Doc fix repealed... effect on GME?

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

Chicago2012

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
227
Reaction score
130
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2/text

I'm curious whether this bill will have any positive effect on Graduate Medical Education. With the current issues with expanding medical school enrollments and the impending worsening off the physician and primary care shortages residencies are not expanding as quickly as they should, and as a result, every year more and more medical graduates are left without a residency and no foreseeable way to pay off the enormous mountain of debt they have accumulated. I also know that GME finding comes, in no small part, from Medicare funding. Is there any thought that this will at least partially alleviate this problem?
 
A) No. The SGR repeal has nothing to do with GME funding.

B) The mods should make a function so that every time someone mentions a residency "shortage", this post from @DocEspana gets quoted automatically, because he nailed it much more eloquently than I've seen anyone else manage:

Both the AACOM and AAMC know that residency is NOT currently a bottleneck they way they like to suggest it is, but that they will have to make it one. Let me expand. And this is me expanding in the most superficial way possible since I could discuss many elements of this AT LENGTH. Everyone constantly bitches to congress that residency is a bottleneck, that there isnt enough specialties, that they need to cough up more money to make more spots, that they need to add spots here*-here**-and-here***. But congress has the numbers, they know the truth. Residency is not a bottle-neck and all and there are thousands of more spots than their are graduates. That with very few exceptions there is an *excess* of specialists over what is needed (every number you hear about specialists shortages is presuming that the existing specialists arent going to redistribute themselves. So its effectively measuring the deficit in middle america and ignoring an excess on the coasts. Excess > deficit in this case). That they have no need to create more spots for American students at the cost of the american taxpayer when we have american tax-funded spots going to non-americans. And that they really need to add spots there^-there^^-and-there^^^

*= NYC or Boston
** = Chicago or LA
*** = Warm major cities with close access to beaches
^ = The applachian mountains
^^ = The ozarks
^^^ = Places with perpetual winters and entire communties with only dial-up internet.

This wont stop the people with vested interests (AACOM, AAMC, ACGME, AOA, AMA) from fighting the good fight over and over by ramming their head against the wall of resitance in the government and hoping for a different outcome... but they also arent idiots. The writing is on the wall. All the involved groups know that the US wont act *until* there is either a true calamity that is truly imminent, or until US students are actually going to these primary care programs in undesirable locations. That everyone says they want to do primary care doesnt help the cause. So the second-level game is that IF the government isnt going to budge on the number of spots available until the extant ones are better utilized, then this is a land grab. There is *possiby* a finite number of residency spots in the immediate future. The AAMC wants to expand to force the issue with the governmental powers that be. The AOA wants to expand because this is its time to increase its hold on the overall medical numbers. To avoid calamity, the "n" of students will only appoximate the "x" of residency spots. Never meet. Never exceed. Even in a theoretical world devoid of incredibly qualified foreign applicants. So the AOA wants to fill as much of the "n" as possible and are willing to cut corners because they see this as a "move it or lose it" situation for the degree's future.

I may be a DO, but my experience is at the AMA end. The AMA is in no way shape or form open about their feeligns on this. Their stance is residency should be expanded, the end, period, full stop. But every member talks quite openly with other members about 1) how its pretty obvious that forcing the issue by expanding medical education without expanding residency is going to be the only way and 2) Its pretty obvious, and the DOs who are sent from the AOA admit it openly too, that this is a land-grab by the AOA trying to make sure they have a higher representaiton once the roster fills up in this attempt to push the issue.
 
I'd like to hear more about how there's " thousands more spots and there are graduates". I've never heard that before, and I'm trying to figure out how that works in conjunction with a lot of people going unmatched every year. Thanks!
 
I'd like to hear more about how there's " thousands more spots and there are graduates". I've never heard that before, and I'm trying to figure out how that works in conjunction with a lot of people going unmatched every year. Thanks!
Projected number of US grads for year of 2018 is 21k MDs + 6k DOs = 27k

The number of PGY-1 positions is 27k ACGME + 3k DO + 1.5k between AUA, SF, and the military matches = 31.5k

Therefore, even if the number of residency spots remain constant, in 2018 there will be 4.5k more pgy1 spots than American medical grads.
 
I'd like to hear more about how there's " thousands more spots and there are graduates". I've never heard that before, and I'm trying to figure out how that works in conjunction with a lot of people going unmatched every year. Thanks!

Please see:
Projected number of US grads for year of 2018 is 21k MDs + 6k DOs = 27k

The number of PGY-1 positions is 27k ACGME + 3k DO + 1.5k between AUA, SF, and the military matches = 31.5k

Therefore, even if the number of residency spots remain constant, in 2018 there will be 4.5k more pgy1 spots than American medical grads.
and
Talking ACGME and U.S. MD alone - there are 1.4 residency slots (excluding prelims) per US MD student

Being a shortage of spots is similar to when people tell you there is no expansion of residency despite there being hundreds of new residency spots each year. We its more convenient to believe the lie than to sound arrogant and say the truth: There are thousands of extra spots, and each year we get a few hundred more, but they're all in spots *I* dont want to go to or in fields *I* believe are below me so I will simply make believe they dont exist. THOUSANDS of them.

Why do people go unmatched? Mostly because they are overly confident in their chances and dont rank enough, or they are completely shooting for the moon and are applying for a field they stand no chance in. You have to apply to the ozarks to get into the ozarks. This is something international students know and they tend to match up much of those "less preferable" locations, leaving the map looking especially barren when SOAP time comes around.

I could get into a whole tax-funding based conversation on how matching a US student who has been buffered by the US tax system through their education is infinitely more preferable to matching a foreign graduate (unless youre importing a superstar foreign physician who needs residency to practice here), but matching ANYONE is preferable to not matching, since residents from anywhere = $$$ for the hospitals.
 
I'd like to hear more about how there's " thousands more spots and there are graduates". I've never heard that before, and I'm trying to figure out how that works in conjunction with a lot of people going unmatched every year. Thanks!
There are over 6,000 more spots than there are US MD and DO graduates. US MDs and DOs that go unmatched usually do so because they applied out of their reach, didn't apply broadly enough, or have serious red flags. No one cares about IMGs- they generally get the scraps, and are not considered when discussing GME at the national level.
 
Why do people go unmatched? Mostly because they are overly confident in their chances and dont rank enough, or they are completely shooting for the moon and are applying for a field they stand no chance in. You have to apply to the ozarks to get into the ozarks. This is something international students know and they tend to match up much of those "less preferable" locations, leaving the map looking especially barren when SOAP time comes around.

This exactly.
 
There are over 6,000 more spots than there are US MD and DO graduates. US MDs and DOs that go unmatched usually do so because they applied out of their reach, didn't apply broadly enough, or have serious red flags. No one cares about IMGs- they generally get the scraps, and are not considered when discussing GME at the national level.


Just wanted to take a look at the numbers myself. From the 2015 data tables: http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ADT2015_final.pdf

Total number of PGY-1 + PGY-2 positions in 2015 match = ~30k - around 4k prelim spots = 26k advanced positions.

Number of applicants = 18.5k US Seniors + 1800 Prior US MD grads + 4000 DOs (in NRMP match) = 24k US MD/DO applicants.

Adding DOs to the fold will add about 2600 advanced positions and 2200 applicants assuming all DO residencies can pass ACGME certification. Some of the DO applicants are likely double counted as they applied both ACGME and AOA, not sure how to account for that. But worst case situation right now is a total of 28.5k advanced positions and 26k US MD/DO applicants. So I agree it is certainly debatable whether we truly need more positions. Then there are ~7k US IMGs and 10k IMGs who will be increasingly SOL

Speaking from a selfish standpoint, I don't want spots expanded. It may help marginally in applying to residency, but we'll pay for it down the line. I, for one, would like to be in demand when I graduate residency and not be bent over a barrel in negotiations if I want to live somewhere remotely desirable.
 
Just wanted to take a look at the numbers myself. From the 2015 data tables: http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ADT2015_final.pdf

Total number of PGY-1 + PGY-2 positions in 2015 match = ~30k - around 4k prelim spots = 26k advanced positions.

Number of applicants = 18.5k US Seniors + 1800 Prior US MD grads + 4000 DOs (in NRMP match) = 24k US MD/DO applicants.

Adding DOs to the fold will add about 2600 advanced positions and 2200 applicants assuming all DO residencies can pass ACGME certification. Some of the DO applicants are likely double counted as they applied both ACGME and AOA, not sure how to account for that. But worst case situation right now is a total of 28.5k advanced positions and 26k US MD/DO applicants. So I agree it is certainly debatable whether we truly need more positions. Then there are ~7k US IMGs and 10k IMGs who will be increasingly SOL

Speaking from a selfish standpoint, I don't want spots expanded. It may help marginally in applying to residency, but we'll pay for it down the line. I, for one, would like to be in demand when I graduate residency and not be bent over a barrel in negotiations if I want to live somewhere remotely desirable.
Prior US MD grads are not considered the same as US MD (or even US DO) grads, as they have generally completed prior GME and do not have full funding. Adding them to your calculations is, quite frankly, inappropriate.

There were 6,465 osteopathic matriculants, and 20,343 MD matriculants in 2014. This year, there were 27,004 pipeline ACGME positions (many programs are not in the NRMP match, which accounts for the difference in my numbers, which come from the 2013-2014 GME resource book, and the NRMP match numbers). There were 2,464 positions in the osteopathic match in 2014. Adding these together comes to 29,468 total pipeline GME positions available in 2014. This adds up to 29,468 positions for 26,808 students. What this doesn't account for is that GME has grown at an average rate of 0.9% a year, consistently, ever since the GME cap was introduced, and that each medical school experiences roughly 1% attrition per year. So, worst case scenario, you have an excess of 2,660 positions, but realistically, you'll have 30,543 positions for 25,752 graduates, netting an excess of 4,791 positions in the 2018 match.

Also, you're already a resident. Of course you wouldn't want residencies expanded- you already have one lol. That's natural self-interest at work- I'm sure I'll want as few GME spots as possible after I land a residency as well. The problem, however, is that the lack of physicians in play has led to a proliferation of midlevels. The less physicians there are, the more people will seek to utilize nurse practitioners and physician assistants in our place.
 
There is a bottleneck at the residency training stage, but the bottleneck is for "number of new physicians able to practice in the US yearly" rather than "number of new US-trained physicians". That is, if you increase the # of residency spots, you increase the number of licensed docs. Period. Now, more of them are foreign grads... but if you want to address shortages of physicians, that's the only way to get more doctors. Increasing the amount of medical schools leaves the total number of doctors the same, just decreases the proportion of IMG/FMGs.

You can argue about physician shortages vs problems with distribution of physicians all you want though. Looking at the evidence I've read so far, both problems exist, and I'll say that there is a real shortage independent of the known distribution issues. Increased residency spots is the only way to solve that shortage with more physicians, with the only alternatives being people not getting cared for... or increased use of midlevels.
 
I wonder if the government should do something like the military, where they pay for the cost of attending medical school in its entirety and in return the graduate would need to work X number of years in undeserved areas. I, for one, would be down to such a deal.
 
I wonder if the government should do something like the military, where they pay for the cost of attending medical school in its entirety and in return the graduate would need to work X number of years in undeserved areas. I, for one, would be down to such a deal.

There already are a ton of programs like that....people don't do them because, well, people dont want to live in rural underserved areas.
 
There already are a ton of programs like that....people don't do them because, well, people dont want to live in rural underserved areas.

Or those programs are for PCPs only, so if you want to do anything more specialized, you are out of luck, even if you don't mind living in Nowheresville USA.

Chooks
 
There is a bottleneck at the residency training stage, but the bottleneck is for "number of new physicians able to practice in the US yearly" rather than "number of new US-trained physicians". That is, if you increase the # of residency spots, you increase the number of licensed docs. Period. Now, more of them are foreign grads... but if you want to address shortages of physicians, that's the only way to get more doctors. Increasing the amount of medical schools leaves the total number of doctors the same, just decreases the proportion of IMG/FMGs.

You can argue about physician shortages vs problems with distribution of physicians all you want though. Looking at the evidence I've read so far, both problems exist, and I'll say that there is a real shortage independent of the known distribution issues. Increased residency spots is the only way to solve that shortage with more physicians, with the only alternatives being people not getting cared for... or increased use of midlevels.

There is effectively no data showing any extant physician shortage in any field. There is data for primary care that there is a PREDICTED shortage. But it was predicted to have occurred last year. It didnt. It's based in estimates of population growth (which have been accurate) utilization (which overestimated reality) and retirement (which woefully overestimated retirement rate). But the point is that even in the most under served field. .. it's still a distribution issue, not an absolute number issue.
 
I wonder if the government should do something like the military, where they pay for the cost of attending medical school in its entirety and in return the graduate would need to work X number of years in undeserved areas. I, for one, would be down to such a deal.

As someone else mentioned. plenty of these programs exist. They're woefully underutilized
 
Agreed. I used to be one of the "we need more spots people" then I sat down and looked at the data. There are a ton of spots, just not in something people want to be in. We have this weird psychological trick we play with ourselves when we say "well SOMEONE wants those jobs." The problem is you have likely been trained in a big university setting in a metropolitan area and you are most likely to either be young adults starting out in life, young adults starting a new family, or older adults with a family in tow.

That means you don't want: 1. To live in a rural area where your prospects for meeting a mate are slim, 2. Where there are fewer of the "fun" activities occurring, 3. Where internet is terrible, 4. Where there aren't great job prospects for your partner or stuff for your family to do or a great school for your kids. 5. Where there isn't a lot of research occurring to enhance your future job prospects.

There are the rare few or the international students that know they have to apply widely or don't mind being rural, but that simply won't fill up the regional deficit we have in primary care. Most people want the big city lifestyle of fun things close-by, people of similar ages, and resources that allow your future prospects to remain open. If you go to a rural program in the middle of north dakota you simply won't have the same opportunities you would working in any of the west, south, or east coast cities.

Programs do exist to try to overcome this issue, but as stated above, they are underutilized partly because people value their daily residency experience more than being saddled with debt. No one wants to hear "but you'll save thousands in interest and debt repayment" when the nicest restaurant in town is a Waffle House. People should care about such future financial incentives, but: https://blog.personalcapital.com/retirement-planning/average-401k-balance-age/ ....people just don't.
 
Top