Good post. The problem is a basic economic question involving trade-offs.
PCPs and their supporters will argue that we need to increase primary care reimbursements by shifting some of the money away from specialists. The argument is that that this will encourage more people to enter primary care residencies if they are assured that it will be possible to pay off their medical school loans in a reasonable amount of time.
Specialists and their supporters will argue that this is a bad idea because decreasing the salary of specialists will discourage people from going into specialties, and will result in a specialist shortage mirroring the current PCP shortage, especially in residencies that don't offer super glamorous pay and great hours, such as general surgery. They would argue that this solution creates another problem, in other words, because people won't have an incentive to pursue the residencies with longer years and longer work hours.
So, what to do? Both sides have valid arguments. The solution isn't easy. One of the two articles mentions increasing the number of residency spots. But even opening 15 more US MD schools over the next 20 years won't solve the PCP shortage, because even if you double the number of residency spots, the throughput from the medical schools will still be significantly less. In other words, you can double the number of residency spots, but unless you double or triple the number of US MD spots in medical schools, who is going to fill the residency shortage? Hundreds of spots in pcp residencies already go unfilled each year, even with the influx of DO and FMG grads into these programs.
