Dr. Bauer's Response In Regards to Current Job Market

[KeratinPearls]

I emailed Dr. Bauer about my concerns about the current job market in Pathology. He did reply and here is his response.

By now you should have heard from someone in our Council on Membership and Professional Development. However, I just briefly wanted to respond to your concerns. The resident I have heard from and survey data that we have from last year suggests that the job market has been relatively balanced without a significant excess of either open positions or applicants. I have heard some other concerns that this may have changed very recently with fewer position open possibly because some pathologists delayed retirement because of the poor financial markets. However I don't think we have any data to support this yet. If this is the case, it probably will improve as the economy recovers. The CAP is going to be conducting some manpower surveys to see if we can develop better information on demand and supply for pathologists that could help young physicians plan better.

Sincerely,

Steve Bauer

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Sulfinator]

Well, I am glad to see that he took the time to give you a thoughtful response. I emailed Barbara McKenna a while back, asking for her perspectives . . . still waiting for a response.

 

[dwil75]

Thank you for taking the time to write and for posting this reply, KP. It is interesting.

 

[lipomas]

I'm glad they are doing more work on it. I think the line, "relatively balanced without a significant excess of either open positions or applicants" is probably pretty accurate. It doesn't take a huge number of people having difficulty before cages start getting rattled. I think some of the problem now is that there are so many different TYPES of job in pathology that many open jobs will not be suitable for certain candidates. Thus, people often have to take jobs outside of their geographic area of choice. That is not ideal but (despite what is said on this forum) it is not nearly so cut and dried to change that. If all jobs around the country were similar and all wanted general pathologists maybe with a subspecialty, that would be different. But it isn't often true.

I am glad they are paying more attention though. We need to get past anecdote and rumor, as well as attempting to parse poorly-collected data.

 

[zao275]

I am a member of the CAP Residents Forum Executive Committee (RFEC). Last summer, based on many job market concerns that were voiced at the RF meeting at USCAP 2009 in Boston, we decided to utilize a survey of new in practice pathologists to gauge their feelings and experiences with the job market. All 9 of us path residents and fellows on the RFEC submitted questions that we thought were pertinent. CAP then had the survey finalized and administered via a professional company that specializes in surveys and statistical analysis (point of all of this being that this was actually a valid and real survey that was done professionally, not just some email that was sent out by a handful of residents!). The final results were quite encouraging, in my opinion. Unfortunately, the full detailed survey results have not yet been officially released (over 30 pages of data, including many comments free text typed by surveyed pathologists mentioning things that either helped or hurt them in their job hunt). However those of us in the RFEC are working on a way to have the majority of the results released in a more complete form, hopefully either in CAP Today or in Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. In the mean time, here is the link to a powerpoint that was presented to the CAP Residents Forum at CAP 2009 last fall in DC: http://www.cap.org/apps/docs/pathology_residents/pdf/job_market.ppt. The powerpoint is a summary of the important findings and conclusions of the survey results. I hope some of you find this useful.

Bottom line from what I have seen from survey results and anecdotal evidence from newly hired path grads I know: Maybe some people have trouble finding the exact job they want in the exact place they want, and of course some people just have a run of bad luck! But overall it seems to me that the job market is NOWHERE near as horrible as many people make it out to be. But I guess you should ask me again in two years when I am finished with fellowships and ready to get a job!

As Dr. Bauer said, we hope to continue and expand these surveys to track the path job market over time, perhaps even on an annual basis.

 

[moonraker]

.

 

[BU Pathology]

I am a member of the CAP Residents Forum Executive Committee (RFEC). Last summer, based on many job market concerns that were voiced at the RF meeting at USCAP 2009 in Boston, we decided to utilize a survey of new in practice pathologists to gauge their feelings and experiences with the job market. All 9 of us path residents and fellows on the RFEC submitted questions that we thought were pertinent. CAP then had the survey finalized and administered via a professional company that specializes in surveys and statistical analysis (point of all of this being that this was actually a valid and real survey that was done professionally, not just some email that was sent out by a handful of residents!). The final results were quite encouraging, in my opinion. Unfortunately, the full detailed survey results have not yet been officially released (over 30 pages of data, including many comments free text typed by surveyed pathologists mentioning things that either helped or hurt them in their job hunt). However those of us in the RFEC are working on a way to have the majority of the results released in a more complete form, hopefully either in CAP Today or in Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. In the mean time, here is the link to a powerpoint that was presented to the CAP Residents Forum at CAP 2009 last fall in DC: http://www.cap.org/apps/docs/pathology_residents/pdf/job_market.ppt. The powerpoint is a summary of the important findings and conclusions of the survey results. I hope some of you find this useful.

Bottom line from what I have seen from survey results and anecdotal evidence from newly hired path grads I know: Maybe some people have trouble finding the exact job they want in the exact place they want, and of course some people just have a run of bad luck! But overall it seems to me that the job market is NOWHERE near as horrible as many people make it out to be. But I guess you should ask me again in two years when I am finished with fellowships and ready to get a job!

As Dr. Bauer said, we hope to continue and expand these surveys to track the path job market over time, perhaps even on an annual basis.

Thank you for posting this very useful information. Hopefully these data will appear in the peer-reviewed literature.

 

[exPCM]

I am a member of the CAP Residents Forum Executive Committee (RFEC). Last summer, based on many job market concerns that were voiced at the RF meeting at USCAP 2009 in Boston, we decided to utilize a survey of new in practice pathologists to gauge their feelings and experiences with the job market. All 9 of us path residents and fellows on the RFEC submitted questions that we thought were pertinent. CAP then had the survey finalized and administered via a professional company that specializes in surveys and statistical analysis (point of all of this being that this was actually a valid and real survey that was done professionally, not just some email that was sent out by a handful of residents!). The final results were quite encouraging, in my opinion. Unfortunately, the full detailed survey results have not yet been officially released (over 30 pages of data, including many comments free text typed by surveyed pathologists mentioning things that either helped or hurt them in their job hunt). However those of us in the RFEC are working on a way to have the majority of the results released in a more complete form, hopefully either in CAP Today or in Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. In the mean time, here is the link to a powerpoint that was presented to the CAP Residents Forum at CAP 2009 last fall in DC: http://www.cap.org/apps/docs/pathology_residents/pdf/job_market.ppt. The powerpoint is a summary of the important findings and conclusions of the survey results. I hope some of you find this useful.

Bottom line from what I have seen from survey results and anecdotal evidence from newly hired path grads I know: Maybe some people have trouble finding the exact job they want in the exact place they want, and of course some people just have a run of bad luck! But overall it seems to me that the job market is NOWHERE near as horrible as many people make it out to be. But I guess you should ask me again in two years when I am finished with fellowships and ready to get a job!

As Dr. Bauer said, we hope to continue and expand these surveys to track the path job market over time, perhaps even on an annual basis.

Complete garbage study IMO:
We surveyed a CAP Member Research Panel (258 CAP Fellows who have been in practice for 1-5 years.)

So in other words we surveyed only those who were able to get jobs about the job market. 258 is less than one half of the number of residents that finish residency in a single year. Talk about a fatally flawed study from the beginning

4018 CAP Fellow members are 55 and older.
This accounts for 36% of total Fellow members
Ages 55 through 65 account for 78% of the 55+ group
As Pathologists retire there will be a significant increase in available positions.

So about a third are older than 55, hence maybe a third will retire in any 10 year period. This implies a typical career length of 30 years. How is this different than any other specialty? How is this different than all the past hype about mass retirements that never materailized?
How many fellowships did you complete?
One 67%
Two 30%
Three+ 3%
So now we have a third doing 2 or more fellowships. Doesn't sound like a good job market to me.

What CAP career resources did you find valuable in your job search?
Open positions on the Online Career Ctr 48%
Networking at the annual meeting 16%
Posting my resume online via OCC 14%
Use of the CAP online membership directory 11%

The most valuable resource currently only has 44 AP/CP jobs listed of which 11 are with the Army Reserve - is this supposed to indicate a good job market?
9 Dermpath jobs of which 3 are looking for dermatologists only.
3 Hemepath jobs.
If I had to design a study in advance to come to a conclusion that I wanted to come to - that the job market is okay - this is about how I would do it.
The study is total garbage IMO.

 

[Pathwrath]

I'll wait for the published results. I'm sorry, but I couldn't get past "as pathologists retire there will be a significant increase in available positions."

An oldie and a goodie, but horse$hit nonetheless.

 

[Arctic Char]

...I guess you should ask me again in two years when I am finished with fellowships and ready to get a job!

thanks for the post, and the work on behalf of our field. but the fact that you pluralize fellowshipS in anticipation, is NOT suggestive of a good job market!! if you mention to people in other specialties the notion of multiple fellowships, their eyes bug out of their head in shock. granted, we are not other specialties. but supply and demand is universal, and we should have our services in as much demand as that of any other specialty. but that isn't the case, evidenced by the experiences people have as they finish their training. as EXPCM noted, maybe 4,000 CAP fellows are older than 55, and so maybe - maybe - we can expect them to all retire in a 10 year window. and in that time we will have pumped over 5,000 into the market. great math guys!

cut 1/3 of all residency positions nationwide.

 

[Parts Unknown]

Complete garbage study IMO:

At least they are trying to collect data, which is more than I can say for some.

The missing exPCM Job Market Survey:

1. How many fellowships do you plan on doing?
[ ] 3
[ ] 9
[ ] 40

2. How many years did you search for a job?
[ ] 2
[ ] 5
[ ] 18

3. What word (s) would you use to best describe the pathology job market (check all that apply)?
[ ] Bad
[ ] Atrocious
[ ] Terrible
[ ] Awful
[ ] Horrible
[ ] Wretched

 

[Parts Unknown]

thanks for the post, and the work on behalf of our field. but the fact that you pluralize fellowshipS in anticipation, is NOT suggestive of a good job market!! if you mention to people in other specialties the notion of multiple fellowships, their eyes bug out of their head in shock. granted, we are not other specialties.

Yes, and our fellowships are usually one year long. Two IM fellowships would be a six year commitment.

 

[zao275]

Thanks for all of the feedback on this.

Pathwrath: The portion about pathologists retiring was not part of the survey but was just part of the presentation given to the Residents Forum and represents the views of the presenters. But I wholeheartedly agree that this data needs to be published in the literature so it can be openly and correctly evaluated and criticized appropriately.

exPCM: Sorry to disappoint you. We really did try our best to make it a good study. But your criticisms are well taken. I think we would like to expand this study to include a larger sample size. And as far as whether or not the job market is good or bad is based on personal interpretation of the results. I will admit that I am somewhat of an optimist, so I am definitely biased in my views on this. If you have further ideas on how we could make this a more useful survey, I really would be happy to hear them. Thanks for the feedback.

Artic Char: Thanks for your support of the work we are trying to do in the Residents Forum. In regards to the fellowships (with an S), I already have been accepted to both of them and will start in July, so it is not in anticipation. I am doing soft tissue and dermpath, because I really am fascinated with both fields and I would like to do academics (at least I think so). I think dermpath is plenty marketable on its own but soft tissue is just really cool, so I wanted to do it as well.

As far as cutting residency spots goes, that was the suggestion of some at the spring 2009 Residents Forum meeting. And that was the exact reason that we decided to do this survey (even if it seems sub-par to some readers), so that at least some data was available for people to base their actions on, rather than jumping to conclusions based on anecdotal evidence and making drastic changes.


Finally, do any of you have links to other job market data or surveys? I am the admin of the Pathology Resident Wiki and I recently created a Pathology Job Market page on the wiki. I would like to add links to as many resources as possible so that those concerned about this issue can get all of the info and then make their own decisions. Feel free to post links on the wiki yourself or just post them on this thread and I will add them.
http://pathinfo.wikia.com/wiki/Pathology_Job_Market_Data

Thanks again!

 

[Pathwrath]

If you have further ideas on how we could make this a more useful survey, I really would be happy to hear them. Thanks for the feedback.

You can see by the responses so far that CAP, academics et al will use your results to justify their doing nothing, and all those who believe we are training too many pathologists will discount your findings.

Therefore, I would suggest highlighting the limitations of your survey and urge CAP to perform a comprehensive prospective survey of post-graduate pathology employment. They have the bucks and means to do so, but they will not act unless you force the issue.

 

[zao275]

Thank you for that suggestion, Pathwrath. That actually seems like a great idea. I assume that you mean essentially tracking what happens to all residents when they graduate and seeing where they go?

I think for our survey, we (at least those of us as residents who are about to go through this) were most interested in not only if jobs exist, but are they the kind of jobs/location/salary, etc that we are all hoping for. I mean, honestly, are there truly that many unemployed pathologists out there in the US? I assume that most eventually find some job. But for myself at least, I am curious as to what kind of job they actually find.

The other thing is that in regards to cutting training positions, even if everyone decides this is the right thing to do, how do we do it? Who has the authority to do it? I don't think CAP can do force programs to cut spots. I don't think ACGME is allowed to, or so I have been told. I am no lawyer, but the other concern that some have mentioned is that any organized attempt to cut the number of pathologists (or any specialty for that matter) being trained could be viewed as an attempt to regulate the job market in an anti-competitive way and thus a violation of anti-trust regulations. I was pretty shocked to hear this and I don't know if it is true. Wikipedia says something in regards to specific exceptions being made to anti-trust in regards to resident training: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residency_(medicine)#Matching. What are your thoughts on HOW this would be done, if it should be at all?

 

[Pathwrath]

Thank you for that suggestion, Pathwrath. That actually seems like a great idea. I assume that you mean essentially tracking what happens to all residents when they graduate and seeing where they go?

I think for our survey, we (at least those of us as residents who are about to go through this) were most interested in not only if jobs exist, but are they the kind of jobs/location/salary, etc that we are all hoping for. I mean, honestly, are there truly that many unemployed pathologists out there in the US? I assume that most eventually find some job. But for myself at least, I am curious as to what kind of job they actually find.

The other thing is that in regards to cutting training positions, even if everyone decides this is the right thing to do, how do we do it? Who has the authority to do it? I don't think CAP can do force programs to cut spots. I don't think ACGME is allowed to, or so I have been told. I am no lawyer, but the other concern that some have mentioned is that any organized attempt to cut the number of pathologists (or any specialty for that matter) being trained could be viewed as an attempt to regulate the job market in an anti-competitive way and thus a violation of anti-trust regulations. I was pretty shocked to hear this and I don't know if it is true. Wikipedia says something in regards to specific exceptions being made to anti-trust in regards to resident training: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residency_(medicine)#Matching. What are your thoughts on HOW this would be done, if it should be at all?

Yes, the survey I think we'd all like finally to see is after how much training who ends up doing what and for how much. What percentage of all pathology residents land partnerships or equivalent academic positions three, five years post training? This is the data you would need to determine how many residents we should be training and which programs to cut. If you initiate a continuous survey you can adapt to future changes in the market automatically. CAP could easily do this.

Then what? It all depends on whether the data convinces enough people that the problem is serious and actionable enough to do something about. Other specialties already limit their number in the face of market changes. The issue is not whether this is legal or doable--it's already being done.

 

[skew2002]

As a Pathology resident in my 4th year of residency, I know that the job market is not excellent. In other words you are not guaranteed to pick the job you want, in the city you want, and then name your salary. However, with a little flexibility and good training, you will get a job...though maybe not your dream scenerio the first time around.

Here is my theory of why we are even having this discussion. The current state of the job market is complicated by the recent influx of more fresh-out-of-training Pathologists than years prior. Two things happened in my opinion that caused this. First, Pathology was decreased from 5 years to 4 years just a few years back. However, the number of residency training positions were not decreased to accomodate, for example currently a program with 20 residency spots will produce 5 residents per year in a 4 year program, where as in years past they would have produce 4 resident per year who were in a 5 year program. Multiply this effect across the country and now there are more Pathologists coming out of residency each year. In addition to this, there was a bolus of newly graduated residents from both 5th year and 4th year tracks who entered the market about 5-6 years ago. This large group represented the transition groups, with the final 5 year tracks and first 4 year tracks. Many of these people went into fellowships as a cushion because the market was saturated that year. To me this market the beginning of the current "cycle" we are in.

Then something else happened...Pathology groups started to realize that 4 years of training for Anatomic and Clinical Pathology just wasn't enough time to produce a "prepared" Pathologist. This has become well known in the Pathology world that it is VERY difficult to get a job straight out of residency. There was also an edge to those people who did a 5th year fellowship in a particular area of Pathology like Surgical Path, etc. Thus the day of the fellowship was born. I say that it was born because in a way it was...prior to only a few years ago most Pathologists did NOT do fellwoships. There was more on the job mentoring/training.

Now, this is where things get difficult to figure out for sure... Soondoing a one year fellowship became almost mandatory. It's hard to know if this is because the market was so bad or was it because "everyone else is doing one". Next, some people started doing a second fellowship to help sharpen their skills in a particular area of Pathology and to be more marketable for a job. Others did fellowships in areas like Derm or GI because of the financial benefits. Still others did fellowship because "everyone else was" or "all the residents in the class before them did". In a way, it's a vicious cycle because it is difficult to break this trend without being the person who doesn't do a fellowship. And others perhaps didn't feel prepared to start practicing. Luckily doing 3 fellowships has become taboo, since it suggests that you are afraid to get out a practice and are hiding in fellowship. So at least there is an unwritten limitation. As you can tell, there are a broad range of reasons residents pursue fellowships.

Personally, I am doing 2 fellowships.. one in Surgical Pathology and one is Cytopathology. Why am I doing 2 you might ask? Because I both want AND need to. I WANT to because I know it will make me a better Pathologist in the future (less likely to screw up) and hopefully make me more marketable to a potential group. I NEED to because, frankly, Pathology has become an increasingly complex field. Pathologists of the "old days" didn't have Molecular diagnostics, cytogenetics, complex flow cytometry and immunohistochemistry, etc to try and master. Our generation of Pathologists have a more diverse set of demands on our training and 4 years just isn't enough time. Two years of fellowships will give me more time to concentrate solely on the areas of Pathology that I want to practice/master. This focused training period will allow be not to be interupted by 3 months of microbiology here or 4 months of clinical chemistry there (as we do in residency). Anyway, this is my perspective for what it is worth. It's hard to say what the future hold for the specialty because Pathology is a "transforming" field.

 

[BU Pathology]

The AAMC published information based on a workforce study that includes all specialties. The workbook may be downloaded for free from their website:

https://services.aamc.org/publicati...ion=Product.displayForm&prd_id=160&prv_id=190

This was published in 2006 so the data a somewhat dated.

This is the source of the information indicating the age of physicians who are practicing pathology, we have the third highest proportion of physicians age 55 or older. This information is in the graph on page 8.

Other interesting data show the production rate of pathologists, proportion of physicians who are practicing in the state where they trained etc.

 

[Pathwrath]

The other thing is that in regards to cutting training positions, even if everyone decides this is the right thing to do, how do we do it? Who has the authority to do it? I don't think CAP can do force programs to cut spots. I don't think ACGME is allowed to, or so I have been told. I am no lawyer, but the other concern that some have mentioned is that any organized attempt to cut the number of pathologists (or any specialty for that matter) being trained could be viewed as an attempt to regulate the job market in an anti-competitive way and thus a violation of anti-trust regulations...What are your thoughts on HOW this would be done, if it should be at all?

This is a really good observation! Whether there are effective antitrust implications in decreasing training positions depends on how it is accomplished and whether or not you are cutting into the bottom line of people who can buy our Congress.

Accrediting bodies like the ACGME and RRC exist to set standards. If they officially deny accreditation on the basis of higher standards, it would be difficult to demonstrate restraint of trade.

But don't forget Jung v. AAMC, where the hospital-bought members of Congress inserted a rider in a pension fund law that created a magical anti-trust exemption for the Match. Sherman applies where the bought members of Congress say it does.

The question is, is there serious money behind bloated and crummy pathology residencies, enough to buy an antitrust ruling against the interest of everyone else? There's only one way to find out...

 

[dwil75]

I am just very happy to see a civil, productive, intelligent discussion on SDN of the job market. And grateful to those who are making an effort to look into this issue - thank you .

Certainly our personal experience has been that this is a tough, tough market this year. My husband has had just two interviews and no job offers and is an absolutely normal, well trained guy at a good program, willing to do either academics or private and to relocate anywhere. It's anecdotal, yes, but anecdotal for some is painful reality for others (as we have learned the hard way).

I have also read SDN for years and must say, the job market is always discussed here periodically - but I have never seen the focus on it as I have this last 6 months to 1 year. Which is again anecdotal, but says something to me...

Anyhow, thanks again for the info and interesting discussion!

 

[lipomas]

Personally, I would love to know just how many unemployed pathologists there are. Of these, I would like to know the specific reasons or factors involved.

I would also love to know how many people are in jobs that they didn't want because they couldn't find a better one. The "underemployed," so to speak.

We hear a lot on these forums about unemployed pathologists but we very very rarely actually hear from them directly. To me this suggests that truly unemployed pathologists are rare. I suspect there are more people in less desirable jobs, but again, why are they not here posting? It is quite odd to me that everyone here complaining seems to be complaining on behalf of someone else, or they are complaining because they are worried about their own future.

 

[yaah]

I think a systematic tracking of each residency graduate is ultimately one of the best ways to get at it. That is immensely difficult - sounds easy on the surface. Ideally one could coordinate with the ABPath (because they are supposed to keep active contact addresses for all diplomates).

Part of the problem is simply that a large proportion of any survey population will refuse to respond, even if it is basically forced down their throats. This will always limit things.

 

[zao275]

Thanks again for all of this great feedback! Our goal (or one of our goals) for the survey was to create an annual survey that would track trends in the market over time. We definitely see the need for that kind of info, I think. So this was our first attempt, but I would love to see it improved and expanded each year. Like pathwrath said, our hope was that if the surveys revealed a really tough job market (and again, maybe our survey just didn't sample the right population to show that), then maybe individual program directors would start getting worried and decrease spots in residencies of their own according, without anyone forcing them to do it. However, that brings up the other problem of who will do all the work if there are fewer residents?

I think that yaah's point about tracking would be ideal, but as he said, it would be tough to pull off. In regards to ABPath, I have heard that they have had trouble getting in touch with ABP certified pathologists about MOC, because people are not keeping their emails updated. So even they have problems tracking people!

Dwil75, sorry to hear about your husband. I think anecdotal reports of good or bad are definitely useful, but I think that anecdotes should lead us into trying to get good hard data that we can then use to try to fix the problems. So I guess we are in the data acquiring mode, but we still need to continue to find ways to improve the quality of our data perhaps.

BTW, I have sent the link to this thread to other members of the RFEC as well as several CAP staff members, so they can read this conversation and then we can discuss it at our next conference call. It is very helpful to get everyone's different views on this, especially when the criticisms are constructive and the suggestions are detailed and focused. So thanks again to all of you guys!

 

[lipomas]

I'm not surprised ABPath is having difficulty getting in touch with people. They say they have a hard time keeping updated with people but if you read the website the only way for them to keep in touch with you is for you to FAX or US mail them (submissions via other methods will not be accepted) your changes. Otherwise they can't contact you. God help you if you don't know this and you have to find it on the website, because I just tried and I couldn't find it at all. The fact that people are going to have to recertify now means that their repository of information will improve by necessity, but that is still going to be up to pathologists since they can't seem to figure it out.

I have no idea why the ABPath cannot spend some of that money and hire a COMPETENT web designer who actually will design a site with the needs of site visitors in mind.



In regards to the point at the end of your first paragraph, zao275, "who does the work" should not be a reason that extra residents have to exist. Residents do not exist primarily to do work. They exist to be trained for future practice. In the course of this training they work, but if we start focusing on residents being "necessary" in order to get the work done in departments, then things are never going to change. That sends the wrong message.

 

[zao275]

According to the ABPath.org FAQ page, your contact info can be updated online via the new PATHway system. I logged in to PATHway and double checked and yes, under the "my profile" tab, users can update address, email, and phone number. For those who took the ABP exam prior to 2009 when the PATHway was created, it looks like there is a way to apply for access to PATHway. Here is the link: http://www.abpath.org/PathwayLinks.htm

In regards to the point at the end of your first paragraph, zao275, "who does the work" should not be a reason that extra residents have to exist. Residents do not exist primarily to do work. They exist to be trained for future practice. In the course of this training they work, but if we start focusing on residents being "necessary" in order to get the work done in departments, then things are never going to change. That sends the wrong message.

I COMPLETELY agree with you, Lipoma. I merely mention this just to say that some directors will consider this an important deciding factor if/when they are considering whether or not to cut residency spots at their program. I don't think it is right to have residents just for scut, and I am very very lucky that my program is not this way AT ALL. But I know that practically speaking, this is a very real issue for many programs. Just a possible roadblock that may come up if people decide there is a need to cut spots.

 

[yaah]

That would be helpful except that I believe PATHway is only for applicants for board exams. Once you pass and become a diplomate PATHway no longer applies to you. And to change your address you do, as said above, have to fill out a form indicating address or email changes. And this form can only be returned by mail or fax. And when I did it last year there was no acknowledgment of receipt.

 

[JPR22]

I cant see many program directors willing cutting their own spots. The hospital would lose alot of revenue.

 

[zao275]

Yaah: I called the ABP (Telephone: (813) 286-2444) and asked about this and they said that diplomats of the ABP from before PATHway existed can apply for access to PATHway now so that they can keep their info updated electronically. It shows how under the PATHway link on ABPath.org, but you can call if there are any issues. Looks like they are trying to fix this issue at least. I agree that lack of electronic means of doing things is pretty unacceptable these days! Hope this is helpful to you.