How exactly does the merger hurt caribbean students?

[Uafl112]

---

Members do not see this ad.

People on SDN keep mentioning that with the merger, getting residencies is going to be much more difficult for Caribbean students. Why exactly is it going to get harder? I ask because my friend is attending a Caribbean school.

 

[AlteredScale]

I believe it's because graduates of DO programs can now gain access to LCGME residency slots. Whereas before the only people competing for these spots used to be FMG's and MD grads, now DO grads have a shot. That is why it's stated that Carib grads will find in increasingly harder to return to the US for residency. I'm not as sound in this area however so I may be wrong.

 

[DoctorKrieger]

DOs have had access to ACGME spots for quite some time.

 

[Goro]

Correct.

I believe it's because graduates of DO programs can now gain access to LCGME residency slots. Whereas before the only people competing for these spots used to be FMG's and MD grads, now DO grads have a shot. That is why it's stated that Carib grads will find in increasingly harder to return to the US for residency. I'm not as sound in this area however so I may be wrong.

Correct, but now there will be even more access.
DOs have had access to ACGME spots for quite some time.

 

[4 lyfe]

It should also be mentioned that MD's will have access to DO residency spots too (in AOA).

 

[235009]

I believe it's because graduates of DO programs can now gain access to LCGME residency slots. Whereas before the only people competing for these spots used to be FMG's and MD grads, now DO grads have a shot. That is why it's stated that Carib grads will find in increasingly harder to return to the US for residency. I'm not as sound in this area however so I may be wrong.

Correct.

I can forgive the premed for being dead wrong but come on @Goro you should know better! There's nothing in the merger agreement that would even remotely change access to ACGME residencies for DOs. As stated above though US MDs and maybe IMGs and FMGs will start having access to DO residencies which hurts DOs. If anything, taken at face value, the merger helps IMGs. How much is yet to be seen.

 

[AlteredScale]

I can forgive the premed for being dead wrong but come on @Goro you should know better! There's nothing in the merger agreement that would even remotely change access to ACGME residencies for DOs. As stated above though US MDs and maybe IMGs and FMGs will start having access to DO residencies which hurts DOs. If anything, taken at face value, the merger helps IMGs. How much is yet to be seen.

Oh wow, I did not think of it that way as well! Thanks for the info and sorry for the misinterpretation!

 

[DrEnderW]

I think there's some semantics issues going on here.

1. DOs have had access to ACGME residencies. A huge percentage of DOs train ACGME.

2. You can't say access to ACGME won't change - that makes no sense. ALL US residencies will be ACGME. That's the point of the merger.

3. A primary reason for the AOA to agree to the residency merger was to keep DOs with AOA training eligible for ACGME fellowships. This would not be the case without the merger.

4. I think Goro's point was that DOs will apply to ACGME programs at higher rates because they won't have to gamble on skipping the AOA match to apply DO. That was pretty clear to me.

5. DOs generally have better match rates than IMGs so many people think that the influx of DO applicants (including many top DOs previously only applying AOA) will push out IMGs. Pure speculation. More DOs will be applying to residencies they previously were not - this puts pressure on IMGs because of pure numbers.

6. MD applicants will have to complete OMM training to be eligible for osteopathic focused ACGME residencies and will have hoops to go through before taking spots that were previously held for DOs.

7. Some people think DOs will be hurt by opening up MD access. Others think it will be offset by DOs applying to new programs, the OMM barrier, and general low-ranking of community programs. Top MDs will not be shooting for new ACGME programs at small hospitals with DO PDs at the rates some suggest, although it will happen to a certain degree. Again, pure speculation.

PM me if you want further info, this thread is about to become an arguing match.

 

[IslandStyle808]

This is one of the times I actually agree with MeatTornado. I remember posting about this concern a while ago and this was pretty much what I was thinking. There are still unfilled AOA spots every year in the match. Now with the merger, these spots can be accessed by US-IMGs and FMGs. Thus the percentage matching will go up initially for them. However, it is difficult to say how much. There will be those AOA programs that cannot meet ACGME standards and thus have to shut down (this is after the ACGME tries every effort to keep them open). This will be bad for DOs because now there will be less AOA spots to potentially apply to (I am strictly speaking from a number standpoint). It is difficult to say how things will change in the long run, because with increased competition and residency spots being capped, there will be those that may not match. Hopefully, DOs will be favored in the long run and increasingly so.

I think the real benefits comes from a few things that DrEnderW has pointed out. 1) DO students don't have to fear dropping out of the ACGME match and can apply to where they want (as long as expectations are within the realm of reason) 2) DO students that did AOA residencies can apply to fellowships and won't be barred out 3) When applying for a job after residency, with the ACGME label behind their training, hospitals will have an idea of the quality level (because in the past AOA residencies are extremely variable, some really good and some really bad).

 

[AlteredScale]

This is one of the times I actually agree with MeatTornado. I remember posting about this concern a while ago and this was pretty much what I was thinking. There are still unfilled AOA spots every year in the match. Now with the merger, these spots can be accessed by US-IMGs and FMGs. Thus the percentage matching will go up initially for them. However, it is difficult to say how much. There will be those AOA programs that cannot meet ACGME standards and thus have to shut down (this is after the ACGME tries every effort to keep them open). This will be bad for DOs because now there will be less AOA spots to potentially apply to (I am strictly speaking from a number standpoint). It is difficult to say how things will change in the long run, because with increased competition and residency spots being capped, there will be those that may not match. Hopefully, DOs will be favored in the long run and increasingly so.

I think the real benefits comes from a few things that DrEnderW has pointed out. 1) DO students don't have to fear dropping out of the ACGME match and can apply to where they want (as long as expectations are within the realm of reason) 2) DO students that did AOA residencies can apply to fellowships and won't be barred out 3) When applying for a job after residency, with the ACGME label behind their training, and hospitals will have an idea of the quality level (because in the past AOA residencies are extremely variable, some really good and some really bad).

Really good info. Thanks!

 

[BrooklynBulls]

30k positions in ACGME+AOA match. But this includes the 900+ AOA positions unfilled in the match, over 800 of which fill POST-MATCH (https://natmatch.com/aoairp/stats/AACOM-NMS-Apr4-14.pdf, page 27) These are not "real" openings that IMGs would hope to fill.

Total USMD+USDO students in last match: 22.3k. Expected to rise significantly due to pretty rapid expansion of DO graduates that does not show any signs of stopping, and moderate expansion of USMD grads too.

DO's are ever gaining more traction in the ACGME match. The data is clear, from 2k matches in 2010, rising every year to 2.7k in 2014, with an improving match percentage as well-- from 70.6% in 2010 to 77.7% in 2014. I predict that trend to continue, and possibly with the merger, accelerate.

The only way that the IMGs do not get squeezed out with this is if the number of residency spots expands as much as USMD and DO enrollment does. Residencies are capped, and I don't know if the exemptions/exceptions that have allowed the total number of spots to increase will continue, or if the 1997 cap will finally be lifted. If neither occurs, its the IMGs who are likely to suffer most.

 

[IslandStyle808]

DO's are ever gaining more traction in the ACGME match. The data is clear, from 2k matches in 2010, rising every year to 2.7k in 2014, with an improving match percentage as well-- from 70.6% in 2010 to 77.7% in 2014. I predict that trend to continue, and possibly with the merger, accelerate.

Agree with all of your post. I still think there might be a slight increases with the US-IMGs and FMGs for a few years, but then will decline drastically. What will be seen in the NRMP data post-merger is the true match percentage of DO graduates (ACGME+AOA residencies combined). It will be difficult to gauge the accelerated rate of DO matching until after 2020. This will be because of the potential shutdown of residencies and how AOA residencies will react to potential IMG and FMG applicants. After this point, then we will see the true outcome of this merger.

 

[235009]

I think there's some semantics issues going on here.

1. DOs have had access to ACGME residencies. A huge percentage of DOs train ACGME.

2. You can't say access to ACGME won't change - that makes no sense. ALL US residencies will be ACGME. That's the point of the merger.

3. A primary reason for the AOA to agree to the residency merger was to keep DOs with AOA training eligible for ACGME fellowships. This would not be the case without the merger.

4. I think Goro's point was that DOs will apply to ACGME programs at higher rates because they won't have to gamble on skipping the AOA match to apply DO. That was pretty clear to me.

5. DOs generally have better match rates than IMGs so many people think that the influx of DO applicants (including many top DOs previously only applying AOA) will push out IMGs. Pure speculation. More DOs will be applying to residencies they previously were not - this puts pressure on IMGs because of pure numbers.

6. MD applicants will have to complete OMM training to be eligible for osteopathic focused ACGME residencies and will have hoops to go through before taking spots that were previously held for DOs.

7. Some people think DOs will be hurt by opening up MD access. Others think it will be offset by DOs applying to new programs, the OMM barrier, and general low-ranking of community programs. Top MDs will not be shooting for new ACGME programs at small hospitals with DO PDs at the rates some suggest, although it will happen to a certain degree. Again, pure speculation.

PM me if you want further info, this thread is about to become an arguing match.

Solid post. Regarding #2 those kind of semantics are simply meant to obfuscate reality and confuse pre-meds into thinking that they'd have a better chance at current ACGME residency programs.

Also it is still unclear whether current AOA programs that gain ACGME accreditation would then participate in the ACGME match or still remain in a separate match. From everything I've read it seems like the two matches will remain separate at least for the foreseeable future which means DOs still won't be able to safely skip the AOA match but may now have (very few) US MDs, IMGs and FMGs competing for those spots. I wouldn't be surprised if PDs at programs that historically don't fill end up prefering to take an IMG or FMG with solid scores/performance rather than go through the scramble/SOAP in the hopes of scraping the bottom of the DO barrel.

If you have any info about how the match will work for newly ACGME accredited AOA programs would be very interested in hearing it.

 

[4 lyfe]

You guys/gals need to make sure you use the right terms. ACGME is not just swallowing up AOA (although they attempted this in the past but failed).

After the merger (ACGME and AOA), it will be called graduate medical education (GME). Now, I would like to think that it wouldn't simply be ACGME standards (why would AOA agree?). It will most likely be a compromise of the two routes for the ultimate benefit of the citizens.

 

[AvrgPreMedKid]

Just to add, I'm pretty sure people will still have to take the USMLE for allo residencies and COMLEX for osteo. My friend said something about a joint exam. He's dumb, right?

 

[DrEnderW]

If you have any info about how the match will work for newly ACGME accredited AOA programs would be very interested in hearing it.

I was recently told by the current AOA president that they are working for a joint match and the timeline is "a couple years." Personally, I don't think this will happen for multiple years. As a member of the class of 2017, I surely don't think it will impact me.

I was also told that some the ACGME requirements, such as the number of residents required per program, would be amended to allow for community hospitals/ smaller programs that met the other quality standards to continue to stay open. Hopefully other quality standards will allow the historically AOA programs to rise in quality.

You guys/gals need to make sure you use the right terms. ACGME is not just swallowing up AOA (although they attempted this in the past but failed).

They attempted a merger in the past and the AOA did not agree. Following this, new wording in fellowship eligibility essentially blocked AOA trained DOs from pursuing ACGME fellowships. This is a primary reason the AOA agreed round two (amongst many other legitimate reasons as well).

After the merger (ACGME and AOA), it will be called graduate medical education (GME). Now, I would like to think that it wouldn't simply be ACGME standards (why would AOA agree?). It will most likely be a compromise of the two routes for the ultimate benefit of the citizens.

Is this true? It is my understanding it will still be the ACGME with osteopathic trained members sitting on 20% of the council (significant veto power). There will be some compromises, as I stated above.

 

[DrEnderW]

Just to add, I'm pretty sure people will still have to take the USMLE for allo residencies and COMLEX for osteo. My friend said something about a joint exam. He's dumb, right?

I think the COMLEX will remain for the foreseeable future.

Right now, a sizable portion of ACGME residencies accept COMLEX scores in lieu of USMLE scores. I think common sense will tell you that taking the USMLE will be a huge asset compared to applying with COMLEX scores. DO students not planning on killing the USMLE from day 1 like their MD counterparts are out of their mind.

 

[235009]

You guys/gals need to make sure you use the right terms. ACGME is not just swallowing up AOA (although they attempted this in the past but failed).

After the merger (ACGME and AOA), it will be called graduate medical education (GME). Now, I would like to think that it wouldn't simply be ACGME standards (why would AOA agree?). It will most likely be a compromise of the two routes for the ultimate benefit of the citizens.

what is this gibberish?

all training is already divided into undergraduate medical education (UGME, 3-4 years of med school) and graduate medical education (GME, 3-7 years of residency and 1-3+ years of fellowship). The licensing organizations for UGME are LCME (MD) and COCA (DO). The two accrediting organizations for GME are AOA and ACGME. After the merger there will only be one accrediting organization which will in fact retain the name "accreditation council of graduate medical education" or ACGME. The standards are in fact those of the current ACGME with some possible very minor changes as @DrEnderW stated. The AOA agreed to be "swallowed up" by the ACGME because the ACGME threatened to bar all AOA trained physicians from entering ACGME fellowships.

I was recently told by the current AOA president that they are working for a joint match and the timeline is "a couple years." Personally, I don't think this will happen for multiple years. As a member of the class of 2017, I surely don't think it will impact me.

I was also told that some the ACGME requirements, such as the number of residents required per program, would be amended to allow for community hospitals/ smaller programs that met the other quality standards to continue to stay open. Hopefully other quality standards will allow the historically AOA programs to rise in quality.

Very refreshing to see someone who is actually willing to engage in an intelligent fashion on this issue. Your posts have been very informative, thanks.

 

[user3]

Since DO's now have 28% representation within the acgme leadership, why can't DO students applying as "independent applicants" in the match, end? Would it be unreasonable for us to be grouped with MD students as "US seniors"? Not that this would change existing biases, but it would be a step forward in putting US MD and DO students on a more equal footing. Why should we continue to be placed in a second tier of "guest" applicants to the match with FMG's?

 

[nolimits1]

I think there's some semantics issues going on here.

1. DOs have had access to ACGME residencies. A huge percentage of DOs train ACGME.

2. You can't say access to ACGME won't change - that makes no sense. ALL US residencies will be ACGME. That's the point of the merger.

3. A primary reason for the AOA to agree to the residency merger was to keep DOs with AOA training eligible for ACGME fellowships. This would not be the case without the merger.

4. I think Goro's point was that DOs will apply to ACGME programs at higher rates because they won't have to gamble on skipping the AOA match to apply DO. That was pretty clear to me.

5. DOs generally have better match rates than IMGs so many people think that the influx of DO applicants (including many top DOs previously only applying AOA) will push out IMGs. Pure speculation. More DOs will be applying to residencies they previously were not - this puts pressure on IMGs because of pure numbers.

6. MD applicants will have to complete OMM training to be eligible for osteopathic focused ACGME residencies and will have hoops to go through before taking spots that were previously held for DOs.

7. Some people think DOs will be hurt by opening up MD access. Others think it will be offset by DOs applying to new programs, the OMM barrier, and general low-ranking of community programs. Top MDs will not be shooting for new ACGME programs at small hospitals with DO PDs at the rates some suggest, although it will happen to a certain degree. Again, pure speculation.

PM me if you want further info, this thread is about to become an arguing match.

So following up with #6, how would a carribean/international medical graduate go about applying to a DO residency? Would they just have to write the COMLEX? How would they go about writing the COMLEX without any formal OMM education?

 

[DrEnderW]

So following up with #6, how would a carribean/international medical graduate go about applying to a DO residency? Would they just have to write the COMLEX? How would they go about writing the COMLEX without any formal OMM education?

No MD, US or IMG, would have to take the COMLEX.

What is being debated is the duration and breadth of the "osteopathic principles" requirement before being eligible for an osteopathically focused residency. It is unknown what the requirements will be. It is unknown if all previous AOA residencies will maintain this distinction.

 

[DrEnderW]

Since DO's now have 28% representation within the acgme leadership, why can't DO students applying as "independent applicants" in the match, end? Would it be unreasonable for us to be grouped with MD students as "US seniors"? Not that this would change existing biases, but it would be a step forward in putting US MD and DO students on a more equal footing. Why should we continue to be placed in a second tier of "guest" applicants to the match with FMG's?

I've actually never thought of that. My guess is that it would just say US Senior MD and US Senior DO or something to that effect.

Personally, I think the distinct makes sense to maintain. It is very helpful to see what percentage of programs rank DOs, what current ACGME specialties are unwelcoming, and to gain insight into the opinions of PDs. It's nice to be able to rationally decide "Hey, I'm probably not going to apply ACGME ENT as a DO." That's valuable information and needs to be available even if the wording is changed.

 

[hallowmann]

Solid post. Regarding #2 those kind of semantics are simply meant to obfuscate reality and confuse pre-meds into thinking that they'd have a better chance at current ACGME residency programs.

Also it is still unclear whether current AOA programs that gain ACGME accreditation would then participate in the ACGME match or still remain in a separate match. From everything I've read it seems like the two matches will remain separate at least for the foreseeable future which means DOs still won't be able to safely skip the AOA match but may now have (very few) US MDs, IMGs and FMGs competing for those spots. I wouldn't be surprised if PDs at programs that historically don't fill end up prefering to take an IMG or FMG with solid scores/performance rather than go through the scramble/SOAP in the hopes of scraping the bottom of the DO barrel.

If you have any info about how the match will work for newly ACGME accredited AOA programs would be very interested in hearing it.

The only hold up on the match merger, as far as I've heard, has to do with current contracts (apparently ~5yrs in duration) with the 3rd party that runs the match process. Everything I've heard points to a combined match in the future, but again that might take 5 yrs, and it would have to be at least that long when all programs are strictly ACGME accredited (2020).

Just to add, I'm pretty sure people will still have to take the USMLE for allo residencies and COMLEX for osteo. My friend said something about a joint exam. He's dumb, right?

No sign of a joint exam any time soon. That would require a lot more larger scale changes. It might happen someday, but I think it's safe to say it won't happen anytime soon (i.e. before anyone here takes the exams).

...Is this true? It is my understanding it will still be the ACGME with osteopathic trained members sitting on 20% of the council (significant veto power). There will be some compromises, as I stated above.

28%. Only time will tell what that means. Nothing changes overnight, but it would be nice to get an accurate idea about the rate at which DOs match, post-merger. That said, it's not like it'll affect those of us graduating in the middle of the transition. Either way, in the long run this is good news for DOs. It's much better to have a seat at the table than be a dependent bystander.

Since DO's now have 28% representation within the acgme leadership, why can't DO students applying as "independent applicants" in the match, end? Would it be unreasonable for us to be grouped with MD students as "US seniors"? Not that this would change existing biases, but it would be a step forward in putting US MD and DO students on a more equal footing. Why should we continue to be placed in a second tier of "guest" applicants to the match with FMG's?

I imagine there will always be two separate groups (they are two different sets of applicants), but maybe we won't be considered "independent applicants". That said, does it really matter?

So following up with #6, how would a carribean/international medical graduate go about applying to a DO residency? Would they just have to write the COMLEX? How would they go about writing the COMLEX without any formal OMM education?

Completely unknown at this point. Most likely each field will have different levels of requirements. But honestly, no one knows right now.

 

[IslandStyle808]

Your posts are excellent as always Hallowmann!

 

[user3]

28%. Only time will tell what that means. Nothing changes overnight, but it would be nice to get an accurate idea about the rate at which DOs match, post-merger. That said, it's not like it'll affect those of us graduating in the middle of the transition. Either way, in the long run this is good news for DOs. It's much better to have a seat at the table than be a dependent bystander.

I hope, at least, that those now representing us in the ACGME will push relentlessly for better access to more programs for DO's. There are countless programs where you will simply not be considered due to your initials, with many blatantly stating so. Addressing this should be our leaders' number 1 priority.

example: http://www.scripps.org/for-health-c...tal-internal-medicine-residency__how-to-apply

 

[hallowmann]

I hope, at least, that those now representing us in the ACGME will push relentlessly for better access to more programs for DO's. There are countless programs where you will simply not be considered due to your initials, with many blatantly stating so. Addressing this should be our leaders' number 1 priority.

This is probably true, and while I don't necessarily disagree, I know that these policies will only change with time.

Sure, there are a lot of residencies that flat out say they don't interview/rank DOs, but there are probably more that don't say it and just enforce it. That's not going to change until DOs trickle in, either by an increase in the volume of DOs applying or by a change in the PD. I'm not sure that is something that can be forced, but removing it from official policy may eventually lead to that (again though, I have a feeling that kind of change won't happen until well street we all match and graduate).

 

[GUH]

I'd bet my bottom dollar that some programs will continue to have written and unwritten policies excluding DOs well past 2020. Meanwhile, all osteopathic programs will be forced to consider MD applicants.

It will be interesting to see whether the osteopathic representation in ACGME will have to balls to call them out. I doubt they will since the ending the exclusion of DOs from certain ACGME programs is never discussed by merger proponents.

 

[GUH]

This is probably true, and while I don't necessarily disagree, I know that these policies will only change with time.

Sure, there are a lot of residencies that flat out say they don't interview/rank DOs, but there are probably more that don't say it and just enforce it. That's not going to change until DOs trickle in, either by an increase in the volume of DOs applying or by a change in the PD. I'm not sure that is something that can be forced, but removing it from official policy may eventually lead to that (again though, I have a feeling that kind of change won't happen until well street we all match and graduate).

Why not? The ACGME is forcing all former AOA programs to consider MDs.

 

[IslandStyle808]

Why not? The ACGME is forcing all former AOA programs to consider MDs.

In what way? (I'm curious about this)

 

[235009]

I'd bet my bottom dollar that some programs will continue to have written and unwritten policies excluding DOs well past 2020. Meanwhile, all osteopathic programs will be forced to consider MD applicants.

It will be interesting to see whether the osteopathic representation in ACGME will have to balls to call them out. I doubt they will since the ending the exclusion of DOs from certain ACGME programs is never discussed by merger proponents.

Why not? The ACGME is forcing all former AOA programs to consider MDs.

It's still going to be up to the PD at the AOA programs to decide whether to interview or rank MD students. Forcing a PD, whether AOA or ACGME, into a quota would be a radical change in policy that noone would stand for. Not to mention it's a terrible idea. I'm sorry that real life hasn't reflected the SDN mantras of "it doesn't matter which med school you go to" and "MD = DO" but in reality PDs will use all the variables available to them to make a decision and some of them have decided that they don't want/need to consider DO applicants...that's their prerogative.

 

[GUH]

It's still going to be up to the PD at the AOA programs to decide whether to interview or rank MD students. Forcing a PD, whether AOA or ACGME, into a quota would be a radical change in policy that noone would stand for. Not to mention it's a terrible idea. I'm sorry that real life hasn't reflected the SDN mantras of "it doesn't matter which med school you go to" and "MD = DO" but in reality PDs will use all the variables available to them to make a decision and some of them have decided that they don't want/need to consider DO applicants...that's their prerogative.

In what way? (I'm curious about this)

All former AOA residencies will be forced to consider MD applicants. That is one of the central concepts of the merger. Yes of course PDs will still have some discretion but it's clear that policies completely banning MDs will not be allowed. It seems quite unfair that there was no similar mention of eliminating policies which completely ban DOs.

 

[hallowmann]

Why not? The ACGME is forcing all former AOA programs to consider MDs.

Not really. They are "forcing" all AOA programs to accept applications from MD students. Kind of the same way as ACGME programs are "forced" to accept applications from DO applicants. There don't seem to be any requirement to really consider or accept either. That has been consistently left up to PDs.

 

[user3]

I'd bet my bottom dollar that some programs will continue to have written and unwritten policies excluding DOs well past 2020. Meanwhile, all osteopathic programs will be forced to consider MD applicants.

It will be interesting to see whether the osteopathic representation in ACGME will have to balls to call them out. I doubt they will since the ending the exclusion of DOs from certain ACGME programs is never discussed by merger proponents.

FWIW- somebody from last application cycle was apparently told this at their interview. this was after the first merger attempt had failed, but before the AOA finally agreed the second time months later.

"This was addressed at my ACOM interview. We were told that the ACGME wanted to take all DO residencies under the new merger and all the "power". That the AOA asked about DO students being treated as equal as MD and having rights to top programs. ACGME said they couldn't promise anything. They told us this is why the merger fell through, AOA did not feel that DO students would be treated fairly and they would loose all power to help."

Regardless, what exactly happened between the unsuccessful and successful attempt, I would love to know.

 

[hallowmann]

somebody from last application cycle was apparently told this at their interview:

"This was addressed at my ACOM interview. We were told that the ACGME wanted to take all DO residencies under the new merger and all the "power". That the AOA asked about DO students being treated as equal as MD and having rights to top programs. ACGME said they couldn't promise anything. They told us this is why the merger fell through, AOA did not feel that DO students would be treated fairly and they would loose all power to help."

this was after the first merger attempt had failed, but before the AOA finally agreed the second time months later. What happened between the unsuccessful and successful attempt, I would love to know.

I don't know if I'd flat out believe the statement of a new DO school's adcom member (or even dean), unless they had some clear involvement in the negotiations themselves. I would put as much stock in their statements as I would put in a statement by one of my peers about the merger. At best its speculation.

 

[GUH]

Not really. They are "forcing" all AOA programs to accept applications from MD students. Kind of the same way as ACGME programs are "forced" to accept applications from DO applicants. There don't seem to be any requirement to really consider or accept either. That has been consistently left up to PDs.

Do you really think that osteopathic-focused programs under ACGME will be allowed to post on their web sites that they don't accept MDs? Because that is contrary to what everyone, including the AOA, says.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Do you really think that osteopathic-focused programs under ACGME will be allowed to post on their web sites that they don't accept MDs? Because that is contrary to what everyone, including the AOA, says.

They don't need to say they don't. They just will claim that they were more impressed with DO students and took them instead.

 

[hallowmann]

Do you really think that osteopathic-focused programs under ACGME will be allowed to post on their web sites that they don't accept MDs? Because that is contrary to what everyone, including the AOA, says.

I never said I was opposed to the idea of having ACGME programs get rid of overt policies like that, but you'll never be able to take over control of who PDs actual interview and accept - if they don't want DOs/MDs they can easily not interview or rank them whether there is a written policy or not. That said, we have no idea what will happen after the merger. Its not clear that either types of programs will be able to have policies banning either set of applicants overtly.

 

[user3]

True, being allowed to apply vs being considered are not the same. However, allowing MD's to apply to our programs constantly seemed to be an important condition of the merger. While the AOA was ultimately pressured to accept this condition, there was zero talk regarding addressing the widespread "No DO's" policies on the ACGME side during negotiations (as far as we know), which only would have been fair. I think this is @GUH 's point.

I hope the AOA can use its 28% leverage to advocate for our best interests. A ban on overt DO discrimination (such as NYU's case) should be on the agenda, and right now.

 

[235009]

True, being allowed to apply vs being considered are not the same. However, allowing MD's to apply to our programs constantly seemed to be an important condition of the merger. Meanwhile, the AOA was ultimately pressured to accept this condition, there was zero talk regarding addressing the widespread "No DO's" policies on the ACGME side during negotiations (as far as we know). I think this is Guh's point, and I agree with

I hope the AOA can use its 28% leverage to advocate for our best interests. A ban on overt DO discrimination (such as NYU's case) should be on the agenda, and right now.

don't hold your breath

also, what you are essentially asking for is that these programs give you LESS information about their policies which would only result in dozens if not hundreds of DOs wasting their money applying to programs they have no chance at. As mentioned earlier PDs have the freedom to use whatever criteria they deem appropriate in choosing candidates as long as it's not a protected class (age, sex, sexual orientation, disability, etc). So if a PD thinks that MD graduates are superior to DO graduates then it's in your best interest to be informed of that no matter how much it rustles your jimmies.

 

[hallowmann]

True, being allowed to apply vs being considered are not the same. However, allowing MD's to apply to our programs constantly seemed to be an important condition of the merger. While the AOA was ultimately pressured to accept this condition, there was zero talk regarding addressing the widespread "No DO's" policies on the ACGME side during negotiations (as far as we know), which only would have been fair. I think this is @GUH 's point.

Yeah, but you're looking at this from a bit of a different way. The requirement was that MD's have access to all DO residencies, because to begin with DO's were already given access to all MD residencies (by the fact that they had the ability to apply to them - regardless of individual program policies). All that has been forced is essentially an equal ability for MDs to apply to DO programs. Neither side, as far as I have seen has even mentioned or discussed any requirement that programs MUST realistically consider all applicants, simply that applicants have an ability to apply in the first place.