I like some of it, but I would word some of it differently. I'll post the way I would word it. Feel free to use/disregard any of my wording.

 

[JohnDO]

Yikes. I'm finding it hard to keep it short and sweet. I feel like I'm leaving out important bits.

The petition needs to be less than a full page. 3/4 is probably sufficient. There's a lot to say with so little space.

 

[OldManDave]

Yikes. I'm finding it hard to keep it short and sweet. I feel like I'm leaving out important bits.

The petition needs to be less than a full page. 3/4 is probably sufficient. There's a lot to say with so little space.

Yes, I agree that the entire thing should occupy a single page - any more & you quickly loose your audience...why do you think they limit your PS' length? I would recommend (much easier said than done) to focus exclusively on the combined match & justifications thereof. I would avoid including other equally valid issues as they will add length & potentially muddy things. For minds unwilling to "see" an obvious point, extraneous info can easily be used to paint a picture of confusion.

 

[TCOM-2006]

hi everyone--

--there's a lot that i would like to reply to on this listserv (i'm still playing catch-up), but of most immediate importance - some feedback on the petition initiative:

--overall, i think it's a good idea to provide osteopathic medical students, residents, and physicians the opportunity to express their support of a joint match. it is certainly both the right and responsibility of members of an organization to communicate with their leadership.

--overall, the petition is a well written draft, and i thank those that have put their time and energy in creating it.

--i think it will augment our efforts to try and get the AOA house of delegates to support this at their July meeting, which should be our ultimate goal. keep in mind that the HOD sets the policy of the organization, and the AOA president by himself can not just "make the official stance of the AOA ...x/y/z", as asked in the first paragraph. the role of the president is to be the chief spokesperson for the organization, based on the organization's policy passed by the HOD. i would, therefore, consider changing the first paragraph so that it basically asks for their support of passing AOA policy which would support a combined NRMP/AOA match.

--also, one thing to keep in mind with a petition is that it should be pretty general. if someone does support a joint match, but does not agree with one of the statements made - then they might not sign it. we want as many students as possible to sign this, so i think it should be as simple as possible.

--a second general point is that you don't want to make points that are easily debateable or can be potentially refuted. i think this whole issue can be summarized in two points:
1> a joint NRPM/AOA match is in the best interests of individual osteopathic medical students - here's why...
2> a joint NRMP/AOA match is in the best interests of the osteopathic medical profession as a whole - here's why...

--lastly, the last paragraph should say "combined AOA/NRMP match" rather than AOA/ACGME match. ACGME is the entity that gives accreditation to "allopathic/MD" residency programs. the NRMP (national residency matching program) is the seperate entity that matches applicants and most (but not all) ACGME-accred. programs.

--i know this is all vague/nonspecific feedback, so let me work on some specific wording changes that i would recommend, and i'll reply back soon. any questions on what i have said so far?

hello everybody!

here is the latest version of the petition that i put together. it's a bit shorter. i basically went through the thread picking up the key points from the posters and then put it together.

i know that the overall notion is that we want to keep it as short as possible, but we do not want it to be too short so that the main points are not clearly expressed.

looking forward to everyone's feedback

========================================================

George Thomas, DO
President
American Osteopathic Association

Philip L. Shettle, DO
President-Elect
American Osteopathic Association

Chicago Office ? Main Headquarters
142 East Ontario Street
Chicago, IL 60611

CC:
Darryl A. Beehler, DO
Immediate Past President
American Osteopathic Association

RE: Combined AOA/ACGME Match for 4th Year Medical Students

Respected President and President Elect:

We, the undersigned osteopathic medical students and osteopathic physicians, are writing this letter asking you, Dr. Thomas and Dr. Shettle, to make the official stance of the American Osteopathic Association in support of a combined AOA/ACGME match.

We are proud to be part of the profession founded by Andrew Taylor Still and are very much invested in a strong future for the osteopathic profession. We are concerned for the future of the AOA and the survival of osteopathic principles as a separate entity. We all have a vested interest in the success of not only ourselves, but the organization as well. We want to continue the great strides that past DOs have made to allow our generation to work in environments free of stereotype and animosity toward our education.

We believe that a combine match will serve to further strengthen osteopathic identity and benefit osteopathic students, the AOA, and osteopathic physicians as a whole.

1. There will be a great potential for DO students to fill AOA residency spots that are in danger of losing funding. Many DO's that would list DO residencies as #2, 3 or 4 for match seem to participate in the allopathic match and forego any chance of a DO spot in order to try for their first choice(s). A combined match would keep a lot more DOs "in system". DO residency programs are likely to get happier, more satisfied residents. For example, they wouldn't be stuck with DOs who only chose their program because they couldn't pick other allopathic programs for their 3rd or 4th choices.
2. Students going into an ACGME residency will be doing so to further educate our allopathic colleagues and continue the great strides that past DOs have made. Students will be choosing residency programs based on a number of criteria without regard to whether it's DO or MD. We're choosing the best training for the treatment of our future patients.
3. It will offer more choices for osteopathic students. A combine match would give credibility to those students who wish to match into allopathic residencies where there are no osteopathic programs.
4. DO residency programs would strengthen into models for both the allopathic and osteopathic communities as a result of increased competition for students.
5. There would be a greater potential for retention of osteopathic graduates as AOA members as students and physicians are more satisfied with their match placement.

We ask that you support a combined AOA/ACGME match. We sincerely believe it is the right step for the continued strength and future of the osteopathic profession.
Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Name/School/Year/Phone Number/Email

 

[TCOM-2006]

ok - here are some specific suggestions. i would still consider this draft quality, and i'm reviewing some of the statistics in order to try and make a stronger case. some comments about these suggestions:

--the first and second paragraph get to the point and make a very specific request. we don't want any misunderstanding of what we want (we need to be clear that a "true" joint match - not a "trump" joint match is desired.)

--it simplifies the "why we want this" part of the letter to 2 points. the first point is easily proven, and i don't see any room for debating this one. the second point is also very strong (the intuitive example makes sense), and from what i can see - the statistics make sense, but there's many different ways to look at the numbers. like i said, i'm currently trying to review all the stats, so i can suggest the best facts to use. the two articles that i reference are worth reading by everyone interested in this issue.

--the final paragraph briefly touches on the fact, that we want to see the profession grow stronger, and again - makes a very clear request.

--again, thanks to everyone who's been working on this. i welcome feedback.

++++++++++++++++++++


George Thomas, DO
President
American Osteopathic Association

Philip L. Shettle, DO
President-Elect
American Osteopathic Association

Chicago Office ? Main Headquarters
142 East Ontario Street
Chicago, IL 60611

CC:
Darryl A. Beehler, DO
Immediate Past President
American Osteopathic Association

RE: Combined AOA/ACGME Match for 4th Year Medical Students

Respected President and President Elect:

We, the undersigned osteopathic medical students and osteopathic physicians, are writing this letter asking you, Dr. Thomas and Dr. Shettle, to act in the best interests of Osteopathic medical students and our Osteopathic profession by supporting AOA policy which endorses a combined AOA/NRMP Match.

We support a system that would allow Osteopathic medical students to rank both AOA and ACGME accredited programs together in one combined match. Placement of DO graduates into programs would be made by the rank-order lists of students and residency programs, and would occur on a single match date.

A combined match system is in the best interests of the individual Osteopathic medical student, because it gives the student the opportunity to rank all programs (AOA and ACGME) together according to their own individual criteria to meet their own individual needs (e.g. specialty choice, location, and other factors). The current system leads many students to not rank any AOA internship programs that they are potentially interested in, because they will be automatically withdrawn from consideration from any ACGME programs ranked through NRMP if they are matched with an AOA program.

A combined match system is also in the best interests of the Osteopathic profession as a whole, because it will increase the percentage of DO students that rank, and match into AOA programs. Intuitively, there is a much greater chance that a student who ranks AOA programs #2, #4, and #8 in a combined match system will match into an AOA program, compared with the current system which leads approximately half of DO students to not participate in the AOA Match at all. Over recent years, statistical trends point to an increasing number of DOs who enter ACGME programs with and without prior GME training, and a decreasing percentage of COM graduates in Osteopathic internships1,2.

We are proud to be part of the Osteopathic profession founded by Andrew Taylor Still and are very much invested in its future and in the future of the AOA. We believe that our profession will be strengthened by a combined match which will both enhance opportunities for individual students, and help secure the future of Osteopathic Graduate Medical Education. We ask for your personal support, and for the support of the AOA House of Delegates in approving policy which will put this plan into action.

Thank you for your careful consideration.

Sincerely,

Name/School/Year/Phone Number/Email

<YOU CAN FOOTNOTE THE SOURCES INTO THE LETTER>

1. Brotherton SH, Rockey PH, Etzel SI. US Graduate Medical Education, 2002-2003. JAMA. 2003;290:1197-1202.
2. Obradovic JL, Beaudry SW, Winslow-Falbo P. Osteopathic Graduate Medical Education. JAOA. 2004;104:468-478.

 

[TCOM-2006]

I think "The DOs: Osteopathic Medicine in America" should be required reading before anyone applies to DO school. In case you forget, the AMA did screw the AOA and the osteopathic profession in general for decades. It's not surprising that there's still some sentiment in the AOA that prevents too much "amalgamation" with what used to be the sworn enemy of osteopathic medicine.

Are you on a military scholarship? You can thank the AOA for that. The AMA fought tooth and nail to prevent DOs from becoming military physicians. Would you like to work in an allopathic hospital? Thank the AOA. If the AMA has had its way, DOs wouldn't even be allowed to become licensed much less allowed employment or even privileges in allopathic hospitals.

I'll be honest with you, I also wanted the combined match. However, I understand perfectly why the AOA decided not go through with it. The profession wants to remain unique and separate but strategically tries to remain "competitive" as much as it can without becoming too absorbed by the larger AMA organization. Truth be told, if I was president of the AOA I would also vote to not combine the matches, even though that would make me very unpopular with many students.

I think as a profession we need to work to improve the Osteopathic Medical world instead of trying to become more like Allopathic medicine. And I totally disagree with JMC: $60 to trade our DO for an MD is *not* an upgrade. If anything, it would be a lateral move.

well, i'm finally starting to catch up - and there were some posts that i really would like to reply to, and this is one of them.

first - i agree that we have a lot to thanks our AOA for - there's no doubt that they have fought long and hard (against the AMA in many cases) to broaden our educational opportunities and practice privledges. my feeling is that every DO and DO student should be an active member of our AOA. however - to assert that the AMA is the same organization that it was 40 or 50 years ago demonstrates a significant lack of understanding of the organization. the last statement in the second paragraph is totally incorrect, and there is absolutly no current AMA policy to support this.

i have made my case for DOs being involved in the AMA before, so i would invite the poster of this message, and anyone else interested, to read the thread: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=149528
i would be happy to awnser any questions regarding this issue that you have.

the points about a combined match being in the best interests of both individual osteopathic students and the osteopathic profession as a whole have also been made in previous posts. a joint match does *not* impact our profession's seperate identity or somehow make us become absorbed into the AMA. also - the AOA has *not* not decided to go through with this - the resolution introduced is being studied (see the timeline in my first reply to this thread). from my understanding the AOA does not have any official policy for or against a combined match (we just have the status quo of a seperate match - but there's no policy that i know of). if you are aware of policy that i don't know about - please post, and i will stand corrected.

one other point that i would make is that is that we must come to view these organizations (both the AMA and the AOA) as ours - they belong to us if we are members, and we therefore have an opportunity to influence where these organizations stand on all issues. remember that both are policy-based organizations, and we have an opportunity to bring forward or debate any policy changes (see my earlier posts on how to do this - i have listed some resources).

good discussion.

 

[Shinken]

to assert that the AMA is the same organization that it was 40 or 50 years ago demonstrates a significant lack of understanding of the organization. the last statement in the second paragraph is totally incorrect, and there is absolutly no current AMA policy to support this.

i have made my case for DOs being involved in the AMA before...

The AOA has *not* not decided to go through with this - the resolution introduced is being studied...if you are aware of policy that i don't know about - please post, and i will stand corrected.

one other point that i would make is that is that we must come to view these organizations (both the AMA and the AOA) as ours - they belong to us if we are members, and we therefore have an opportunity to influence where these organizations stand on all issues. remember that both are policy-based organizations, and we have an opportunity to bring forward or debate any policy changes (see my earlier posts on how to do this - i have listed some resources).

good discussion.

Thanks for the late reply.

Some things I'd like to clarify: I never asserted that the AMA of today is the same as the AMA of 40 years ago (thank goodness it isn't!). However, the leadership of the AOA is old enough to remember the AMA of 40 years ago. It's understandable that some AOA people still feel a bit of resentment. Am I correct? Maybe, maybe not. That's the best guess I can offer as to why the AOA sometimes behaves the way it does.

The statement in the second paragraph could be wrong. Sometimes I refer to the AMA as a generic term for allopathic physicians. Perhaps the AMA itself didn't have an official policy against DOs becoming licensed and having privileges in allopathic hospitals, but allopathic physicians back then (and most likely with AMA support) fought hard agains DOs having privileges in allopathic hospitals. I'm basing my information from Dr. Gevitz's book, which right now is the only authoritative book on DO history out there.

Your case for DOs being involved in the AMA is good advice. I am actually a member of the AMA and the AOA. I believe becoming involved is better for change than complaining from the sidelines.

As far as the AOA deciding not to go through with the joint match: I was under the impression that the AOA did in fact decide not to endorse the joint match, and asked the ACGME to stop considering it. I got that information from DrMom, who was involved in some capacity in the whole process. If I'm wrong, I'll let her set the story straight.

I agree with you. We must become active in both organizations to bring about good change for the profession. Today allopathic and osteopathic medicine are closer than they've ever been, and that's a good thing...as long as osteopathic medicine is still allowed some relative freedom. We don't want to become completely absorbed by allopathic medicine, although sometimes it's hard because we depend to a certain extent on the AMA and ACGME policies (where would osteopathic medicine be today if the ACGME didn't allow DOs in allo residency programs?).

 

[TCOM-2006]

Thanks for the late reply.

Some things I'd like to clarify: I never asserted that the AMA of today is the same as the AMA of 40 years ago (thank goodness it isn't!). However, the leadership of the AOA is old enough to remember the AMA of 40 years ago. It's understandable that some AOA people still feel a bit of resentment. Am I correct? Maybe, maybe not. That's the best guess I can offer as to why the AOA sometimes behaves the way it does.

The statement in the second paragraph could be wrong. Sometimes I refer to the AMA as a generic term for allopathic physicians. Perhaps the AMA itself didn't have an official policy against DOs becoming licensed and having privileges in allopathic hospitals, but allopathic physicians back then (and most likely with AMA support) fought hard against DOs having privileges in allopathic hospitals. I'm basing my information from Dr. Gevitz's book, which right now is the only authoritative book on DO history out there.

Your case for DOs being involved in the AMA is good advice. I am actually a member of the AMA and the AOA. I believe becoming involved is better for change than complaining from the sidelines.

As far as the AOA deciding not to go through with the joint match: I was under the impression that the AOA did in fact decide not to endorse the joint match, and asked the ACGME to stop considering it. I got that information from DrMom, who was involved in some capacity in the whole process. If I'm wrong, I'll let her set the story straight.

I agree with you. We must become active in both organizations to bring about good change for the profession. Today allopathic and osteopathic medicine are closer than they've ever been, and that's a good thing...as long as osteopathic medicine is still allowed some relative freedom. We don't want to become completely absorbed by allopathic medicine, although sometimes it's hard because we depend to a certain extent on the AMA and ACGME policies (where would osteopathic medicine be today if the ACGME didn't allow DOs in allo residency programs?).

wow - i see that you are much better with the rapid-reply than i am. it's good to hear that i think we share basically the same view, and i thank you for joining both the AMA and AOA.

i totally agree with you in that there are many 'old school DOs' (many of whom are in AOA leadership positions), that did have very personal, direct negative experience with the AMA in years past - and because of this - some bear tremendous animosity toward the AMA. this is understandable, but the resultant isolationism that allowed the osteopathic profession to win those battles in the past does not fit with our interests now that the AMA (and, indeed, the whole context of the medical profession) has changed. this viewpoint of labeling the current AMA based on past AMA aggressions against DOs is also unfair, and does not recognize the dynamic nature of an organization such as this.

so - my point is that while i understand the negative feelings - i don't accept it as an legitimate excuse for why some 'old school DOs', particularly those who happen to be in leadership positions 'behave the way that they do'. i *expect* the leadership of our AOA to think with their *heads* in a rational way about what's best for our profession, not with the chip on their shoulder - and my role as a member is to do my part in holding them accountable for such.

i do think you are correct in that the AMA (and many state allopathic organizations) did (past tense) have official policy against DOs gaining practice rights. my point is that they currently do *not* (present tense), which the original statement seemed to imply (perhaps i mis-read you here).

another point: just want to reinforce my view that the AMA is no longer an exclusively "allopathic" organization (as i have elaborated on in previous posts). while the AMA is indirectly and directly involved in allopathic medical educaiton (via LCME, NRMP, ACGME, etc), their membership is open to all MD and DO students and physicians, they specifically define "physician" as MD or DO in their policy (and include MD/DO in many other policies), and DOs have the opportunity to advance in the leadership of the AMA. the Gevitz book is very good - but i don't think (at least in my initial reading) that it discusses this issue.

re: the joint match - i do not think the AOA has official policy for or against it (like i said, if i'm wrong - perhaps you or Dr. Mom can post the policy). the AOA president (Dr. Thomas) did write a letter to the AMA-HOD (not the ACGME) recommening that the AMA-HOD not adopt a resolution which called for the support of a joint match. as i mentioned in my first reply to this thread - this resolution was withdrawn by the original author of the resolution before he had any prior knowledge of the letter from Dr. Thomas.

 

[TCOM-2006]

MD programs are by and large happy to train DO's. We come with none of the liabilities and special provisions that FMG's do: No visa hassles, no moonlighting restrictions, easy verification of our credentials, etc. Residency programs really do see DO applicants as just another "flavor" of US seniors; whereas, FMG's are really seen as "different."

The AMA has even had DO's complete their prestigious Morris Fishbein Fellowship in Medical Journalism. Ironically, Morris Fishbein, one of the early editors of JAMA, is most widely remembered for his harsh attacks of osteopathy and being chairman of the AMA's Committee on Medical Quackery. Again, the bigger point is don't get sidetracked by these issues of "identity." It's the AOA's biggest Weapon of Mass Distraction (WMD).

The AMA is really pretty much "degree blind" when it comes to DO's. They will support an issue because it makes sense. They don't have any issues with "identity." When the AMA invited the AOA to join the AMA's House of Delegates, they invited them to join at a specialty society status and did not offer them a number of votes in correspondence to the number of AOA members. The AOA was right to refuse, but it was nonsensical offer in many ways. If the AOA had gotten a number of votes in proportion to their membership it would have made them one of the largest voting members in the AMA's HOD....which really doesn't make sense if you're the AMA. The AMA and AOA enjoy various other liaison relationships and sit on the same side of many lobbying and political issues---limiting scope of practice for allied practitioners for example---that's why Dr. Thomas' letter carried the influence that it did. That's also why this isn't an organizational problem, but a leadership problem. It's sort of like the distinction between loving your country, but hating your government (or vice versa). Get it?

Drusso--

--very insightful posts so far in this discussion - i appreciate reading them, and fully agree with almost everything you have stated. however, i would like to make a few points regarding the AOA representation in the AMA-HOD, that you mentioned (it's a seperate issue from the joint match, but i believe that it's important).

--i don't think that the AOA was invited to join via "specialty society status". specialty societies get voting delegates based on the number of AMA members that are in their specialty (eg - the AAFP has 16 delegates to the AMA). i believe that the AOA is classified as "other national societies", which also include the AMWA and NMA (these organizations also have 1 delegate each). AMWA and NMA both send their delegate and alt. delegate to the AMA-HOD (at least as of the Dec 2004 meeting).

--no delegation of the AMA (state, specialty society, etc) gets more delegates for the number of members that these societies have - they get delegates based on the number of **AMA members** they have. for example, although there are about 40,000 members of TMA, the Texas Delegation to the AMA has 21 delegates (corresponding to the ~ 21,000 AMA members in Texas). therefore, if the AOA's AMA-HOD representation were based on the number of AOA members who are also members of the AMA, the delegation size would not be as large as you think - and would certainly not be one of the largest delegations in the AMA.

--if the AOA had delegates in relation to their membership - many DO AMA members would be effectively counted three times (represented by their state society, their specialty society, and the AOA), while MD AMA members would be effectively counted twice - and it would be viewed as an inequity of representation. my guess is that is probably why the AOA (as well as the AMWA and NMA) only currently have 1 delegate seat.

--i don't think it was non-sensical for the AMA to create this delegate position for the AOA. i believe that it was a move to make the AMA-HOD a true "house of medicine", where all organizations that represent physicians come together to find common ground on important issues.

--i don't think that it makes sense that the AOA refuesd to fill the delegate seat offered to them. if the AOA feels that it should have more representation in the AMA (ie - based on it's # of AMA members), then they should take the delegate seats -- spend a few years building relationships with the rest of the HOD, and then - when the time is right - work with AWMA and NMA to push for representative membership. the MSS (medical student section) went through the same thing: we used to only be represented by 1 delegate (for our nearly 50,000 members). now we have 21 other "regional" student delegates, because we worked for it over a period of many years (if we had refused to send our delegate in protest - it would have never happened).

--again, great insight overall - and i would be happy to answer any questions that anyone has about this (i can post exact policy language if needed).

 

[Bookworm]

ok - here are some specific suggestions. i would still consider this draft quality, and i'm reviewing some of the statistics in order to try and make a stronger case. some comments about these suggestions:

--the first and second paragraph get to the point and make a very specific request. we don't want any misunderstanding of what we want (we need to be clear that a "true" joint match - not a "trump" joint match is desired.)

--it simplifies the "why we want this" part of the letter to 2 points. the first point is easily proven, and i don't see any room for debating this one. the second point is also very strong (the intuitive example makes sense), and from what i can see - the statistics make sense, but there's many different ways to look at the numbers. like i said, i'm currently trying to review all the stats, so i can suggest the best facts to use. the two articles that i reference are worth reading by everyone interested in this issue.

--the final paragraph briefly touches on the fact, that we want to see the profession grow stronger, and again - makes a very clear request.

--again, thanks to everyone who's been working on this. i welcome feedback.

++++++++++++++++++++


George Thomas, DO
President
American Osteopathic Association

Philip L. Shettle, DO
President-Elect
American Osteopathic Association

Chicago Office ? Main Headquarters
142 East Ontario Street
Chicago, IL 60611

CC:
Darryl A. Beehler, DO
Immediate Past President
American Osteopathic Association

RE: Combined AOA/ACGME Match for 4th Year Medical Students

Respected President and President Elect:

We, the undersigned osteopathic medical students and osteopathic physicians, are writing this letter asking you, Dr. Thomas and Dr. Shettle, to act in the best interests of Osteopathic medical students and our Osteopathic profession by supporting AOA policy which endorses a combined AOA/NRMP Match.

We support a system that would allow Osteopathic medical students to rank both AOA and ACGME accredited programs together in one combined match. Placement of DO graduates into programs would be made by the rank-order lists of students and residency programs, and would occur on a single match date.

A combined match system is in the best interests of the individual Osteopathic medical student, because it gives the student the opportunity to rank all programs (AOA and ACGME) together according to their own individual criteria to meet their own individual needs (e.g. specialty choice, location, and other factors). The current system leads many students to not rank any AOA internship programs that they are potentially interested in, because they will be automatically withdrawn from consideration from any ACGME programs ranked through NRMP if they are matched with an AOA program.

A combined match system is also in the best interests of the Osteopathic profession as a whole, because it will increase the percentage of DO students that rank, and match into AOA programs. Intuitively, there is a much greater chance that a student who ranks AOA programs #2, #4, and #8 in a combined match system will match into an AOA program, compared with the current system which leads approximately half of DO students to not participate in the AOA Match at all. Over recent years, statistical trends point to an increasing number of DOs who enter ACGME programs with and without prior GME training, and a decreasing percentage of COM graduates in Osteopathic internships1,2.

We are proud to be part of the Osteopathic profession founded by Andrew Taylor Still and are very much invested in its future and in the future of the AOA. We believe that our profession will be strengthened by a combined match which will both enhance opportunities for individual students, and help secure the future of Osteopathic Graduate Medical Education. We ask for your personal support, and for the support of the AOA House of Delegates in approving policy which will put this plan into action.

Thank you for your careful consideration.

Sincerely,

Name/School/Year/Phone Number/Email

<YOU CAN FOOTNOTE THE SOURCES INTO THE LETTER>

1. Brotherton SH, Rockey PH, Etzel SI. US Graduate Medical Education, 2002-2003. JAMA. 2003;290:1197-1202.
2. Obradovic JL, Beaudry SW, Winslow-Falbo P. Osteopathic Graduate Medical Education. JAOA. 2004;104:468-478.

Thank you TCOM 2006 for your revised petition.
Just one question/comment: Do you think it would be wise to include a sentence or two about how a combined match would improve the quality of AOA residencies becuase of increased direct competition for students?
the references are a great addition.
looking forward to your reply and anyone elses feedback/comments

 

[applicant2002]

Do you think it would be wise to include a sentence or two about how a combined match would improve the quality of AOA residencies becuase of increased direct competition for students?

My gut instinct would be to say no, because I don't think the AOA want to hear that osteopathic programs are any lesser in quality and would probably not respond favorably to something that suggested that.

 

[TCOM-2006]

Thank you TCOM 2006 for your revised petition.
Just one question/comment: Do you think it would be wise to include a sentence or two about how a combined match would improve the quality of AOA residencies becuase of increased direct competition for students?
the references are a great addition.
looking forward to your reply and anyone elses feedback/comments

i'm not quite sure whether or not i would advice on including this. i think it's definitely a valid point that i agree with, but in creating this petition, i'm trying to keep in mind how some AOA leadership would respond to each point we make. let me think about this a little more. what do others think?

by the way - i uploaded the 20e 2004 article does not have as much discussion devoted to the increase in DOs in ACGME programs, but this figure does show and increase from 5327 to 5838 in 1 year. the JAOA article in in the most recent JAOA (Nov.) mailed to you. and some more information can be fond at:
http://www.aacom.org/data/index.html (look at the annual reports). i'm sifting though all this (and more) info to get a good grip of the stats. i'm also developing a set of powerpoints which will explain this whole issue (with references), that i will share with anyone to help you with educating your fellow students at your school.

 

[drusso]

Drusso--

--very insightful posts so far in this discussion - i appreciate reading them, and fully agree with almost everything you have stated. however, i would like to make a few points regarding the AOA representation in the AMA-HOD, that you mentioned (it's a seperate issue from the joint match, but i believe that it's important).

--i don't think that the AOA was invited to join via "specialty society status". specialty societies get voting delegates based on the number of AMA members that are in their specialty (eg - the AAFP has 16 delegates to the AMA). i believe that the AOA is classified as "other national societies", which also include the AMWA and NMA (these organizations also have 1 delegate each). AMWA and NMA both send their delegate and alt. delegate to the AMA-HOD (at least as of the Dec 2004 meeting).

--no delegation of the AMA (state, specialty society, etc) gets more delegates for the number of members that these societies have - they get delegates based on the number of **AMA members** they have. for example, although there are about 40,000 members of TMA, the Texas Delegation to the AMA has 21 delegates (corresponding to the ~ 21,000 AMA members in Texas). therefore, if the AOA's AMA-HOD representation were based on the number of AOA members who are also members of the AMA, the delegation size would not be as large as you think - and would certainly not be one of the largest delegations in the AMA.

--if the AOA had delegates in relation to their membership - many DO AMA members would be effectively counted three times (represented by their state society, their specialty society, and the AOA), while MD AMA members would be effectively counted twice - and it would be viewed as an inequity of representation. my guess is that is probably why the AOA (as well as the AMWA and NMA) only currently have 1 delegate seat.

--i don't think it was non-sensical for the AMA to create this delegate position for the AOA. i believe that it was a move to make the AMA-HOD a true "house of medicine", where all organizations that represent physicians come together to find common ground on important issues.

--i don't think that it makes sense that the AOA refuesd to fill the delegate seat offered to them. if the AOA feels that it should have more representation in the AMA (ie - based on it's # of AMA members), then they should take the delegate seats -- spend a few years building relationships with the rest of the HOD, and then - when the time is right - work with AWMA and NMA to push for representative membership. the MSS (medical student section) went through the same thing: we used to only be represented by 1 delegate (for our nearly 50,000 members). now we have 21 other "regional" student delegates, because we worked for it over a period of many years (if we had refused to send our delegate in protest - it would have never happened).

--again, great insight overall - and i would be happy to answer any questions that anyone has about this (i can post exact policy language if needed).

Very interesting. I was not aware of those details. AOA representation of any sort in the AMA HOD seems like a good thing.

 

[TCOM-2006]

i'm not quite sure whether or not i would advice on including this. i think it's definitely a valid point that i agree with, but in creating this petition, i'm trying to keep in mind how some AOA leadership would respond to each point we make. let me think about this a little more. what do others think?

by the way - i uploaded the 20e 2004 article does not have as much discussion devoted to the increase in DOs in ACGME programs, but this figure does show and increase from 5327 to 5838 in 1 year. the JAOA article in in the most recent JAOA (Nov.) mailed to you. and some more information can be fond at:
http://www.aacom.org/data/index.html (look at the annual reports). i'm sifting though all this (and more) info to get a good grip of the stats. i'm also developing a set of powerpoints which will explain this whole issue (with references), that i will share with anyone to help you with educating your fellow students at your school.

ok - after getting some good advice - i would agree with applicant2002, in that we should not include this. besides the point appl. raised - let's stick to what we have statistical evidence for.

 

[PACtoDOC]

ok - after getting some good advice - i would agree with applicant2002, in that we should not include this. besides the point appl. raised - let's stick to what we have statistical evidence for.

Hey TCOM2006 (B),
Thanks for your hard work on this. How do you want to pull this off at our school? You are way more on top of this issue than I and I don't want to step on your toes and mess things up. So how about you just give me some marching orders and I will do the leg work in terms of getting the signatures when it comes time? Cool?

M

 

[TCOM-2006]

Hey TCOM2006 (B),
Thanks for your hard work on this. How do you want to pull this off at our school? You are way more on top of this issue than I and I don't want to step on your toes and mess things up. So how about you just give me some marching orders and I will do the leg work in terms of getting the signatures when it comes time? Cool?

M

thanks M - for your willingness to push this forward at TCOM - and you bring up a very good point...

now that that petition is getting to the final drafting stages (any more suggestions should probably come soon), i think we should all start discussing the best way to implement this. we need to develop a plan to carry this out in a consistent way across all osteopathic schools.

first of all - do we have someone at each school willing to do this?

how do we get residents / physicians to sign it too?

do we have someone on this listserv who is in charge of this petition initiative nationally? this might have been something that ya'll have already established, and i missed on an earlier post.

let's make sure we have a good committee structure in place here - and then we can develop an implementation plan (with an educational component - i.e., a powerpoint presentation and or 'issue brief', and an action component - i.e., the petition). my recomendation would be that we have a 'chair' of this whole project, 1 school rep per osteopathic school or branch campus, and some kind of resident physician representation.

 

[Bookworm]

does anyone have any more suggestions for the latest draft posted by TCOM2006?

btw, TCOM2006 as far as implementation earlier in the thread, it was suggested that once we have the final petition, we can post it as a pdf file that drs. and current residents will be able to download, print and send.

as far as from the individual schools, there was a running list of people from each school posted earlier in the thread.

(if i missed anyone, please add

PACtoDOC-UNT HSC/TCOM
delicatefade-CCOM
bookworm-UMDNJ SOM
elysium - TUCOM NV
Thousandth - DMU
jhug - AZCOM
docslytherin - KCOM

classes will be starting again, so we probably want to finalize the petition pretty soon.

 

[DrMom]

You can add me in for OSU-COM


There should be something more final together soon that can be distributed to the schools.

 

[Bookworm]

ok so our school list is as follows (with the addition of DrMom)

PACtoDOC - UNT HSC/TCOM
delicatefade - CCOM
bookworm - UMDNJ SOM
elysium - TUCOM NV
Thousandth - DMU
jhug - AZCOM
docslytherin - KCOM
DrMom - OSU COM

with regards to the letter, i think that the latest draft by TCOM2006 is good. However, I think it would be a good idea to include the paragraph about the doc at harvard (featured in the DO magazine). why? it is a perfect example of how the osteopathic profession can be advanced by DO's matching at allopathic institutions. plus it was in the DO magazine and is something the AOA appears to be very proud of.

if you think that it is not a good idea, then please delete it and repost the petition. we need to have a final draft very very soon so we can start collecting signatures.

so here is the draft with that paragraph. (it's about 1 page in length)

George Thomas, DO
President
American Osteopathic Association

Philip L. Shettle, DO
President-Elect
American Osteopathic Association

Chicago Office - Main Headquarters
142 East Ontario Street
Chicago, IL 60611

CC:
Darryl A. Beehler, DO
Immediate Past President
American Osteopathic Association

RE: Combined AOA/ACGME Match for 4th Year Medical Students

Respected President and President Elect:

We, the undersigned osteopathic medical students and osteopathic physicians, are writing this letter asking you, Dr. Thomas and Dr. Shettle, to act in the best interests of osteopathic medical students and our osteopathic profession by supporting AOA policy which endorses a combined AOA/NRMP Match.

We support a system that would allow osteopathic medical students to rank both AOA and ACGME accredited programs together in one combined match. Placement of DO graduates into programs would be made by the rank-order lists of students and residency programs, and would occur on a single match date.

A combined match system is in the best interests of the individual osteopathic medical student, because it gives the student the opportunity to rank all programs (AOA and ACGME) together according to their own individual criteria to meet their own individual needs (e.g. specialty choice, location, and other factors). The current system leads many students to not rank any AOA internship programs that they are potentially interested in, because they will be automatically withdrawn from consideration from any ACGME programs ranked through NRMP if they are matched with an AOA program.

A combined match system is also in the best interests of the osteopathic profession as a whole, because it will increase the percentage of DO students that rank, and match into AOA programs. Intuitively, there is a much greater chance that a student who ranks AOA programs #2, #4, and #8 in a combined match system will match into an AOA program, compared with the current system which leads approximately half of DO students to not participate in the AOA Match at all. Over recent years, statistical trends point to an increasing number of DOs who enter ACGME programs with and without prior GME training, and a decreasing percentage of COM graduates in osteopathic internships1,2.

By explicitly allowing osteopathic students to match in allopathic institutions, it lends credibility to those OMSs who seek to match in such prominent institutions such as Harvard Medical School, John Hopkins University, The Cleveland Clinic, etc. The status and osteopathic competence that these students and physicians bring with them to these institutions enhances and increases the visibility of our profession. Just recently, it was reported in The DO that Harvard University was sponsoring an OMM course because of a DO on staff at Harvard, Dr. Darren Rosenberg. Dr. Rosenberg completed his residency at John Hopkins University and is definitely helping advance osteopathic medicine. Physicians like Dr. Rosenberg grant a positive distinction to our profession and strengthen our identity.

We are proud to be part of the osteopathic profession founded by Andrew Taylor Still and are very much invested in its future and in the future of the AOA. We believe that our profession will be strengthened by a combined match which will both enhance opportunities for individual students, and help secure the future of osteopathic Graduate Medical Education. We ask for your personal support, and for the support of the AOA House of Delegates in approving policy which will put this plan into action.

Thank you for your careful consideration.

Sincerely,

Name/School/Year/Phone Number/Email


1. Brotherton SH, Rockey PH, Etzel SI. US Graduate Medical Education, 2002-2003. JAMA. 2003;290:1197-1202.
2. Obradovic JL, Beaudry SW, Winslow-Falbo P. Osteopathic Graduate Medical Education. JAOA. 2004;104:468-478.

 

[PACtoDOC]

Hey guys,

I nominate TCOM2006 to supervise how this project can go forward from here. No offense to anyone, but we are sort of stagnant right now and still have over half of the schools unrepresented thus far. TCOM2006 knows more about this topic than anyone and he can coordinate us to make the biggest difference possible. I have had several private conversations with him and I trust his wisdom. So if he will do it, I will still be the "grunt soldier" for my school and hopefully you all will follow along as well. I think TCOM2006's revision is fine. I am not a big fan of putting in examples...lets just be concise and to the point unless it is critically important to include!

 

[TCOM-2006]

ok so our school list is as follows (with the addition of DrMom)


with regards to the letter, i think that the latest draft by TCOM2006 is good. However, I think it would be a good idea to include the paragraph about the doc at harvard (featured in the DO magazine). why? it is a perfect example of how the osteopathic profession can be advanced by DO's matching at allopathic institutions. plus it was in the DO magazine and is something the AOA appears to be very proud of.



By explicitly allowing osteopathic students to match in allopathic institutions, it lends credibility to those OMSs who seek to match in such prominent institutions such as Harvard Medical School, John Hopkins University, The Cleveland Clinic, etc. The status and osteopathic competence that these students and physicians bring with them to these institutions enhances and increases the visibility of our profession. Just recently, it was reported in The DO that Harvard University was sponsoring an OMM course because of a DO on staff at Harvard, Dr. Darren Rosenberg. Dr. Rosenberg completed his residency at John Hopkins University and is definitely helping advance osteopathic medicine. Physicians like Dr. Rosenberg grant a positive distinction to our profession and strengthen our identity.

first, let me make some comments on the newly added paragraph. while i fully agree with the point that sending students to programs like harvard or hopkins, which we have done, is very good for our profession, and the paragraph is well worded - i'm not so sure that we should include this. again - we must keep in mind the likely reaction of some AOA leadership. let me explain...

many in the AOA leadership feel that we have 'nothing to prove' to the 'MD establishment'. this has been one of the top concerns that AOA leadership have had about my involvement in the AMA (that somehow, i'm trying to 'prove myself' as 'just as good as an MD'). if you will notice in my other posts - this is *not* listed in the reasons that i give for DOs to be involved in the AMA, and it's not one of the reasons that personally motivates me.

in the past, when the MD establishment was strongly against DOs gaining practice rights - the DO response was essentially, 'screw you - i have nothing to prove to you - and we'll fight and win our right to practice medicine in state legislatures'. while this was really the only option - and the appropriate action in the past, clearly things have changed - and it's in our interests to promote mutual respect and understanding between the two branches of medicine (in the clinical, research and organized medicine settings) now that there's a chance for it to occur. however - some still don't see it this way, or at least don't go far enough to facilitate this. anyway - i'm rambling, but here's the point:

i think that (while they secretly smile when DOs attend programs at Hopkins, etc), they may also view this occurrence as a gradual loss of the osteopathic identity - not a way to help educate our MD colleagues about our profession. ie - their viewpoint: this is just one more student who 'betrayed' his/her osteopathic roots and 'defected' to an ACGME programs (as ridiculous as this sounds, i have actually heard these words used in personal conversations with some DOs).

it also seems to slightly counter one of our key points. we want to convence them that this will increase DO application toward and matching into AOA programs (which which we have reason and data to back up), not that this will somehow increase DO students going into ACGME programs. i don't think the wording that you use specifically suggests that this will *increase* (what do you mead "leand credibility to..."?), but it could be interpreted as such.

also, as has been mentioned before - a shorter, more clear, less debatable petition will lead to more signatures.

my $.02 - what does everyone else think?

 

[TCOM-2006]

Hey guys,

I nominate TCOM2006 to supervise how this project can go forward from here. No offense to anyone, but we are sort of stagnant right now and still have over half of the schools unrepresented thus far. TCOM2006 knows more about this topic than anyone and he can coordinate us to make the biggest difference possible. I have had several private conversations with him and I trust his wisdom. So if he will do it, I will still be the "grunt soldier" for my school and hopefully you all will follow along as well. I think TCOM2006's revision is fine. I am not a big fan of putting in examples...lets just be concise and to the point unless it is critically important to include!

while i certainly appreciate the kind words by my friend and classmate, i would suggest that someone other than myself take the role for chairing this project.

first - this initiative started as a grassroots effort, i would like to see it continue as such, and i would like to see if rightly percieved as such from the AOA leadership. because of my AMA involvement - and my past interaction with AOA leadership (which has been very good - although it requires careful diplomacy on my part), i think it would be percieved as less truly grassroots that it really is if i'm the 'chair' of the project. i'm happy to stick around an consult when needed.

also - you guys saw how slow i was to respond to the initial discussion - i think i'm at my limit for what i can handle (i'm still working on this issue through a number of different channels) - and i start my ob/gyn rotation tommorow.

 

[Bookworm]

thank you TCOM2006 and PAC to DOC for your comments.
basically, i guess we will just delete the paragraph that was added.

i am going to post the petition without the paragraph. if anyone has any other comments to make re the petition, now is probably the time to make any concerns/suggestions known.

if there are not any suggestions for change by the middle of the week, we can all assume that the petition is final and we can start on working how to start getting signatures.
we should probably create a new thread at that time with the finalized petition(that can be downloaded) and also to monitor the status at each respective school.

thanks to everyone who has contributed so far.




George Thomas, DO
President
American Osteopathic Association

Philip L. Shettle, DO
President-Elect
American Osteopathic Association

Chicago Office - Main Headquarters
142 East Ontario Street
Chicago, IL 60611

CC:
Darryl A. Beehler, DO
Immediate Past President
American Osteopathic Association

RE: Combined AOA/ACGME Match for 4th Year Medical Students

Respected President and President Elect:

We, the undersigned osteopathic medical students and osteopathic physicians, are writing this letter asking you, Dr. Thomas and Dr. Shettle, to act in the best interests of osteopathic medical students and our osteopathic profession by supporting AOA policy which endorses a combined AOA/NRMP Match.

We support a system that would allow osteopathic medical students to rank both AOA and ACGME accredited programs together in one combined match. Placement of DO graduates into programs would be made by the rank-order lists of students and residency programs, and would occur on a single match date.

A combined match system is in the best interests of the individual osteopathic medical student, because it gives the student the opportunity to rank all programs (AOA and ACGME) together according to their own individual criteria to meet their own individual needs (e.g. specialty choice, location, and other factors). The current system leads many students to not rank any AOA internship programs that they are potentially interested in, because they will be automatically withdrawn from consideration from any ACGME programs ranked through NRMP if they are matched with an AOA program.

A combined match system is also in the best interests of the osteopathic profession as a whole, because it will increase the percentage of DO students that rank, and match into AOA programs. Intuitively, there is a much greater chance that a student who ranks AOA programs #2, #4, and #8 in a combined match system will match into an AOA program, compared with the current system which leads approximately half of DO students to not participate in the AOA Match at all. Over recent years, statistical trends point to an increasing number of DOs who enter ACGME programs with and without prior GME training, and a decreasing percentage of COM graduates in osteopathic internships1,2.

We are proud to be part of the osteopathic profession founded by Andrew Taylor Still and are very much invested in its future and in the future of the AOA. We believe that our profession will be strengthened by a combined match which will both enhance opportunities for individual students, and help secure the future of osteopathic Graduate Medical Education. We ask for your personal support, and for the support of the AOA House of Delegates in approving policy which will put this plan into action.

Thank you for your careful consideration.

Sincerely,

Name/School/Year/Phone Number/Email


1. Brotherton SH, Rockey PH, Etzel SI. US Graduate Medical Education, 2002-2003. JAMA. 2003;290:1197-1202.
2. Obradovic JL, Beaudry SW, Winslow-Falbo P. Osteopathic Graduate Medical Education. JAOA. 2004;104:468-478.

 

[TCOM-2006]

thank you TCOM2006 and PAC to DOC for your comments.
basically, i guess we will just delete the paragraph that was added.

i am going to post the petition without the paragraph. if anyone has any other comments to make re the petition, now is probably the time to make any concerns/suggestions known.

if there are not any suggestions for change by the middle of the week, we can all assume that the petition is final and we can start on working how to start getting signatures.
we should probably create a new thread at that time with the finalized petition(that can be downloaded) and also to monitor the status at each respective school.

thanks to everyone who has contributed so far.

sounds like a good plan Bookworm - strong work.

 

[raptor5]

Count me in for PCOM. I will do all I can to grab signatures from the classes of 2007 and 2008.

 

[Bookworm]

thanks raptor5.

PACtoDOC - UNT HSC/TCOM
delicatefade - CCOM
bookworm - UMDNJ SOM
elysium - TUCOM NV
Thousandth - DMU
jhug - AZCOM
docslytherin - KCOM
DrMom - OSU COM
raptor5 - PCOM


btw, i converted the petition to PDF format and am posting it.
if anyone finds any grammatical/style mistakes, please let me know.

thanks again to everyone contributing to this effort.

 

[eadysx]

if anyone finds any grammatical/style mistakes, please let me know.

thanks again to everyone contributing to this effort.

Just made a few changes to it. Fixed a split infinitive, made a comma correction to "which and that". And changed a few words that, IMHO, makes it sound more professional.

E-

George Thomas, DO
President
American Osteopathic Association

Philip L. Shettle, DO
President-Elect
American Osteopathic Association

Chicago Office - Main Headquarters
142 East Ontario Street
Chicago, IL 60611

CC:
Darryl A. Beehler, DO
Immediate Past President
American Osteopathic Association

RE: Combined AOA/ACGME Match for 4th Year Medical Students

Respected President and President Elect:

We, the undersigned osteopathic medical students and osteopathic physicians, are writing this letter asking you, Dr. Thomas and Dr. Shettle, to act in the best interests of osteopathic medical students and our osteopathic profession by supporting an AOA policy that endorses a combined AOA/NRMP Match.

We support a system that would allow osteopathic medical students to rank both AOA and ACGME accredited programs together in one combined match. Placement of DO graduates into programs would be made by the rank-order lists of students and residency programs, and would occur on a single match date.

A combined match system is in the best interests of the individual osteopathic medical student, because it gives the student the opportunity to rank all programs (AOA and ACGME) together according to their individual criteria to meet their needs (e.g. specialty choice, location, and other factors). The current system leads many students not to rank any AOA internship programs that they are potentially interested in, because they will be automatically withdrawn from consideration from any ACGME programs ranked through NRMP if they are matched with an AOA program.

A combined match system is also in the best interests of the osteopathic profession as a whole, because it will increase the percentage of DO students that rank, and match into AOA programs. Inherently, there is a much greater chance that a student who ranks AOA programs #2, #4, and #8 in a combined match system will match into an AOA program, compared with the current system which leads approximately half of DO students to not participate in the AOA Match at all. Over recent years, statistical trends point to an increasing number of DOs who enter ACGME programs with and without prior GME training, and a decreasing percentage of COM graduates in osteopathic internships 1,2.

We are proud to be part of the osteopathic profession founded 130 years ago, and are very much invested in its future and in the future of the AOA. We believe that our profession will be strengthened by a combined match, which will both enhance opportunities for individual students, and help secure the future of osteopathic Graduate Medical Education. We ask for your personal support, and for the support of the AOA House of Delegates in approving policy which will put this plan into action.

Thank you for your careful consideration.

Sincerely,

Name/School/Year/Phone Number/Email


1. Brotherton SH, Rockey PH, Etzel SI. US Graduate Medical Education, 2002-2003. JAMA. 2003;290:1197-1202.
2. Obradovic JL, Beaudry SW, Winslow-Falbo P. Osteopathic Graduate Medical Education. JAOA. 2004;104:468-478.

 

[DrMom]

From my quick perusal, this looks good (and professionally stated). I'm going to look over it more closely tomorrow or Tuesday.

Hopefully, we can have this together within the next week.

 

[donvicious]

I plan to pass the petition out tomorrow at COMP.

Any last minute changes?

Please PM me with an address to send the completed petitions.

 

[Bookworm]

it appears as if no one has any significant changes to the petition (unless DrMom has a sig revision) [ i will check early tomorrow morning to see].
therefore, i am going to start a new thread with a PDF version of the petition so it will be easier to track the status of the petition at the various COMs.


please print out the PDF as there is one change that TCOM2006 mentioned earlier that is corrected on the final version. that is referring to it as the combined AOA/NRMP match not AOA/ACGME match.

 

[DrMom]

There were some grammatical changes for the petition...maybe I can PM them to you.

BTW: I just found out today that I'll be presenting this to my fellow students at a meeting this Friday.

 

[Bookworm]

please do
thanks

 

[DrMom]

gimmie a few minutes here

 

[Bookworm]

take your time

 

[Bookworm]

the final PDF document is now posted. look for the sticky in the Osteopathic forum.

 

[doctorperez]

Hi Guys

One question as I try to take a stand on this - will MDs be able to match DO residencies as part of these proposed changes? thanks.

 

[DrMom]

Hi Guys

One question as I try to take a stand on this - will MDs be able to match DO residencies as part of these proposed changes? thanks.

That is not part of the arrangement at this time.

 

[delicatefade]

Update on CCOM - we are meeting with our Dean on January 25. The petition will circulate after that.

 

[TomC727]

Update on CCOM - we are meeting with our Dean on January 25. The petition will circulate after that.

Very Good

 

[Thousandth]

Hey did you all get the online questionair about the combined match from the COGSP? Do you think this will help/hinder the efforts we are making with the petitions?

Just to update I am still circulating them at DMU. Trying for maximum sigs.

 

[Robz]

Hey did you all get the online questionair about the combined match from the COGSP? Do you think this will help/hinder the efforts we are making with the petitions?

Just to update I am still circulating them at DMU. Trying for maximum sigs.

I think the petitions are a better way. its nice to have a online survey to get some numbers but since it is open to the public it is subject to one indivdual (and not even a DO student at that) doing the same answer choices over and over and over. I do give it up as the survey is a step in the right direction. I myself have the m1 class yet to go we had quite a few m2's sign.

 

[PACtoDOC]

So are we really ready to get moving on this issue yet? I had been delaying at my school because I had heard that the AOA prez was coming to our school to discuss this very issue. I wanted to coincide his presence with the circulation of the petition. Anyone heard anything like this on their end? TCOM2006?? Where are you on this?

 

[Docgeorge]

It does not appear as if Dr. Thomas (thats what it says on his Lab Coat in the JAOA instead of George Thomas, DO) will be comming to our school.

 

[Robz]

So are we really ready to get moving on this issue yet? I had been delaying at my school because I had heard that the AOA prez was coming to our school to discuss this very issue. I wanted to coincide his presence with the circulation of the petition. Anyone heard anything like this on their end? TCOM2006?? Where are you on this?

discuss or dodge???

 

[bgibney]

discuss or dodge???

Yes, he certainly prescribes to the Patches O'Houlihan 5 D's - dodge, dive, dip, duck, and dodge