How many people believe this?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I know man I can't wait till I have socialized medicine so that I can hang out at the doctors office all day wasting your hard earned taxes.

I mean it's not like other countries actually pay less per capita on healthcare and still get better results. Hmmmmm. ;)

You are right in general a strong social safety net will get abused by some people, that's life. but facts are facts our system is horrendously inefficient, not some Adam Smith invisible hand utopia. Don't let your idiology blind you to the mess that our bastardized private/public healthcare system is in, or more importantly will be in once the baby boomers start hitting skids.

I think we've beaten to death in other threads how flawed these 'indicators' of results are. I will agree with one thing, our system is a mess. Just don't ask me to replace it with a bigger mess run by the government.

Members don't see this ad.
 
I know man I can't wait till I have socialized medicine so that I can hang out at the doctors office all day wasting your hard earned taxes.

I mean it's not like other countries actually pay less per capita on healthcare and still get better results. Hmmmmm. ;)

You are right in general a strong social safety net will get abused by some people, that's life. but facts are facts our system is horrendously inefficient, not some Adam Smith invisible hand utopia. Don't let your idiology blind you to the mess that our bastardized private/public healthcare system is in, or more importantly will be in once the baby boomers start hitting skids.

Firstly, your indicators aren't that great, socialist systems come with their own set of problems with waiting and rationing, such as hip replacement patients waiting around until they are permanently bed ridden (just one example, but there are a multitude of them that have been discussed elsewhere on the forum.)

Our system doesn't work because health insurance is linked to employment, which seperates the cost of coverage from the risks resulting from behavior. This isolation alone leads to numerous inefficiencies because the incentives to patients to minimize their risks and costs are eliminated from the system.

Better results for socialism is simply a propoganda statement; it does not isolated lifestyle decisions and to a large extent the cost savings are related to the fact that the payer makes decisions about what to provide creating a MORE capitalist market incentive system, yes more. We could create similar cost reductions and we have in certain cases from integrating the insurance provider and the health provision institution; since the goal will be to minimize cost yet provide care of a quality that the patient is willing to pay a premium for (indeed this is how the VA system gets the nice results that have been recently touted by the socialists, rather than the fact that they are a gov't operation). In fact these private organizations will invariably be more efficient than their public sector counterparts.

You are not comparing a socialist system and a private system. You are comparing a socialist system and a farce of a private system in which the costs are not reflected in the prices. This system is broken, but running towards the all too tempting path of socialism has been and likely will be the path to slowed economic growth, inferior healthcare (both in technological advancement and speed of treatment), and in the long term a lazier less productive nation.

If we can fix the incentive structure, we will be more efficient than the socialists.

We can even eliminate the uninsured by giving them a graded tax credit to allow them to purchase health coverage and then make its purchase mandatory. No need to sacrifice access to healthcare to maintain high quality care. The level of care you want these people to afford could vary depending on what the nation as a whole decides (voting, it happens). It could range from what is available in most socialized system (lots of preventive, occasional limited or long wait access to procedures/equipment) or to the level of the best care currently available (top of the line and immediate). This safety net won't be abused much because people need money for other things and we can reduce the tax credit at a rate slower than their increased income so for every dollar they earn they get to keep a portion of it as disposable income, thus keeping the incentive to earn in place despite the safety net.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a pure capitalist, hell the earned income tax credit I advocated is income redistribution at its best, but I do believe in using the market as best we can to provide services and using the government to gently maintain balance if things get really out of wack (really wacky income distribution).

Of course if you just want a welfare check you can truly live off of and health insurance payed for by others who work, I'm sure you can find a wonderful country in Western Europe that is more your speed.
 
Firstly, your indicators aren't that great, socialist systems come with their own set of problems with waiting and rationing, such as hip replacement patients waiting around until they are permanently bed ridden (just one example, but there are a multitude of them that have been discussed elsewhere on the forum.)

Our system doesn't work because health insurance is linked to employment, which seperates the cost of coverage from the risks resulting from behavior. This isolation alone leads to numerous inefficiencies because the incentives to patients to minimize their risks and costs are eliminated from the system.

Better results for socialism is simply a propoganda statement; it does not isolated lifestyle decisions and to a large extent the cost savings are related to the fact that the payer makes decisions about what to provide creating a MORE capitalist market incentive system, yes more. We could create similar cost reductions and we have in certain cases from integrating the insurance provider and the health provision institution; since the goal will be to minimize cost yet provide care of a quality that the patient is willing to pay a premium for (indeed this is how the VA system gets the nice results that have been recently touted by the socialists, rather than the fact that they are a gov't operation). In fact these private organizations will invariably be more efficient than their public sector counterparts.

You are not comparing a socialist system and a private system. You are comparing a socialist system and a farce of a private system in which the costs are not reflected in the prices. This system is broken, but running towards the all too tempting path of socialism has been and likely will be the path to slowed economic growth, inferior healthcare (both in technological advancement and speed of treatment), and in the long term a lazier less productive nation.

If we can fix the incentive structure, we will be more efficient than the socialists.

We can even eliminate the uninsured by giving them a graded tax credit to allow them to purchase health coverage and then make its purchase mandatory. No need to sacrifice access to healthcare to maintain high quality care. The level of care you want these people to afford could vary depending on what the nation as a whole decides (voting, it happens). It could range from what is available in most socialized system (lots of preventive, occasional limited or long wait access to procedures/equipment) or to the level of the best care currently available (top of the line and immediate). This safety net won't be abused much because people need money for other things and we can reduce the tax credit at a rate slower than their increased income so for every dollar they earn they get to keep a portion of it as disposable income, thus keeping the incentive to earn in place despite the safety net.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a pure capitalist, hell the earned income tax credit I advocated is income redistribution at its best, but I do believe in using the market as best we can to provide services and using the government to gently maintain balance if things get really out of wack (really wacky income distribution).

Of course if you just want a welfare check you can truly live off of and health insurance payed for by others who work, I'm sure you can find a wonderful country in Western Europe that is more your speed.

What your suggesting is an ala cart system with a twist. Your saying to force the people to purchase insurance but give them tax breaks to do it and set a minimun standard of what this insurance will cover.

I've said that in the last five posts somewhere in here. It can work if you can get the govt. head out of you know where.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
We can even eliminate the uninsured by giving them a graded tax credit to allow them to purchase health coverage and then make its purchase mandatory. No need to sacrifice access to healthcare to maintain high quality care. The level of care you want these people to afford could vary depending on what the nation as a whole decides (voting, it happens). It could range from what is available in most socialized system (lots of preventive, occasional limited or long wait access to procedures/equipment) or to the level of the best care currently available (top of the line and immediate). This safety net won't be abused much because people need money for other things and we can reduce the tax credit at a rate slower than their increased income so for every dollar they earn they get to keep a portion of it as disposable income, thus keeping the incentive to earn in place despite the safety net.

Man,

We were agreeing on everything until this statement. I guess you can't win them all. Why would you ruin the capitalist system with all sorts of false government incentives and pseudo-welfare policies? We should be trying to completely get the government out of the process. Let charity pick up some of the slack for those that are really THAT poor. Maybe give doctor's charitable deductions for their charitable work. Heck, with all the pro bono work in EM due to EMTALA, they'd all be in the 0% tax bracket.
 
Man,

We were agreeing on everything until this statement. I guess you can't win them all. Why would you ruin the capitalist system with all sorts of false government incentives and pseudo-welfare policies? We should be trying to completely get the government out of the process. Let charity pick up some of the slack for those that are really THAT poor. Maybe give doctor's charitable deductions for their charitable work. Heck, with all the pro bono work in EM due to EMTALA, they'd all be in the 0% tax bracket.

I actually am not doing it for welfare reasons, but for political neccesity. I'm pretty sure we won't deny care to people who can't pay and we won't be able to make the purchase of health insurance mandatory without this tax credit. Those who advocate rights for the poor won't even think about letting it pass unless we make sure that the mandatory purchase we require is affordable. Our experience has shown that graded earned income tax credits are the way to do this while minimizing disruptions to free market efficiency.

Pro bono charitable donations could help, but it won't cover expenses which cannot be effectively covered with tax deductions; imagine trying to credit all the parties involved in an emergency surgery and compensate them adequately. Also if we remove the mandatory requirement we will end up with a bunch of people forgoing health insurance and abusing the pro bono services that are being provided. We could make the insurance mandatory at a certain level over the poverty line, but we will still be stuck with the coverage gap below that point and we will still have people utilizing service without compensating the providers.

Of course at the end of the day we are talking about a relatively minor difference and we are both very far from socialism.
 
If you agree with me that the purpose of healthcare is to keep people alive and healthy, I can make the following argument.

In order to stay alive and healthy you have to do the following:

1. EAT , without it you will die.
2. EAT healthy.

Those are the basic fundamental things, right?

If someone is poor, and can't afford to eat well or eat at all (at times) then they will be unhealthy or not alive, right?

So, if we are going to give tax incentives for healthcare, shouldnt we also be giving them for food, clothing, transportation, education and housing.

All of those things are perdictors of survival.

You will die if you are very cold, or if you don't have roof over your head etc.

I use this example because we all know that not everyone will be able to afford healthcare at ANY price.

Most of this talk is about the middle class individuals who have good jobs but still can't technically afford healthcare.

The other issue is for everyone. This issue is about disease that can't be prevented and need serious hospitalization. Things like cancer. We dont have much of a choice over that one.

So, shouldnt we focous on finding out how we can pay for hospitalized patient care and focous only on providing insurance for this purpuse.

I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere. since this is the most costly area, maybe this should be the only area we tackle.

I know that if private doctors offices actually collected money for what they did, they would for sure offer free care to those in true need.

(if you are pulling up to my office in an suv and telling me that you can't afford health insurance, I will tell you I can't afford to see you for free).
 
Thanks for sharing.
You got flaming because of your ignorant, prejudice remarks about fmgs. You also got a history lesson about FMGs and anesthesiology. If you don't like that. tough. Its a fact.

Since you are going into anesthesiology and since there are many FMGs with much more experience than you, I strongly suggest you learn how to play right. Unless you are one of those foreign people haters (I get that from the sound of your post). If you are one of those people, then you need much much more help than anyone in here can offer.

The "arrogant A$$" comment comes from your original statement. Why would you make such a comment about your teachers, collegues and possible future employers.

:mad:


Thanks for the history lesson. I was completely unaware of the state of anesthesiology 10 years ago. :laugh: "It's a fact". Whatever that means.

Here's my problem with the glut of IMG's that occurred in anesthesiology several years back. That occurred because of lack of interest in the field by US grads. Basically, the field was seen as a way to become a doc in the US. I would presume that many of these IMGs really had very little interest in anesthesiology. Point is, if I am working with a competent, well-read doc that has something to offer, I really don't care wheere they are from or where they have been.

I certainly didn't get that impression from the OP. Email George Bush. Ha! I can just see W now, in bed watching FoxNews with his laptop, telling Laura about this great plan. Yeah, right. He'll get right on it. After he sends more troops to Iraq, bans gay marriage, brings in more tax breaks for the top 1% earners... You want "ignorant" "arrogant" and "prejudice"? Read the OP. The data was wildly incorrect, the solution was illogical, and the entire post tasted of sour grapes. Frankly, if he was my attending during residency, I would learn more from a CRNA, one of the "NPs" he is so disgusted by.

Still think I need help? I'd love to learn from you. You sound like a kind, patient, compassionate individual. :barf:
 
Thanks for the history lesson. I was completely unaware of the state of anesthesiology 10 years ago. :laugh: "It's a fact". Whatever that means.

Here's my problem with the glut of IMG's that occurred in anesthesiology several years back. That occurred because of lack of interest in the field by US grads. Basically, the field was seen as a way to become a doc in the US. I would presume that many of these IMGs really had very little interest in anesthesiology. Point is, if I am working with a competent, well-read doc that has something to offer, I really don't care wheere they are from or where they have been.

I certainly didn't get that impression from the OP. Email George Bush. Ha! I can just see W now, in bed watching FoxNews with his laptop, telling Laura about this great plan. Yeah, right. He'll get right on it. After he sends more troops to Iraq, bans gay marriage, brings in more tax breaks for the top 1% earners... You want "ignorant" "arrogant" and "prejudice"? Read the OP. The data was wildly incorrect, the solution was illogical, and the entire post tasted of sour grapes. Frankly, if he was my attending during residency, I would learn more from a CRNA, one of the "NPs" he is so disgusted by.

Still think I need help? I'd love to learn from you. You sound like a kind, patient, compassionate individual. :barf:


You asked so, Yes, I still think you need help.

See, the problem is that you equate a bad anesthesiologist to an IMG. There are most likely just as many bad US grads as IMGs.

You can barf all you want, it is a reflection of your own hate and bitterness. you said it yourself, "competent".

Shame on you for stereotyping all incompetent anesthesiologist with IMGs.

As far as that stuff with G.Bush and all that. I have nothing to do with that. I only focoused on you post. His post was about mid-levels.

By the way its the same mid-levels that have taken many jobs away from MDs.
 
There are most likely just as many bad US grads as IMGs.

Ohh, yes. That's exactly what I've heard throughout these forums. That certainy explains why IMGs have NO PROBLEMS getting residency spots. That's why their pass rates for USMLE equal those of US grads. Come to think of it, I don't know why I have that perception. Certainly no one else has ever suggested such a preposterous conclusion. Heck, with statements such as "most likely", it seems as though you have no doubt this is the case.

You can barf all you want, it is a reflection of your own hate and bitterness.

No, it's a reflection of my nausea induced by your hypocrisy. It's funny how you don't seem to realize that your hatred for these mid-level providers likely exceeds any opinion I have for IMGs. I'm not the one starting threads voicing my opinions. I threw out one line based on my judgment that the OP was spiteful and ill-informed, thus not someone I would ever want to work with.

Here's my solution to the hypothetical problem presented- that there just is not enough jobs for MDs in the U.S. How about we no longer license graduates from foreign schools to practice in the U.S. We'll just graduate more NPs and PAs and CRNAs to fill their positions. That way our country can control the education received and guarantee the product.

Seems ridiculous? No more ridiculous than your idea. Yet I whisper my thoughts and make indirect statements. You stand on a box, broadcast your crazy idea, cry when no one follows you, jump on another's bandwagon when your idea floats again, then proceed to accuse others of despicable behavior.

Shame on who?
 
Ohh, yes. That's exactly what I've heard throughout these forums. That certainy explains why IMGs have NO PROBLEMS getting residency spots. That's why their pass rates for USMLE equal those of US grads. Come to think of it, I don't know why I have that perception. Certainly no one else has ever suggested such a preposterous conclusion. Heck, with statements such as "most likely", it seems as though you have no doubt this is the case.



No, it's a reflection of my nausea induced by your hypocrisy. It's funny how you don't seem to realize that your hatred for these mid-level providers likely exceeds any opinion I have for IMGs. I'm not the one starting threads voicing my opinions. I threw out one line based on my judgment that the OP was spiteful and ill-informed, thus not someone I would ever want to work with.

Here's my solution to the hypothetical problem presented- that there just is not enough jobs for MDs in the U.S. How about we no longer license graduates from foreign schools to practice in the U.S. We'll just graduate more NPs and PAs and CRNAs to fill their positions. That way our country can control the education received and guarantee the product.

Seems ridiculous? No more ridiculous than your idea. Yet I whisper my thoughts and make indirect statements. You stand on a box, broadcast your crazy idea, cry when no one follows you, jump on another's bandwagon when your idea floats again, then proceed to accuse others of despicable behavior.

Shame on who?

Since you chose to open this up again.

I simply state the level of education one has. PAs, NPs or CRNAs don't have the same level of education as MDs.

IMGs have to pass every single test and board certification as you did. Many IMGs are far better doctor than any US grad I've ever seen.

SO, stick that up your hate basket and jump on that fact.

I broadcast my ideas because I'm right. I never cry. Many accept my ideas.
Based on your post, it is you that has the dispicable behavior.

So why don't you go back to sleep on the job. Maybe you have been sleeping all your life.

You must be a second rate physician. Most likely that some IMG kicked your head in and you ended up the way you are.

My guess is that you are just bitter. Your post proves it.

Who is crying now. You. There is no place for people like you to practice medicine in the US. In your case I would rather work with a CRNA as well. At least they won't have your arrogance.

You call yourself a doctor. Grow up. You say your going to make lots of money? All the money in the world won't fix your misery.

IMGs have no problems getting residency spots until they meet people like you.

Look its not my fault that you work for the surgeon. It is not my fault that they laugh at you in the OR all the time.

Try opening your eyes once in a while and maybe they will include you in the club.
 
PUBLIC WARNING:

This thread will be closed if the personal attacks and insults continue. If you want to keep debating this issue at hand in this deteoriating manner I will close the thread. I understand that this issue might hit a nerve for some, but please maintain civility in this forum.

Thanks.
 
I actually am not doing it for welfare reasons, but for political neccesity. I'm pretty sure we won't deny care to people who can't pay and we won't be able to make the purchase of health insurance mandatory without this tax credit. Those who advocate rights for the poor won't even think about letting it pass unless we make sure that the mandatory purchase we require is affordable. Our experience has shown that graded earned income tax credits are the way to do this while minimizing disruptions to free market efficiency.

Pro bono charitable donations could help, but it won't cover expenses which cannot be effectively covered with tax deductions; imagine trying to credit all the parties involved in an emergency surgery and compensate them adequately. Also if we remove the mandatory requirement we will end up with a bunch of people forgoing health insurance and abusing the pro bono services that are being provided. We could make the insurance mandatory at a certain level over the poverty line, but we will still be stuck with the coverage gap below that point and we will still have people utilizing service without compensating the providers.

Of course at the end of the day we are talking about a relatively minor difference and we are both very far from socialism.


Well, I'll never agree with mandatory health insurance, but I can agree that you and I are MUCH closer to each other than the current clusterf**k that is the US healthcare system. Most of the time, we are on the same side.:thumbup:
 
TheBeyonder,

Back to your original posting. This is something I have tried highlighting before. My reason for highlighting it was that I don't think med students are getting the truth before deciding on their future career. Personally, I think that anyone who considers family medicine either doesn't understand what they're really getting into or because they have no other choice. Of course, there are a small minority who do so because they're driven by a strong desire to serve. Along with fam med I would include peds and int med if not followed by a fellowship.

But, I'm surprised at your post. You're an anesthesiologist, which is now one of the highest paid specialists. One look at the NRMP numbers tells you there are not enough gassers to match requirements for surgery, ortho, ob/gyn, et al. So, you're in good shape.

Take a look at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/29/grad_schools/main1453827.shtml

The absence of fp's salaries in the above article is quite telling, and just as telling is the comment that fp's are overworked while the rest of the article highlights the vacation, normal hours, and pay for everyone else.

In my facility the ICU nurses all apply to CRNA school - when the results come out you would think people have won the lottery - and, in many ways they have. As the above link shows CRNA's make almost as much as fp's, work less hours, and probably get higher sign-on bonuses. I wonder how much of the "problem" with CRNA's is due to the greed of your collegues?

It just seems like everyone ones to be a doctor, but no-one wants to go to med school - and guess what - they don't have to anymore.

An anesthesiologist friend of mine has just accepted his first job - 30 years old, 4 years of residency - $50k sigh-on bonus, $300k salary, and 8 weeks vacation.

So, if you think you've got a problem, spare a thought for primary care.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I'm glad there are fewer FMGs in anesthesiology, but obviously there is still one too many.
..not to mention elitist, and bigoted. FMGs were holding down the fort long before the current Influx of AMGs into the field based on *perceived* Lifestyle accompaniments. And guess who will be holding down the fort again in the future as reimbursements will inevitably decline, coupled with the insidious proliferation of MBA managed AMCs? Oh, I'm sure it will be the 230+ AMGs right? Or will they suddenly find their calling in whatever is paying best at that time....IR perhaps, or the coveted derm/plastics/Rad. Onc?
Get over yourself. All Doctors in this country pass standardized tests and you are no better than any of them, although if thats what you need to believe to maintain a hard-on, be my guest. When Malcolm S. Forbes surmised that "the purpose of education is to replace an empty mind with an open one" he unwittingly had your particular brand of ignorance in mind.And yet you've learned nothing have you? You may have enjoyed the closing Segment of Bill Mahers "Real Time" show last week entitled "new rules" In it, he appealed to all the touters of "America being #1 at well....everything" to bear a few statistics in mind. Essentially it went like this: # 42 at A, #95 at B, #76 at C etc. I suspect you don't watch that show, but thats not important. What is important is that you wake up, and realise that being an american graduated doctor makes you no better than anyone else. And much like the individuals Maher had in mind please remember that just because you keep saying you are 'numero Uno' does not objectively make it so.
 
..not to mention elitist, and bigoted. FMGs were holding down the fort long before the current Influx of AMGs into the field based on *perceived* Lifestyle accompaniments. And guess who will be holding down the fort again in the future as reimbursements will inevitably decline, coupled with the insidious proliferation of MBA managed AMCs? Oh, I'm sure it will be the 230+ AMGs right? Or will they suddenly find their calling in whatever is paying best at that time....IR perhaps, or the coveted derm/plastics/Rad. Onc?
Get over yourself. All Doctors in this country pass standardized tests and you are no better than any of them, although if thats what you need to believe to maintain a hard-on, be my guest. When Malcolm S. Forbes surmised that "the purpose of education is to replace an empty mind with an open one" he unwittingly had your particular brand of ignorance in mind.And yet you've learned nothing have you? You may have enjoyed the closing Segment of Bill Mahers "Real Time" show last week entitled "new rules" In it, he appealed to all the touters of "America being #1 at well....everything" to bear a few statistics in mind. Essentially it went like this: # 42 at A, #95 at B, #76 at C etc. I suspect you don't watch that show, but thats not important. What is important is that you wake up, and realise that being an american graduated doctor makes you no better than anyone else. And much like the individuals Maher had in mind please remember that just because you keep saying you are 'numero Uno' does not objectively make it so.

As I continue to be judged by those who likely did not graduate from the U.S., let me propose this- I can imagine you have endured far more prejudice, undeserved limitations and presumptions than I ever will. But please, don't build up steam based on your years of oppression only to throw it at my flimsy comment. I responded to a CLEARLY offensive, prejudiced, misinformed, petty dig at a population of caregivers that I believe play a vital role in our healthcare system. Frankly, I find it ironic that someone (OP) who I perceive to be educated outside the U.S., based on their grammar and syntax, can have such feelings. I'm not responsible for the sum of the years of hard times you have obviously received while a resident of the U.S. Don't pile your feelings on me.

I'm not an elitist. I'm not a bigot. Those are sweeping statements to save for a person displaying a series of actions or comments. I would hate to see a judgment of your life based on one sentence in an internet forum.

"Holding down the fort?" I disagree. Sure, once anesthesia (or any other hot specialty) drops in popularity, it might get so low that the few interested grads from American schools will be unable to fill the spots. And those spots will be filled by grads from other countries. And when that happens, I will continue to believe that most of the FMGs are not interested in anesthesiology per se, but in becoming a physician in the U.S. I think that a certain number of FMGs entering the U.S. will take whatever residency spot is offered them, in whatever field. That cannot be good for anesthesiology or any other specialty. I guarantee that you would prefer your field to be filled by the best of the best, as opposed to the group who gets last pick. THAT is why I have a problem with what happened 10 years ago. And THAT is why I can say, "I am glad there are fewer FMGs in anesthesiology". Because that reflects the fact that the people currently training in anesthesiology residencies are there because they have proven to be the best, not that they have proven to be the only ones left willing to go into a field with a questionable future.

Regarding your comment which calls to question my erectile abilities, I assure you that, based on board scores, I am well under the national average. My corpora cavernosa do just fine, nonetheless. Bill Maher? Don't suppose A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G about my TV habits. He's just the most recent in a long line of comedians with savvy writers feeding them the truth about America. I was watching Dennis Miller when you were probably learning multiplication tables, "but that's not important". You would be hard pressed to find too many people in these forums that are more critical of the U.S., or anything else in the world, than I am.

Thanks for the lesson on objective v. subjective. I certainly know I have never, in any post, claimed to be numero uno, numero once, or numero dos ciento y uno. If you read my Dean's letter, however, I am closest to the latter. You'd think I would want the stage to be set like it was a decade ago, when I could still walk into whatever town I wanted. Deep down inside, though, I am happy that my specialty, for now at least, is being filled with some of the brighter minds graduating from medical school, both inside and outside the U.S. That means I'll have colleagues I can trust.

And please, I'm really tired of the "wake up!" joke. Har-dee freakin' har. I GET IT!!! Anesthesiologists put people to sleep. Some anesthesiologists have been known to fall asleep. Let's try something new. Let's try having an honest, open discussion about what I have said, instead of name-calling, assumptions and your own little ball of misery built on how you have been treated by a hundred other people, but not me.

Where's all the slander for the OP? As I mentioned before, his comments were far more offensive than anything I have said. If your mind is so open, I would think you might be defending the NPs, PAs, etc. What have you got against the mid-level practitioners?
 
As I continue to be judged by those who likely did not graduate from the U.S., let me propose this- I can imagine you have endured far more prejudice, undeserved limitations and presumptions than I ever will. But please, don't build up steam based on your years of oppression only to throw it at my flimsy comment. I responded to a CLEARLY offensive, prejudiced, misinformed, petty dig at a population of caregivers that I believe play a vital role in our healthcare system. Frankly, I find it ironic that someone (OP) who I perceive to be educated outside the U.S., based on their grammar and syntax, can have such feelings. I'm not responsible for the sum of the years of hard times you have obviously received while a resident of the U.S. Don't pile your feelings on me.

I'm not an elitist. I'm not a bigot. Those are sweeping statements to save for a person displaying a series of actions or comments. I would hate to see a judgment of your life based on one sentence in an internet forum.

"Holding down the fort?" I disagree. Sure, once anesthesia (or any other hot specialty) drops in popularity, it might get so low that the few interested grads from American schools will be unable to fill the spots. And those spots will be filled by grads from other countries. And when that happens, I will continue to believe that most of the FMGs are not interested in anesthesiology per se, but in becoming a physician in the U.S. I think that a certain number of FMGs entering the U.S. will take whatever residency spot is offered them, in whatever field. That cannot be good for anesthesiology or any other specialty. I guarantee that you would prefer your field to be filled by the best of the best, as opposed to the group who gets last pick. THAT is why I have a problem with what happened 10 years ago. And THAT is why I can say, "I am glad there are fewer FMGs in anesthesiology". Because that reflects the fact that the people currently training in anesthesiology residencies are there because they have proven to be the best, not that they have proven to be the only ones left willing to go into a field with a questionable future.

Regarding your comment which calls to question my erectile abilities, I assure you that, based on board scores, I am well under the national average. My corpora cavernosa do just fine, nonetheless. Bill Maher? Don't suppose A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G about my TV habits. He's just the most recent in a long line of comedians with savvy writers feeding them the truth about America. I was watching Dennis Miller when you were probably learning multiplication tables, "but that's not important". You would be hard pressed to find too many people in these forums that are more critical of the U.S., or anything else in the world, than I am.

Thanks for the lesson on objective v. subjective. I certainly know I have never, in any post, claimed to be numero uno, numero once, or numero dos ciento y uno. If you read my Dean's letter, however, I am closest to the latter. You'd think I would want the stage to be set like it was a decade ago, when I could still walk into whatever town I wanted. Deep down inside, though, I am happy that my specialty, for now at least, is being filled with some of the brighter minds graduating from medical school, both inside and outside the U.S. That means I'll have colleagues I can trust.

And please, I'm really tired of the "wake up!" joke. Har-dee freakin' har. I GET IT!!! Anesthesiologists put people to sleep. Some anesthesiologists have been known to fall asleep. Let's try something new. Let's try having an honest, open discussion about what I have said, instead of name-calling, assumptions and your own little ball of misery built on how you have been treated by a hundred other people, but not me.

Where's all the slander for the OP? As I mentioned before, his comments were far more offensive than anything I have said. If your mind is so open, I would think you might be defending the NPs, PAs, etc. What have you got against the mid-level practitioners?

Since I had to go through residency, medical school, and a undergrad to get become a doctor, I take offence when someone without my level of training tells me that they can do my job as well as I can. I know they can't.

The reason you've gotten such a flaming is because you came in here and made this huge sweeping generelization about FMGs.
You stated that many FMGs take any residency just so they can get one, even if they are not interested in it.
I happen to know that many US grads do the same. They have all kinds of reasons for going into residency. AND, according to most surveys the first reason is MONEY.

So, I just can't find the evidence that there are sooo many US grads lining up to go into those specialties becasue they love it sooooo much.

You know as well I, that the reason no one was going into anesthesiology an radiology was for the same reason not many people are going into FP now. MONEY.

It is true for all specialties and if FP salaries ever go back up, it will be true for that too.

You also assume that because someone gets high grades in medical school or USMLE and gets into a competitive residency, that they are somehow smarter.

There have been countless studies done on this topic. Getting better grades or higher test scores does not mean someone is smarter, it just means they can do better on an exam. or they have a better memory. Intelligence has very little to do with memory alone.

So, some of those bright minds you speak of, well, they may not be so bright after all.

Thats why I feel you are so full of yourself. Get over it. I know doctors from other countries that could tell you word for word pages out of Harrisons. Some of them wrote part of the book. AND they are all FMGs. There are also US grads that can do the same.

So there you go, here is the start for your honest discussion.

I'm not saying this to be rude to you, but I really feel you have been sheltered.
 
As I continue to be judged by those who likely did not graduate from the U.S., let me propose this- I can imagine you have endured far more prejudice, undeserved limitations and presumptions than I ever will. But please, don't build up steam based on your years of oppression only to throw it at my flimsy comment. I responded to a CLEARLY offensive, prejudiced, misinformed, petty dig at a population of caregivers that I believe play a vital role in our healthcare system. Frankly, I find it ironic that someone (OP) who I perceive to be educated outside the U.S., based on their grammar and syntax, can have such feelings. I'm not responsible for the sum of the years of hard times you have obviously received while a resident of the U.S. Don't pile your feelings on me.

I'm not an elitist. I'm not a bigot. Those are sweeping statements to save for a person displaying a series of actions or comments. I would hate to see a judgment of your life based on one sentence in an internet forum.

"Holding down the fort?" I disagree. Sure, once anesthesia (or any other hot specialty) drops in popularity, it might get so low that the few interested grads from American schools will be unable to fill the spots. And those spots will be filled by grads from other countries. And when that happens, I will continue to believe that most of the FMGs are not interested in anesthesiology per se, but in becoming a physician in the U.S. I think that a certain number of FMGs entering the U.S. will take whatever residency spot is offered them, in whatever field. That cannot be good for anesthesiology or any other specialty. I guarantee that you would prefer your field to be filled by the best of the best, as opposed to the group who gets last pick. THAT is why I have a problem with what happened 10 years ago. And THAT is why I can say, "I am glad there are fewer FMGs in anesthesiology". Because that reflects the fact that the people currently training in anesthesiology residencies are there because they have proven to be the best, not that they have proven to be the only ones left willing to go into a field with a questionable future.

Regarding your comment which calls to question my erectile abilities, I assure you that, based on board scores, I am well under the national average. My corpora cavernosa do just fine, nonetheless. Bill Maher? Don't suppose A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G about my TV habits. He's just the most recent in a long line of comedians with savvy writers feeding them the truth about America. I was watching Dennis Miller when you were probably learning multiplication tables, "but that's not important". You would be hard pressed to find too many people in these forums that are more critical of the U.S., or anything else in the world, than I am.

Thanks for the lesson on objective v. subjective. I certainly know I have never, in any post, claimed to be numero uno, numero once, or numero dos ciento y uno. If you read my Dean's letter, however, I am closest to the latter. You'd think I would want the stage to be set like it was a decade ago, when I could still walk into whatever town I wanted. Deep down inside, though, I am happy that my specialty, for now at least, is being filled with some of the brighter minds graduating from medical school, both inside and outside the U.S. That means I'll have colleagues I can trust.

And please, I'm really tired of the "wake up!" joke. Har-dee freakin' har. I GET IT!!! Anesthesiologists put people to sleep. Some anesthesiologists have been known to fall asleep. Let's try something new. Let's try having an honest, open discussion about what I have said, instead of name-calling, assumptions and your own little ball of misery built on how you have been treated by a hundred other people, but not me.

Where's all the slander for the OP? As I mentioned before, his comments were far more offensive than anything I have said. If your mind is so open, I would think you might be defending the NPs, PAs, etc. What have you got against the mid-level practitioners?
You want to have an honest,open discussion instead of name calling and assumptions? And you submit that you know the difference between objectivity versus subjectivity? Excellent. Can you please provide some data correlating the deterioration of anesthesia provision during the time period dominated by FMG residents, you know the same residents who are now likely training the nacent US grads? I ask only for data as it is not based on perceptions, feelings or bias.
Incidentally, My USMLEs scores are a SD above the US average, and if this is what you are using to gauge the level of interest in anesthesiology applicants, would you advise me, an FMG, to steer clear of the field?
Furhtermore, the "wake up" remark was not an ill-placed pun tacked onto a discussion on anesthesia. Interesting interpretation though.
As for your for your being a critic of your country and global events, congratulations! "Dissent oils the wheels of democracy", and whatnot.
Finally, as an FMG I have felt very little prejudice in my medical training thus far. In Fact, to the contrary, I have been greeted quite warmly, although I strongly believe that has a lot to do with interpersonal skills rather than my ability to formulate a concise differential at the drop of the hat. The latter is extremely important, but in medicine, it is also a dime a dozen. Finding individuals who are both personable and smart is quite the challenge, and no one country, or school for that matter has a monopoly on those individuals. If you can bring both of those qualities to the residency interviewing table you will do quite well, based on my limited, admittedly anecdotal experience. Thanks for your concern about my "ball of misery" but I am doing quite well thanks.
Oh yeah, as for NPs, PAs, CRNAs, RAs etc. I feel they have an important job as physician extenders with the caveat that I think it behooves physicians to keep a close eye on their scope of practice and their ability to practice independently. While some might perceive this as prejudiced I prefer to think of it as being pragmatic. Its all just politics, but politics are important, and if more people had any clue about them, about lobbying groups, supply and demand, economics etc. we would find much less heated head banging and more discussion conducive to productivity, advancement, and possibly resolution of these important issues.
 
Evidence everywhere, even here, that communism (a.k.a socialism) is completely taking over. The thread is going to be closed if we keep hurting people's feelings by bringing to light real/actual differences in their educational and social backgrounds. Don't let's dare to bring up facts if they're upsetting to anybody. Let's just be in total denial.

Example: PAs and Nurses are JUST AS ADEPT at dispensing healthcare as are doctors. What? You think it's relevant that they have 1/4 the education as physicians? How dare you mention that! Close the thread!

Just pointing out how a general national trend is exemplified even on this site...
 
Example: PAs and Nurses are JUST AS ADEPT at dispensing healthcare as are doctors. What? You think it's relevant that they have 1/4 the education as physicians? How dare you mention that! Close the thread!


:laugh: :laugh: Indeed!
 
Evidence everywhere, even here, that communism (a.k.a socialism) is completely taking over. The thread is going to be closed if we keep hurting people's feelings by bringing to light real/actual differences in their educational and social backgrounds. Don't let's dare to bring up facts if they're upsetting to anybody. Let's just be in total denial.

Example: PAs and Nurses are JUST AS ADEPT at dispensing healthcare as are doctors. What? You think it's relevant that they have 1/4 the education as physicians? How dare you mention that! Close the thread!

Just pointing out how a general national trend is exemplified even on this site...

touche :thumbup:
 
OP,

You are missing one very important business point. The only reason a PA is getting paid a ridiculously high salarie is b/c the doctor is making money off of them. You can't pay a PA 200k/year unless they allow you to bring in more, otherwise, why keep them around? Why not just higher another doc? So...........to say that PAs make more than the docs they work for is incorrect.

It would be correct to say that some PAs make more than some docs but thats like comparing apples and oranges. You can't compare a CT PA working 80hrs a week to FP work 50.
 
It would be correct to say that some PAs make more than some docs but thats like comparing apples and oranges. You can't compare a CT PA working 80hrs a week to FP work 50.

The average income for PAs (all specialties) is around $80K/year. The average income for family physicians (generally considered to be one of the lowest-paid specialties) is roughly double that.
 
The average income for PAs (all specialties) is around $80K/year. The average income for family physicians (generally considered to be one of the lowest-paid specialties) is roughly double that.

the avg pa who works at least 32 hrs/week this yr made $84,396
if you exclude primary care pa's from the mix the avg goes up considerably....granted, no where near what most physicians make.
these are averages from last yrs pa survey:
CT/CV Surgery $99,134
Dermatology $95,973
Neurosurgery $91,201
Emergency Medicine $90,079
Surgical Subspecialties $87,711
Orthopedics $86,982
 
if you exclude primary care pa's from the mix the avg goes up considerably....granted, no where near what most physicians make.

Averages are, after all, just that. Half make more, half make less. ;)
 
There is really this strange sense of entitlement that medical students get, which is accompanied by an idea that they should be paid more than anyone. Of course a PA working in CT Surg with 20 years experience may make more than you when you open your Family Medicine clinic. CT surgery generates more money than family medicine. The CT Surg PA also does things that you can't do. The fact that we can find some PA making more than some MD is totally irrelevant. In general, MDs make more. If you want to make more than the CT surg PA, go into CT surg. If you would rather practice FM, that is excellent, but you won't generate as much money. There's nothing to be bitter about. That PA is on call all the time for catastrophic complications that the lesser paid doc probably doesn't deal with in day to day practice.

Even as Emedpa has pointed out on numerous threads. He makes more than some FPs in his area, but he has years of experience. He also works in a high acuity specialty. The EM MDs make more than he does around his area, and I'm sure that most PAs realize that this will always be the case for them. I'm sure he earns his income.:thumbup:
 
These arguments that argue for PAs are not making sense.
One superman character argues for socialism, and if you didnt argue for it, I apologize way in advance b/c I dont want to hear how it wasnt you, I dont have time to reread all the posts here, anyway people here who argue for PAs also argue for socialized medicine, and if you havent well some of you have so I dont want to argue that one of you believes in socialized medicine and one of you doesnt that isnt the point. The point is that the US is the only system with mid levels. We throw money at creating all these obsolete positions continually adding to invest in manpower, yet we are THE most ineffiecient health care system in the industrialized world. These other socialized medical systems are more efficient, see more pts, get more procedures done with less man power. Why do we create all these jobs, b/c some docs want to make a few extra bucks and a few others dont want to go to med school but want to be paid very large amounts of money.
The dictum is this is you support socialized medicine you cant endorse midlevels b/c socialized systems dont have midlevels.
I have spoken with Indians, English, Irish, Germans, Canadians, and we are the only system with all of these various midlevels for all these jobs that are done by medical students, doctors, and nurses in their countries. Yet our country with all these made up jobs, yet no more efficient. It is a waste. The health care system is cracking at the seems, none of my professional friends are going to stand for it anymore, no more of the big companies are going to stand for it anymore, govt isnt going to stand for it anymore, so the reality is that you will need a lot more education to survive in todays market and the midlevels jobs will be gone once socialized medicine rolls around. Docs will stick up for docs, but not for midlevels, go beg to become a nurse, you aint becoming no doc.
I am sick as crap that pa and the nps are stealing attending time and learning opportunities from med students and residents, it is total BS, I have paid a lot to have some pa learn what I am supposed to be learning, it is total crap.
 
actually lots of other countries use midlevels...
england/scotland, holland, canada, several asian countries, australia is starting a pa program in the next few yrs, etc
pa's work at all foreign embassies, in every branch of the military, in the public health service, peace corps, cia, etc
a pa just got promoted to the rank of admiral in the public health service this month.
your arguement that "midlevels will be gone in socialized medicine" is faulty.
midlevels are more cost effective than md's. if 1 md can "supervise" 4 midlevels for the price of 3 docs and do equivalent work(which they can when well supervised as shown in numerous studies) then you have 5 people working for the price of 4 docs. multiply this a bunch and there is some real money to be saved, especially in primary care. the future of family medicine project even talks about this concept of the fp doc as leader of a group of midlevels delivering more efficient care.......
with 140 pa programs and close to 300 np programs and 80,000 licensed pa's and 160,000 licensed np's(not to mention crna's and AA's who do 65%+ of the anesthesia in this country already and nurse midwives who deliver a large % of the babies) .
we are here to stay. get used to it.
oh, and while you are at it stop whining.....midlevels pay a lot for their education as well. they still have 4 yrs of undergrad plus professional training( rn, rt, medic, etc), + 2-3 yrs of grad school...lots of us have > 100k+ of debt.
 
These arguments that argue for PAs are not making sense.
One superman character argues for socialism, and if you didnt argue for it, I apologize way in advance b/c I dont want to hear how it wasnt you, I dont have time to reread all the posts here, anyway people here who argue for PAs also argue for socialized medicine, and if you havent well some of you have so I dont want to argue that one of you believes in socialized medicine and one of you doesnt that isnt the point. The point is that the US is the only system with mid levels. We throw money at creating all these obsolete positions continually adding to invest in manpower, yet we are THE most ineffiecient health care system in the industrialized world. These other socialized medical systems are more efficient, see more pts, get more procedures done with less man power. Why do we create all these jobs, b/c some docs want to make a few extra bucks and a few others dont want to go to med school but want to be paid very large amounts of money.
The dictum is this is you support socialized medicine you cant endorse midlevels b/c socialized systems dont have midlevels.
I have spoken with Indians, English, Irish, Germans, Canadians, and we are the only system with all of these various midlevels for all these jobs that are done by medical students, doctors, and nurses in their countries. Yet our country with all these made up jobs, yet no more efficient. It is a waste. The health care system is cracking at the seems, none of my professional friends are going to stand for it anymore, no more of the big companies are going to stand for it anymore, govt isnt going to stand for it anymore, so the reality is that you will need a lot more education to survive in todays market and the midlevels jobs will be gone once socialized medicine rolls around. Docs will stick up for docs, but not for midlevels, go beg to become a nurse, you aint becoming no doc.
I am sick as crap that pa and the nps are stealing attending time and learning opportunities from med students and residents, it is total BS, I have paid a lot to have some pa learn what I am supposed to be learning, it is total crap.


Your argument is flawed for one major reason. Most socialized systems are reactionary. As can be seen by the development of PA style positions in many of these countries now, the socialized system is slowly following the less socialized system. One can argue that the lack of PAs in many of these countries is a byproduct being behind due to socialism, not an advanced level of function because of it. I think you will have trouble arguing that PAs are actually costing money when they are used correctly.

I will say that the efficiency argument takes a different point with NPs. This is NOT because they can't function as midlevels, but because the government supported education they receive removes nurses from the workforce. In this case, our government, in the form of loans and funcing to schools, is promoting the transition of labor from a shortage area (nursing), to other areas with less severe shortages. Of course, one could argue that This is actually a RESULT of socialism in the US.
 
Hey, if PAs make more an do so much better than doctors, why not eschew working as a doctor and offer yourself up as a PA? Surely a physician is competant to be a physician assistant.
 
Hey, if PAs make more an do so much better than doctors, why not eschew working as a doctor and offer yourself up as a PA? Surely a physician is competant to be a physician assistant.

Wait, I'm confused...I thought the argument was that PAs were cheaper than doctors. How does that work if they're paid more than doctors? :confused:

Or maybe the argument is that doctors should be paid less money, until a PA's income exceeds that of an MD. Still, wouldn't that be self-defeating, since doctors would then be cheaper labor than PAs? (Well, the ones who bothered staying in practice would, anyway.)

I'm not buying it.
 
Wait, I'm confused...I thought the argument was that PAs were cheaper than doctors. How does that work if they're paid more than doctors? :confused:

Or maybe the argument is that doctors should be paid less money, until a PA's income exceeds that of an MD. Still, wouldn't that be self-defeating, since doctors would then be cheaper labor than PAs? (Well, the ones who bothered staying in practice would, anyway.)

I'm not buying it.

Two part argument. Part one is that PA's are cheaper to Train than physicians. 4 years of med school plus residency vs. 2 years of PA school.

The second part is physician income vs. PA income. I would have a hard time thinking of a situation where a PA and a physician were working in the same practice and the PA was making more. If there was a production incentive and the physician wasn't working very hard, maybe. Within a profession there are probably PA's that are making more than MD's but that is more a function of a well run practice or not. In some cases PA's may become partners in a practice.

In the case that was discussed we were talking about a PA in a different specialty making more than a physician. For example EMEDPA may make more than a FP physician. This is a function of the business dynamics of market. EMED reimburses much better.

I work in GI. I probably make more than a number of the FP physicians around here. I probably make less than 1/5 of what the partner gastroenterologists make.

Overall PA's save the healthcare a little money since for medicare they are reimbursed at 85%. However with cobilling and other methods this disappears. Couple that with the disappearance of straight medicare with the implimentation of part D and there is little difference.

From a business perspective a PA adds to a practice by bringing in income without the entanglements of another physician (partnership expectations
etc.)

David Carpenter, PA-C
 
Hey, if PAs make more an do so much better than doctors, why not eschew working as a doctor and offer yourself up as a PA? Surely a physician is competant to be a physician assistant.

Can't. Only way to be a PA is to go to PA school. Also you cannot work below your license in most states (ie. a physician can't work as a paramedic).

David Carpenter, PA-C
 
I think Panda Bear and I are both being sarcastic (at least I know I am). ;)
 
To the OP:

I agree with you. I heard that the business world is considering the exact same attitude in regard to the business world. Think of all the time, energy and education a CEO must endure before he or she arrives at the helm of the company. Jack Welsh worked for 30+ years before he became CEO of GE.

Which is exactly why they should outlaw entrepreneurs from starting their own corporation. These "capitalists" find a better method or invent a product or service that competes with the likes of big business!? They reap the rewards by becoming millionaires in less time w/o corporate ladder?! WHO ARE THESE PRICKS? They need to bow down and they MUST get an MBA.

The nursing associations and allied health field need to learn that healthcare in not about patients and 300,000,000 Americans; It is about being an M.D.! It is about our investment in medical school, residency, and jobs! We need to get rid of psychologists too because they didn't take the MCAT and STEP 1.

Yeah! Lets get fired up! Where's my pitchfork and torch?
 
Please don't start comparing the medical market to some large corporation.

Didn't you just read what they said? You can't work beneath your license.... This is not a free market... hello. A FM doc can't just walk over to a bank and grab a million dollar loan and open+practice as a Rheumotologist or a Surgeon or a Gastroenterologist.... There is a minimum level of accepted competence amongst those who practice 'Gastroenterology' or 'Cardiology' and if you aren't trained in it then you can't practice it under that label.... can't bill for it under that label.

So you can't do above/outside your level of expertise legally and you can't practice below legally...

What free market is this? Your comparison is garbage. :thumbdown:
 
Oh and btw...

I am one of those people PRO Nurse Practioners... Cause now you will end up with mid level competing for work...... you will see a drop of demanded salaries because there will be a larger supply... now that you get your pick of Nurse Practioners or Physician Assistants....

I wouldn't be surprised if soon we will see Nurse Practioner specializing so that they can do similar work in the ER and Surgery. The ER remains an odd game as the future is unknown.... ER is a young specialty so there are some serious issues to rise there soon... more ER residents will graduate in the future and the field will start being crowded.... high paying ER jobs will disappear as the market has more supplies of PA+NP+ER MD/DO.... further you might see more FM certification in the ER Fellowships... so the field will get crowded sooner or later.
 
These arguments that argue for PAs are not making sense.
One superman character argues for socialism, and if you didnt argue for it, I apologize way in advance b/c I dont want to hear how it wasnt you, I dont have time to reread all the posts here, anyway people here who argue for PAs also argue for socialized medicine, and if you havent well some of you have so I dont want to argue that one of you believes in socialized medicine and one of you doesnt that isnt the point. The point is that the US is the only system with mid levels. We throw money at creating all these obsolete positions continually adding to invest in manpower, yet we are THE most ineffiecient health care system in the industrialized world. These other socialized medical systems are more efficient, see more pts, get more procedures done with less man power. Why do we create all these jobs, b/c some docs want to make a few extra bucks and a few others dont want to go to med school but want to be paid very large amounts of money.
The dictum is this is you support socialized medicine you cant endorse midlevels b/c socialized systems dont have midlevels.
I have spoken with Indians, English, Irish, Germans, Canadians, and we are the only system with all of these various midlevels for all these jobs that are done by medical students, doctors, and nurses in their countries. Yet our country with all these made up jobs, yet no more efficient. It is a waste. The health care system is cracking at the seems, none of my professional friends are going to stand for it anymore, no more of the big companies are going to stand for it anymore, govt isnt going to stand for it anymore, so the reality is that you will need a lot more education to survive in todays market and the midlevels jobs will be gone once socialized medicine rolls around. Docs will stick up for docs, but not for midlevels, go beg to become a nurse, you aint becoming no doc.
I am sick as crap that pa and the nps are stealing attending time and learning opportunities from med students and residents, it is total BS, I have paid a lot to have some pa learn what I am supposed to be learning, it is total crap.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Way to go. This is exactly what I'm talking about. We don't need them.:laugh:
 
Oh and btw...

I am one of those people PRO Nurse Practioners... Cause now you will end up with mid level competing for work...... you will see a drop of demanded salaries because there will be a larger supply... now that you get your pick of Nurse Practioners or Physician Assistants....

I wouldn't be surprised if soon we will see Nurse Practioner specializing so that they can do similar work in the ER and Surgery. The ER remains an odd game as the future is unknown.... ER is a young specialty so there are some serious issues to rise there soon... more ER residents will graduate in the future and the field will start being crowded.... high paying ER jobs will disappear as the market has more supplies of PA+NP+ER MD/DO.... further you might see more FM certification in the ER Fellowships... so the field will get crowded sooner or later.

I doubt that there will be much competition with mid-level for jobs. PA's and NP's are generally employees while physicians are looking for partnership. There are about 600k physicians and 50k PA's about the same number of NP's in practice. So overall NP's and PA's are less than 15% of the total provider population. While these professions are expanding they are dwarfed by the increase in physicians. The competition is generally when a practice is at a point of looking for another provider. If you are not busy enough to justify another physician or don't want to divide the pie further then a PA or NP makes sense.

NP's are already specializing in ER - there are acute care NP's that do exactly this. Given the tremendous continuing demand for EM doctors, there is unlikely to be a shortage any time soon. Since the market is for the most part controlled by EM groups any decision on NP/PA vs. MD will be made by these groups.

Overall I think the PA advantage is that given a broad training they can move among specialties as shortages develop due to new demands. They do not replace physicians, but instead help smooth out the bumps in patient access.

David Carpenter, PA-C
 
hey! back into your hole fmg boy!

You know... normally I would be... WTF..... but in your case and his case and seeing both of your posts in the past... I'll make an exception and say.... carry on.:rolleyes:
 
I doubt that there will be much competition with mid-level for jobs. PA's and NP's are generally employees while physicians are looking for partnership. There are about 600k physicians and 50k PA's about the same number of NP's in practice. So overall NP's and PA's are less than 15% of the total provider population. While these professions are expanding they are dwarfed by the increase in physicians. The competition is generally when a practice is at a point of looking for another provider. If you are not busy enough to justify another physician or don't want to divide the pie further then a PA or NP makes sense.

NP's are already specializing in ER - there are acute care NP's that do exactly this. Given the tremendous continuing demand for EM doctors, there is unlikely to be a shortage any time soon. Since the market is for the most part controlled by EM groups any decision on NP/PA vs. MD will be made by these groups.

Overall I think the PA advantage is that given a broad training they can move among specialties as shortages develop due to new demands. They do not replace physicians, but instead help smooth out the bumps in patient access.

David Carpenter, PA-C

You make a lot of assumptions in those numbers. You forget there are CRNAs that cover docs and Radiologist Assistants plus a bunch i am sure I forgot... so the numbers for providers are not as straight up as you state.

Second, EM residency is the second fastest growing residency for Docs and it's only second because it's second to the IM prelim positions which are trying to keep up with the number of EM positions since IM prelim is a prerequisite for a lot of EM residencies.

Last year... the EM residencies graduated 200 more EM docs than it did 3 years ago. I am not saying 200 total... 200 MORE. This is all on the nrmp website. EM will sooner or later become crowded... and if the situation with primary care gets fixed... EM will be FLOODED since no longer people will go to the ER to because of a cough + fever. Of course this is a big "IF" but that doesn't eliminate the fact that sooner or later the good ER positions will start disappearing as more and more EM residents graduate.
 
He's not exactly talking graduate-level statistics, Kent. Mean vs. median is something a doctor who regularly reads scientific articles ought to be able to distinguish. ;)

If you'll both re-read my original post, I didn't use the term "median" or "mean." Both have been reported as "averages," but it wasn't necessary for me to distinguish between them in order to make my point, which is that there are incomes on both sides of any quoted average. You can't look at a reported average income and assume that's what you're going to make.

[Getting the feeling that both you guys got beat up a lot as kids. ;)]
 
If you'll both re-read my original post, I didn't use the term "median" or "mean." Both have been reported as "averages," but it wasn't necessary for me to distinguish between them in order to make my point, which is that there are incomes on both sides of any quoted average. You can't look at a reported average income and assume that's what you're going to make.

[Getting the feeling that both you guys got beat up a lot as kids. ;)]

You Kent I am very pro enforcing a statistical rotation on all Family Medicine docs out there to hammer the scientist into them... :laugh:

Having said that... I also believe that everytime after you see a patient you should go input their data into a spread sheet so you can analyze it later :laugh: and that all IRB committees must die. :smuggrin:

*No I was not bullied as a kid.*

Now having said all that garbage... I must admit that when it comes to income statistics.. damn freaking good survey studies are impossible to find... and if they are around they are probably old.

Did they account for Full time vs Part time? What about those who are the dean of a college or a senator or went to get a JD, was their income from that accounted for (incorrectly)?

All garbage... I'd like to see a monthly list of posted offers for physicians and maybe the word-of-mouth salaries offered monthly, take the median of all those and NOW WE GOT A TRUE ESTIMATE of where you will end being as a physician/dentist doing X,Y,Z. That's impossible really... no one will announce the word-of-mouth salary offers.
 
I must admit that when it comes to income statistics.. damn freaking good survey studies are impossible to find.

I tend to agree. However, they're probably equally flawed across all specialties...so they're still useful as a rough benchmark. ;)
 
You make a lot of assumptions in those numbers. You forget there are CRNAs that cover docs and Radiologist Assistants plus a bunch i am sure I forgot... so the numbers for providers are not as straight up as you state.

Second, EM residency is the second fastest growing residency for Docs and it's only second because it's second to the IM prelim positions which are trying to keep up with the number of EM positions since IM prelim is a prerequisite for a lot of EM residencies.

Last year... the EM residencies graduated 200 more EM docs than it did 3 years ago. I am not saying 200 total... 200 MORE. This is all on the nrmp website. EM will sooner or later become crowded... and if the situation with primary care gets fixed... EM will be FLOODED since no longer people will go to the ER to because of a cough + fever. Of course this is a big "IF" but that doesn't eliminate the fact that sooner or later the good ER positions will start disappearing as more and more EM residents graduate.

Ok add 35,000 CRNA's to the mix. I would be curious to see how many are currently practicing as CRNA's. Approximately 1/3 of NP's are practicing as NP's. Don't forget about the 5500 nurse midwives. Still not a substantial percentage of providers out there. Radiology assistants are not providers in this sense (I have confined myself to medicare definition of providers).

As for the coming flood, you forget that almost 70% of physicians are over 42 and a number over 65. Less than 33% of physicians are under 41. While many of these physicians will continue to work, a number will be retiring in the next few years. There is also significant number of physicians working in EM that are not boarded in EM (although wether EM physician are willing to work in these geographical areas is unknown).

ER's are continuing to get busier. I don't see that changing in the immediate future.

David Carpenter, PA-C
 
david- I am guessing most crna's work as crna's because it is a very lucrative field. there isn't anywhere in the country that an rn can make as much as a crna.
np is another story. I know as many np's working as rn's as working as np's.
 
Top