Market for an IMG starting a private practice

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

IMGer

New Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
4
Reaction score
1
Hello, I'm currently a M1 IMG in Poland, and am very interested in Psychiatry, have been for a very long time. The private practice is pretty much what I want to do, because (my vision of it, at least) it combines freedom to practice as I see fit, autonomy and business into one.

Now I've perused the board, but haven't found a recent and relevant thread for my question (ergo the the title). What is the market like for an IMG? Are patients hesitant in approaching an IMG? What are some experiences from IMGs or US-grads that know IMG colleagues? I'd love to follow along with this. It's actually very exciting and inspirational to even think about it. I do feel I am romanticizing it maybe a tad though.

Thank you for reading and I look forward to your responses!
 
Now I've perused the board, but haven't found a recent and relevant thread for my question (ergo the the title). What is the market like for an IMG? Are patients hesitant in approaching an IMG? What are some experiences from IMGs or US-grads that know IMG colleagues? I'd love to follow along with this. It's actually very exciting and inspirational to even think about it. I do feel I am romanticizing it maybe a tad though.

I don't want to blow your dream, but I imagine you are talking about some kind of fantasy cash only private practice in which you work 10 hours a week and make a million dollars a year. That kind of gig is extremely unlikely to be available for you. However, you can easily build a private practice charging a mix of Medicare and private insurance in a middle class suburb and make approximately $180-$200k working 35-45 hours a week, predominantly in psychopharmacology. This is the average life of a solo practice/small group practice psychiatrist in the US. And given that 30-40% of psychiatrists in the US are IMGs, this would likely be your average life. I'm not sure what other kinds of reassurances you are looking for. Will patients prefer a US grad? To some small extent, but if your practice is predominantly insurance based it likely will not matter.
 
I don't want to blow your dream, but I imagine you are talking about some kind of fantasy cash only private practice in which you work 10 hours a week and make a million dollars a year. That kind of gig is extremely unlikely to be available for you. However, you can easily build a private practice charging a mix of Medicare and private insurance in a middle class suburb and make approximately $180-$200k working 35-45 hours a week, predominantly in psychopharmacology. This is the average life of a solo practice/small group practice psychiatrist in the US. And given that 30-40% of psychiatrists in the US are IMGs, this would likely be your average life. I'm not sure what other kinds of reassurances you are looking for. Will patients prefer a US grad? To some small extent, but if your practice is predominantly insurance based it likely will not matter.

Thank you for the reply! I don't envision that life at all, that's just highly implausible, what would I do with my time if I worked 10 hours a week? I'm not expecting a cash cow, the freedom the PP seems to have just really appeals to me. My main goal is just as you stated, regardless of what the payout maybe (cash-only vs. Insurance or mixed). The second part of your answer is what intrigued me the most, and is the most important question of my thread. Patients do not generally discriminate between an IMG or a US-grad, but if they do, it's to a small degree based on the large portion of pre-existing IMGs, correct? Not that I meant they discriminate because there are a fair amount and they'd like a USG, but because it doesn't matter?

Am I right in this line of thinking?
 
Thank you for the reply! I don't envision that life at all, that's just highly implausible, what would I do with my time if I worked 10 hours a week? I'm not expecting a cash cow, the freedom the PP seems to have just really appeals to me. My main goal is just as you stated, regardless of what the payout maybe (cash-only vs. Insurance or mixed). The second part of your answer is what intrigued me the most, and is the most important question of my thread. Patients do not generally discriminate between an IMG or a US-grad, but if they do, it's to a small degree based on the large portion of pre-existing IMGs, correct? Not that I meant they discriminate because there are a fair amount and they'd like a USG, but because it doesn't matter?

Am I right in this line of thinking?

Patients will be happy if you give compassionate care and do your best in helping them. I shadowed an IMG doctor at a top institution with a heavy, heavy accent and that didn't matter one iota because she did a great job. How good you are will simply trump any other factor in your success. The biggest and possibly only hurdle for IMGs is getting into a good residency program and the bias there is mostly because you did not go into a US med school and paid 200k+ in tuition, not because AMGs are better.
 
Patients will be happy if you give compassionate care and do your best in helping them. I shadowed an IMG doctor at a top institution with a heavy, heavy accent and that didn't matter one iota because she did a great job. How good you are will simply trump any other factor in your success. The biggest and possibly only hurdle for IMGs is getting into a good residency program and the bias there is mostly because you did not go into a US med school and paid 200k+ in tuition, not because AMGs are better.
Beautiful, thank you. What I wanted to hear.
 
The biggest and possibly only hurdle for IMGs is getting into a good residency program and the bias there is mostly because you did not go into a US med school and paid 200k+ in tuition, not because AMGs are better.
No, the bias is because most programs have no clue about what the quality of education at a particular foreign medical school or even the curriculum, in some cases. It has nothing to do with the price paid. Ask a residency program to make a snap comparison between the quality of a medical education at a $300K unknown or for-profit medical school and a cheaper stellar state program like UCLA and see what that gets you. The bias is familiarity, not the belief that expensive tuition makes for better education.
 
No, the bias is because most programs have no clue about what the quality of education at a particular foreign medical school or even the curriculum, in some cases. It has nothing to do with the price paid. Ask a residency program to make a snap comparison between the quality of a medical education at a $300K unknown or for-profit medical school and a cheaper stellar state program like UCLA and see what that gets you. The bias is familiarity, not the belief that expensive tuition makes for better education.

I'm not saying price determines level of education. Of course UCLA and many other prestigious public universities will have an advantage over lesser known and more expensive US med schools (you still pay a ton of money anyhow). Point is, it's natural that the system will prioritize those people who are already in it for reasons that have little to do with quality, and it certainly doesn't help that to get to the system one has to pay a boatload of money. The US residency system will not jeopardize the US medical school system. Of course there are other factors such as familiarity with the program, English communication skills of international applicants..etc.
 
Last edited:
I'm not saying price determines level of education. Of course UCLA and many other prestigious public universities will have an advantage over lesser known and more expensive US med schools (you still pay a ton of money anyhow). Point is, it's natural that the system will prioritize those people who are already in it for reasons that have little to do with quality, and it certainly doesn't help that to get to the system one has to pay a boatload of money. The US residency system will not jeopardize the US medical school system. Of course there are other factors such as familiarity with the program, English communication skills of international applicants..etc.

No, I think the presented argument is correct. PDs are rational actors, they weigh the success of their own individual program over nebulous concepts of fairness or the needs of medical schools.

An AMG is known quantity, they're a safe bet. A PD roughly knows what he's buying based on school, grades, board scores. A FMG carries a quantity of risk. The only reason to select a FMG is if they present a better value than your AMG applicants. In order for that to happen, the potential upside has to offset the risk of the unknowns.

It's harsh, but fair. More importantly it's true. If you want to sell something you should understand your buyer and understand what you're selling.
 
No, I think the presented argument is correct. PDs are rational actors, they weigh the success of their own individual program over nebulous concepts of fairness or the needs of medical schools.

An AMG is known quantity, they're a safe bet. A PD roughly knows what he's buying based on school, grades, board scores. A FMG carries a quantity of risk. The only reason to select a FMG is if they present a better value than your AMG applicants. In order for that to happen, the potential upside has to offset the risk of the unknowns.

It's harsh, but fair. More importantly it's true. If you want to sell something you should understand your buyer and understand what you're selling.

Most of the matched FMGs have spent significant time in the US and got letters of recommendation from US faculty. That should go a long way to quell anxiety about their unknown med schools. I don't think you can dismiss the political dynamics as easily as you're doing here. It's interesting that the places most open to IMGs tend to be the very top programs can afford to be choosy or the lowest who wouldn't fill otherwise. And it's not an issue of fairness. Medicine is not the most international thing out there, and the US is actually still one of the most open countries to IMGs.
 
There is currently more demand than supply for psychiatrists. I don't know any private practice psychiatrists who don't have enough patients, regardless of whether they're IMGs.
 
. It's interesting that the places most open to IMGs tend to be the very top programs can afford to be choosy or the lowest who wouldn't fill otherwise.

huh? There are many psych programs out there which usually have a class that is 75% or more img/fmg. I'd say those sorts of programs are 'most open' to imgs.....
 
huh? There are many psych programs out there which usually have a class that is 75% or more img/fmg. I'd say those sorts of programs are 'most open' to imgs.....

How does that contradict what I mentioned?
 
Most of the matched FMGs have spent significant time in the US and got letters of recommendation from US faculty. That should go a long way to quell anxiety about their unknown med schools. I don't think you can dismiss the political dynamics as easily as you're doing here. It's interesting that the places most open to IMGs tend to be the very top programs can afford to be choosy or the lowest who wouldn't fill otherwise. And it's not an issue of fairness. Medicine is not the most international thing out there, and the US is actually still one of the most open countries to IMGs.

I do think that you can dismiss the political dynamics as easily as that. I don't think any program director even thinks about those dynamics. It's not that they're all benevolent Good Samaritans, but rather that they just want what is best for their residency program, and maybe for the affiliated medical school. A PD might give a bump to a person from the affiliated med school in order to benefit their own reputations, but they don't care about advancing the stature of other med schools. Their primary incentive is to get the best residency class.

And to get the best residency class, you pick the people who you know will be able to succeed in your system. Most American med school graduates are pretty good residents, so it's a safe bet. Many IMGs come from very different cultural backgrounds that make it difficult for them to succeed in the same system. Many of them come from a country where psych rotations aren't required in med school. Many others come from countries where you don't actually touch any patients until you're an intern. Many others come from places where med school is focused on treating 3rd-world problems, and while they may be spectacular at recognizing the various manifestations of TB and malaria, they may not be as familiar with working in interdisciplinary teams and in a system that requires good communication to ensure good patient autonomy. While 80-90% of IMGs may understand these issues and handle them appropriately, I'd expect that the same is true for 90-95% of AMGs, thereby making them a safer bet. Most PDs would rather have a low-risk-low-reward resident (i.e. below-average US med student) than a high-risk-high-reward applicant (i.e. stellar IMG with great scores, lots of publications, but poor communication skills in English and/or poor understanding of how we deal with ethical/other issues here).

For instance, I knew a guy from India who was applying to IM and had trouble finding a spot despite having great scores and great background otherwise. I kept telling him that he needs to work on his English skills instead of spending all of his time working on low-yield research. He refused to go watch American movies or do other similar things, because he was too busy doing science. I told him about how my dad (who came from Pakistan) learned to speak American English by reading American comic books, and then looked up any words that he didn't recognize (i.e. he didn't know what "spooky" meant). This guy agreed that his English was weak, but refused to improve it because he didn't think it was important.

I know another doctor in PM&R who knows nothing about psychiatry - giving her the benefit of the doubt, I'm guessing she went to med school in a country where psychiatry isn't really taught. She thought that schizophrenia just means that the patient is violent/dangerous and that antipsychotics are just chemical restraints. She didn't want to accept my patient to a physical rehab facility because he's on an antipsychotic, and she thought that he must be dangerous (which is not even remotely true) - and she definitely couldn't handle somebody who is getting IM antipsychotics, even if it's a depot injection, because she thinks that you only inject antipsychotics (including depot shots, even though she didn't know what that is) if patients are agitated. I told her that if she doesn't want to deal with giving the patient his Prolixin D, then I can switch him to Haldol, since it lasts 4 weeks instead of 2, and they therefore wouldn't have to deal with it at the rehab facility. She said "oh no no no no no"... she can't have a patient on Haldol, since that means he's dangerous... but it's OK as long as it's Prolixin because she doesn't know what Prolixin is.
 
I do think that you can dismiss the political dynamics as easily as that. I don't think any program director even thinks about those dynamics. It's not that they're all benevolent Good Samaritans, but rather that they just want what is best for their residency program, and maybe for the affiliated medical school. A PD might give a bump to a person from the affiliated med school in order to benefit their own reputations, but they don't care about advancing the stature of other med schools. Their primary incentive is to get the best residency class.

That goes without saying, but the question is then what sort of pressure are they under by accreditation and funding agencies to fill their program with AMGs and is that pressure really due *just* to some belief that AMGs are better equipped and of better quality? Maybe I'm looking more than I should into this, but my hunch is that it's naive to presume that - everything else being equal - AMGs are generally looked at the same as IMGs. There's too much bureaucracy in medicine, and I think expectations are such that the US medical system is for US medical graduates first and foremost, and then the rest can fill the open spaces. The top places can allow themselves one or two exceptional applicants (who have generally proved themselves much further than fellow AMGs).
 
How does that contradict what I mentioned?

well the couple sentences in question were a train wreck from a grammatical standpoint, but it seemed you were stating that top residency programs are more open to
imgs than other programs. The programs most open to imgs are not the top programs(as they are designated here at least) but the programs that are almost all imgs year after year.
 
Maybe I'm looking more than I should into this, but my hunch is that it's naive to presume that - everything else being equal - AMGs are generally looked at the same as IMGs.

Jorje, you actually nailed the issue. The problem is HOW DO YOU IDENTIFY whether or not an IMG is equal to an AMG. An observership is great, but it's just that, an observership. It's not the same thing as being involved in a coherent curriculum of two years worth of clinical experience at the same hospital, working within a system built from the ground up to foster medical education, rotating through every different specialty.

As an example, my state in India is one of the more populous and also one of the more well-represented here in the US. I have strong ties there. Still interact with a lot of family there, have been back 10 times myself, have lots of family in the medical profession over there. There are 45 medical schools in that state alone. And I can only vouch for TWO as having solid clinical training. At least half of those 45 are far more exploitationary than American medical schools in terms of tuition and greed.

The problem, Jorje, is that it is actually very very hard to figure out if an FMG is of the same caliber as an AMG. What you're basically saying is 'Why don't PDs go to extraordinary lengths to figure out which foreign medical schools have good training and which don't, in order to figure out which FMGs actually got a halfway decent education. Then spend even more time trying to figure out if that FMG is acculturated and prepared enough to work within the American system (which can be quite a bit more demanding--and demeaning--than other medical systems at the residency level?' Or to make it even more to the point 'Why don't PD's spend ten times as long evaluating each individual FMG as they do each individual AMG.' You can't actually believe that a couple months of USCE observerships and a letter or two compare to TWO YEARS of clinical exposure in the American system...

None of this means that there aren't great FMGs out there. My mom's one (she's also my internal medicine consult lol). Two out of my three favorite senior residents (from med school and internship) were FMGs. I think nearly half of my favorite attendings have been FMGs. It sucks that it works out like that for them. But the reason it happens is because most countries have crap for accreditation bodies (if they have them at all).
 
the question is then what sort of pressure are they under by accreditation and funding agencies to fill their program with AMGs
Um, you're just making up this conspiracy of accreditation agencies pressuring PDs to take AMGs. Is there any actual evidence that this is a real thing?
 
it is actually very very hard to figure out if an FMG is of the same caliber as an AMG. What you're basically saying is 'Why don't PDs go to extraordinary lengths to figure out which foreign medical schools have good training and which don't, in order to figure out which FMGs actually got a halfway decent education. Then spend even more time trying to figure out if that FMG is acculturated and prepared enough to work within the American system (which can be quite a bit more demanding--and demeaning--than other medical systems at the residency level?'
Great post, MOM. This is the crux of it. And I think it's easy to overlook the fact that almost all residency programs go into selection process with a very critical look for how they can avoid Problem Residents. Selecting for Superstars is great, but one Superstar does not help a program as much as one Problem Resident hurts it. So when you have unknown quantities, it can be a tough leap of faith to make.

I think it's also important to highlight that none of this means IMGs are inferior quality clinicians. They are just unknowns. I've worked with awesome IMGs, most of us have. But you see a lot of awful ones too. It's hard for programs to figure out the difference ahead of time.
 
However, you can easily build a private practice charging a mix of Medicare and private insurance in a middle class suburb and make approximately $180-$200k working 35-45 hours a week, predominantly in psychopharmacology.

How many patients an hour does this typically equate to?
 
If a 99213 is $87, 2 per hour is $174. Accounting for no shows, $150*40hrs per week * 46 weeks per year = $276000. Why then is the average psychiatrist salary only about $200k, or less? Is there that many no shows or that many psychiatrists that work less than 40 hours per week? Or both?
 
If a 99213 is $87, 2 per hour is $174. Accounting for no shows, $150*40hrs per week * 46 weeks per year = $276000. Why then is the average psychiatrist salary only about $200k, or less? Is there that many no shows or that many psychiatrists that work less than 40 hours per week? Or both?

There's more to it then that. What about billing? office space? other overhead?
 
Ahh, that stuff… got it thanks. Is electricity, paying front office staff, billings usually tax deductible if you have an LLC?
Those expenses are deductible for any business, LLC or sole proprietorship (meaning, you don't have to be a corporation/incorporated).
 
If a 99213 is $87, 2 per hour is $174. Accounting for no shows, $150*40hrs per week * 46 weeks per year = $276000. Why then is the average psychiatrist salary only about $200k, or less? Is there that many no shows or that many psychiatrists that work less than 40 hours per week? Or both?

First off, you aren't doing the math correctly. If you do 2 per hour med check you charge 99213+90833, so the actual revenue is actually higher. Secondly, there is quite a bit of overhead if you do mostly Medicare. Thirdly, many psychiatrists don't work 40+ clinical hours a week. Fourthly, there's more overhead such as medmal, rent, etc. For the actual correct math, see my calculation in a different thread.
 
If you do 2 per hour med check you charge 99213+90833, so the actual revenue is actually higher.
Am I wrong, or is 90833 a code for psychotherapy add-on?
 
Top