How to get into a top surgical residency.

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Okay, but who created and have been paying for the ACGME residency programs? The federal government, local tax payers, etc.? Who?

It's clear for AOA residency programs. They've been paid for by the DO schools, which are private.
Umm... I posted a link recently about a 4million grant paying for ATSU-SOMA's new residency program that was awarded from the government...
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
I've found some good info about how GME is funded. It writes there that it is erroneous to hold that "only Medicare" or "only Medicare and Medicaid" pay for GME. It seems like GME is financed mostly by private health insurance and funds, and then by Medicare.

Please, read from this thread.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=13684388#post13684388

To assume nothing has changed in the past 9-10 years is naive.. Even for you

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile
 
I've found some good info about how GME is funded. It writes there that it is erroneous to hold that “only Medicare” or “only Medicare and Medicaid” pay for GME. It seems like GME is financed mostly by private health insurance and funds, and then by Medicare.

Please, read from this thread.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=13684388#post13684388

Youre right that GME isnt funded only by federal government money, though they are the single largest source of funding.

I think the confusion with your earlier post is that it looked like you were saying that ACGME funding was federal and AOA funding was all private.

The new budget is out and easy to find...in fact, the PPACA even has some new funding that tries to help train PC docs to work in underserved populations. But Medicare/caid still fund a lot and I think need to increase their funding.
 
Youre right that GME isnt funded only by federal government money, though they are the single largest source of funding.

I think the confusion with your earlier post is that it looked like you were saying that ACGME funding was federal and AOA funding was all private.

The new budget is out and easy to find...in fact, the PPACA even has some new funding that tries to help train PC docs to work in underserved populations. But Medicare/caid still fund a lot and I think need to increase their funding.

I think all problems related with discrimination of DO graduates at top ACGME programs, and with the same for MD graduates at AOA programs just boil down to politics... politics of some who'd like to play with huge amounts of money that is used to finance the GME, which needs a careful and deep investigation.

In recent years, Congress has revealed its uncertainty over how to change federal workforce policy. (The uncertain future of Medicare and graduate medical education. N Engl J Med 2011;365:1340-1345)

In the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Congress emphasized the importance of expanding the primary care workforce. But legislators rejected the AAMC's call to expand the number of Medicare-funded GME positions by 15% in response to reported physician shortages in some specialties. And the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which included 14 senior congressional leaders, recommended substantial reductions in Medicare's GME support but failed to muster the votes necessary to send its package to the House and Senate floor for consideration.

On December 21, seven senators — Democrats Michael Bennet (CO), Jeff Bingaman (NM), Mark Udall (CO), and Tom Udall (NM) and Republicans Mike Crapo (ID), Chuck Grassley (IA), and Jon Kyl (AZ) — sent a letter to the Institute of Medicine (IOM) encouraging it to "conduct an independent review of the governance and financing of our system of [GME]." They urged the IOM to explore subjects including accreditation; reimbursement policy; the use of GME to better predict and ensure adequate workforce supply in terms of type of provider, specialty, and demographic mix; GME's role in care of the underserved; and use of GME to ensure the creation of a workforce with the skills necessary for addressing future health care needs.

The senators emphasized their interest "in IOM's observations about the uneven distribution of GME funding across states based on need and capacity, and how to address this inequity."

In an interview, Bingaman said he initiated the letter for the same reasons he had championed creation of a National Health Care Workforce Commission as part of the ACA: to strengthen the government's resolve to do "a more credible job of assessing workforce shortages" and because he believes Medicare's GME policies are "outmoded " Republicans have opposed appropriating the $3 million requested for launching the workforce commission because its authority derives from the ACA.

The priorities cited in the IOM letter parallel some of the recommendations of a group of academic medical leaders who gathered at two conferences underwritten by the Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation. At the first conference, in October 2010, the top recommendation was that "an independent external review of the goals, governance, and financing of the GME system should be undertaken by the Institute of Medicine, or a similar body. (Ensuring an effective physician workforce for America: recommendations for an accountable graduate medical education system — conference summary, October 2010, Atlanta. New York: Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation, 2010.)

Similarly, a recent Carnegie Foundation report asserted that "GME redesign demands . . . a more broad-based, less politicized flow of funds. (Cooke M, Irby DM, O'Brien BC. Educating physicians: a call for reform of medical school and residency. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010.)

Source:
Financing Graduate Medical Education — Mounting Pressure for Reform - http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1114236#t=article
 
Last edited:
Sometimes I think you just skim the Internet for buzzwords and post them on sdn.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile
 
Lol keep doing work bumbles. I hope your top secret investigation gets to the root of the conspiracy against DOs. Keep us posted. Godspeed. You're the best.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
 
Last edited:
Lol keep doing work bumbles. I hope your top secret investigation gets to the root of the conspiracy against DOs. Keep us posted. Godspeed. You're the best.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

👍

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile
 
No. Smart DOs would be ranking more "reach" ACGME programs first. Not being pulled out of the ACGME match due to an earlier AOA match is ridiculously awesome for DOs interested in more competitive specialties. This will allow DOs to not have to "choose" between AOA and ACGME matchs. However, it also opens up those previously DO-only AOA spots for potential MD applicants. Works both ways I guess.

Correct. For those of you applying in 2015 and later, when there (probably) will be a combined match--rank your dream programs first, then the safer programs. If you don't match at your reach programs, your chance of matching at your backup programs is the same as if you'd ranked them #1. That's how the Match works, and why it's said to "favor the applicant".

Im really anxious/curious to see how 2015 plays out. Im cautiously optimistic that we're going to be pretty pleased with the changes.
 
completely unrelated, but this has got me thinking. what are the chances of me increasing my chances at placing at a residency of my choice by making a med school music video?

Parody or original?

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile
 
A guy rotated through the ortho program at my school and screwed himself over just by having stupid/awkward Facebook students that the residents got a hold of somehow. However you may be able to Harlem shake your way to glory.
 
Top