Nephrology is Dead - stay away

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
https://www.asn-online.org/publications/kidneynews/archives/2020/KN_2020_02_feb.pdf

I'm quoting from ASN's own newsletter:

“Candidates who completed the nephrology certification exam had the lowest scores on the internal medicine certification exam compared to other subspecialties”


“Another factor could be that some fellows are not pursuing nephrology certification because their ultimate goal is the higher-paying field of being a hospitalist—perhaps with special expertise in nephrology—according to ASN Executive Vice President Tod Ibrahim “



Be informed!

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
https://www.asn-online.org/publications/kidneynews/archives/2020/KN_2020_02_feb.pdf

I'm quoting from ASN's own newsletter:

“Candidates who completed the nephrology certification exam had the lowest scores on the internal medicine certification exam compared to other subspecialties”


“Another factor could be that some fellows are not pursuing nephrology certification because their ultimate goal is the higher-paying field of being a hospitalist—perhaps with special expertise in nephrology—according to ASN Executive Vice President Tod Ibrahim “



Be informed!

Not sure why they would say that since it is not true. My only explanation right now is perhaps they are comparing base salaries.

Medscape: Medscape Access - Nephrology $305K
- Hospitalist $242K


I checked out Ziprecruiter and Indeed as well, and even the websites that seem to be low-balling physician compensation, nephrology is still higher.
 
Not sure why they would say that since it is not true. My only explanation right now is perhaps they are comparing base salaries.

Medscape: Medscape Access - Nephrology $305K
- Hospitalist $242K


I checked out Ziprecruiter and Indeed as well, and even the websites that seem to be low-balling physician compensation, nephrology is still higher.
hospitalists work 7 on, 7 off, bruh... per hour it's not even close.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
And you are not even taking into account opportunity cost of doing a 2 year fellowship and being paid minimum wage for another 2-3 years
so that maybe you will be made a partner. You know how many of my friends got screwed by their older partners when their partnership came
up? It happens more often than people think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
hospitalists work 7 on, 7 off, bruh... per hour it's not even close.

My average schedule is 4 days of outpatient work per week. That's not a bad comparison to 7 days of inpatient work every two weeks. I do have inpatient weeks about 20-25% of the time.

But yeah, hospitalists can make money. I just don't think the quote is factually true.

And you are not even taking into account opportunity cost of doing a 2 year fellowship and being paid minimum wage for another 2-3 years
so that maybe you will be made a partner. You know how many of my friends got screwed by their older partners when their partnership came
up? It happens more often than people think.

That is why comparing specialities is difficult as there are a lot of factors at play. I considered hospital medicine but thought I would enjoy nephrology more so opportunity cost was worth it. I am set to make more now than I would as a hospitalist, and I will make up the cost over time, just as I will make up the cost of the long investment of medical school and residency.

Minimum wage? lol. I see you and a couple others make comments like this periodically, and it's mindblowing. I ask for further details, but no one supplies as such. What jobs and where pay minimum wage for 2-3 years? Why is someone taking such a job when there are other opportunities available?

I am sure there are a few people who get screwed by bad jobs, but that is not at all specific to nephrology. I have a laundry list of fellows and former fellows at this point who have good jobs. None of this doom and gloom I see periodically on this subforum. I suspect there are other details that no one is ever willing to share with me. You can PM me if you want so I can better understand. There is a huge disconnect between my experience and the experience of dozens of others and what I have read here sometimes.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You can read what the academics are saying. It's a growing trend, and definitely not fake news.
The title of the thread is: Leaving Nephrology Post Fellowship

American Society of Nephrology | Member Services - Login

This does not address most of my post, but I did take a look.

This is pretty meh. It's a thread of 7 posts from over a year ago. 5 physicians posted on the thread.

The first guy who starts the thread is actually private practice and brings up that programs are not addressing wants/needs of fellows.

Second guy is also private practice and kind of just takes a dump on hospital medicine.

Third guy is in academics in NY and acknowledges the trend and does note salary plays a role, but he also points out that visa status limits jobs which is huge given increase in IMGs in nephrology as well as nephrology fellowship is being used to be in the US and get to stay in the US, and not all of those people stay with nephrology.

The fourth guy seems like he has seen some success in giving fellows more help with finding good practices.

The fifth guy does not add much to the discussion.

So again, pretty meh. I think the third guy is right on the money. Nephrology is not competitive, and there has been an increase in IMGs. Rising IMGs means more visa issues, even apparently backdooring for fellows to get their foot in the door of the US and stay while also having the option of either staying with nephrology or doing hospital medicine. These do not apply to US grads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I want to make one last point. Fifteen years ago, you never hear of nephrology fellowship positions not being filled or grads not
wanting to practice in the specialty that they were trained in. So what has changed? Has the specialty changed? Or has the money changed?
It's a rhetorical question.
 
I want to make one last point. Fifteen years ago, you never hear of nephrology fellowship positions not being filled or grads not
wanting to practice in the specialty that they were trained in. So what has changed? Has the specialty changed? Or has the money changed?
It's a rhetorical question.

Go ahead and talk to yourself then. You are barely responding to my posts anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The thread was started couple of years ago(2016), but fundamentally nephrology pay has not changed. In private, nephrologists cannot
agree whether it's a specialty worth pursuing. Applicants need to be informed of what they are getting into.

Head in the sand; job prospect and nephrologyist pay


 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I have no dog in this fight as I matched into cards. However, after failing to match the prior year I was bombarded by unsolicited emails from unfilled renal programs offering me a position. A number of programs tried sweetening they deal with promises of combined renal/interventional fellowships, or renal/CC, or how salaries/lifestyle in nephrology weren’t as bad as advertised. Here‘s one email excerpt that stood out.

”Most of the fellows secure a job in Interventional/General combined Nephrology practices in the country and the fellows that are in practice for 3+ years take home on an average 400-600K salary. I add that as there is general impression that nephrology salaries are low”

I was wondering if there was any truth to this, or if there’s some big catch?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I have no dog in this fight as I matched into cards. However, after failing to match the prior year I was bombarded by unsolicited emails from unfilled renal programs offering me a position. A number of programs tried sweetening they deal with promises of combined renal/interventional fellowships, or renal/CC, or how salaries/lifestyle in nephrology weren’t as bad as advertised. Here‘s one email excerpt that stood out.

”Most of the fellows secure a job in Interventional/General combined Nephrology practices in the country and the fellows that are in practice for 3+ years take home on an average 400-600K salary. I add that as there is general impression that nephrology salaries are low”

I was wondering if there was any truth to this, or if there’s some big catch?

It's not difficult for a general nephrologist to make 350K. I'm not sure what the upper limit of a typical interventional nephrologist is right now, but those numbers are not unexpected. Procedures just pay more in this country. An interventional nephrologist would probably trade CKD clinic time (which has the lowest compensation compared to dialysis rounding and hospital work) for procedure time. Dialysis patients periodically have issues with accesses so a practice with a decent dialysis patient population will keep 1-2 interventionalists busy with perm cath insertion, exchanges, removals and fistulograms instead of those things being done by IR.
 
I have no dog in this fight as I matched into cards. However, after failing to match the prior year I was bombarded by unsolicited emails from unfilled renal programs offering me a position. A number of programs tried sweetening they deal with promises of combined renal/interventional fellowships, or renal/CC, or how salaries/lifestyle in nephrology weren’t as bad as advertised. Here‘s one email excerpt that stood out.

”Most of the fellows secure a job in Interventional/General combined Nephrology practices in the country and the fellows that are in practice for 3+ years take home on an average 400-600K salary. I add that as there is general impression that nephrology salaries are low”

I was wondering if there was any truth to this, or if there’s some big catch?

The catch is you need to find a niche to be an Interventional Nephrologist
A) It is not an ACGME accredit subspecialty - though there is a governing body ASDIN
B) You need connections to get into an IN practice - it's hard enough to fight for the HD patients for general nephrology in a private setting in a given turf
C) The big cities are not lacking for nephrologists so it's harder to enter the market as private like that - you'll need to more to a rural place where turf wars are less with IR and vascular surgery.

As a entrepreneur with vision and dedication, it's definitely possible. But it is also possible to be an entrepreneur for primary care medicine and get an assembly line practice and make bank that way also. It just depends on expectations and what you can do with the training you pursue.
It's just ultimately about what specialty interests you.

To cite some anecdotal numbers (and big variation, but just to give you some idea)

NYC Big Academic Nephrology program with PD and Director well known in the ASN and worldwide
Clinical Instructor starting salary for a new attending just out of fellowship (someone I know) $150K base salary - given a "title" of PD Program Associate Director - might get incentives - hours 50-60 a week- lots of support staff - lots of time for research. Salary will go up with getting a higher academic rank and by obtaining more ESRD patients to follow.

There are those brutal travel to many centers and get abused by the older nephrology jobs too but let's not dwell on those.

Private Practice Nephrologist (one of my former attendings) who rounds at two hospitals, runs a busy outpatient HD service at two centers, and does smany inpatient consults and CRRT consults - makes about $500K per his report. He really worked at the business aspect of this though.


Nephrology isn't that bad. The topic is quite interesting and useful and makes you a better internist.

Just don't take those dead end jobs that make you a junior attending slave.

If you can't shrug off that "ugh but it's not as revered and respected as the cardiologist" feeling, then maybe do multiple subspecialties like me. Then you'll feel like a wild card.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
What I don't see people discussing here is the impact of Trump's executive order last year tying Dialysis center re-imbursement to performance metrics.
The intent of the initiative is to shift in center dialysis pts to home dialysis, which is more cost effective for CMS. The issue is a large percentage of a nephrologist's income comes from passive income in the form of JVs and medical directorship fees. If that is threatened, specialty is really toast. I doubt an applicant is aware of these implications. If you all think nephrologists are poorly reimbursed for the amount of workload, just wait another decade, there's more to fall.
 
What I don't see people discussing here is the impact of Trump's executive order last year tying Dialysis center re-imbursement to performance metrics.
The intent of the initiative is to shift in center dialysis pts to home dialysis, which is more cost effective for CMS. The issue is a large percentage of a nephrologist's income comes from passive income in the form of JVs and medical directorship fees. If that is threatened, specialty is really toast. I doubt an applicant is aware of these implications. If you all think nephrologists are poorly reimbursed for the amount of workload, just wait another decade, there's more to fall.

You bring up an interesting point, but there are a few things I would like to clear up.

Home dialysis reimburses better while being less laborious. Plus it’s cheaper from a societal standpoint and helps maintain quality of life in ways that in center HD cannot.

Most nephrology income is from reimbursement from dialysis. Medical directorships are icing on the cake and not a majority by any means. Joint ventures also do not rise to the MCP from dialysis. That’s an investment opportunity and nothing to do with providing medical care.

ICHD centers are not going anywhere anytime soon, even if the goals of home dialysis are met. Therefore, directorships, etc are not under threat.

I have seen your posts before so I do not think you are a nephrologist, and I hope the above helps provide some further details.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I have no dog in this fight as I matched into cards. However, after failing to match the prior year I was bombarded by unsolicited emails from unfilled renal programs offering me a position. A number of programs tried sweetening they deal with promises of combined renal/interventional fellowships, or renal/CC, or how salaries/lifestyle in nephrology weren’t as bad as advertised. Here‘s one email excerpt that stood out.

”Most of the fellows secure a job in Interventional/General combined Nephrology practices in the country and the fellows that are in practice for 3+ years take home on an average 400-600K salary. I add that as there is general impression that nephrology salaries are low”

I was wondering if there was any truth to this, or if there’s some big catch?


The bottom line is that nephrology programs are desperate and willing to take anyone who applies. Some even take people who can't match into IM(see article below). When programs go this low, you know their real priority is to have their busy service covered. CJASN is a respectable journal and this article should be a must read for all who plan to apply.

Resizing Nephrology Training Programs
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The thread was started couple of years ago(2016), but fundamentally nephrology pay has not changed. In private, nephrologists cannot
agree whether it's a specialty worth pursuing. Applicants need to be informed of what they are getting into.

Head in the sand; job prospect and nephrologyist pay




This link is actually quite revealing of the problems in nephrology. Its simply shameful for fellowshipprograms to
advertise misleading expectations while asking the fellows to take on all the financial risks if nephrology doesn't work out
for them.
 
  • Okay...
Reactions: 1 user
Nephrology is pretty much an essential field for patient survival.
Sad to see how politics and reimbursement incentivizes people to go into lifestyle fields like derm or optho or uro where there is a far less than compared to nephrology where you will likely die if you miss a few dialysis sessions.
Sad state of affairs.
Probably the easiest fix is artificially cut down supply drastically like derm, optho etc and negotiate.
 
I did my fellowship with great interest in Nephrology - Acid base/electrolyte/Acute dialysis stuff. Joined a private practice - get around 170 K. my day starts at 6 and ends at 5. run around 4 hospitals and 3 dialysis units.

Real life of nephrology

- Oversupply - tremendous oversupply - so employers dont really have any need to offer a fair deal

universities need bodies to do the scutwork - there is no need for these bodies outside an academic setting

many nephrologists end up as hospitalists -" saw this in fellowship itself - but still liked nephro- s0 did not quit"
- Smooch primary care and hospitalists for consults - They dont absolutely have to refer,unless patient needs dialysis - No patient sues them for non dialysis requiring AKI

what do you treat ATN with anyway ???


- Dialysis patient compensation is awful and they expect you to sort out all their medical/social problems for which you dont get paid nor do u have the time.


- Dialysis rounding can easily replaced by a NP.

- Income in dialysis goes to davita/fresenius - they pretty much own everything across the country now


Nephrology is not what you see in residency - stay away from it. Dont waste 2 -3 years of your valuable life to become slave to either a dialysis company or a private group for the rest of your life with 1/2 - 2/3 income of a hospitalist


Do nephrology for right reason - It does not have income, does not have a lifestyle and does not have the charm that u see in residency


I reference the original post that started this thread back in 2014! Isn't it amazing we are discussing exactly the same problems today, in 2020, that he complained about back then. Nothing has change in the 6 year span! I really do think it's time for nephrologists to stop arguing that their isn't a problem with this specialty. Instead, practicing nephrologists need to come together to pressure fellowship programs to decrease fellowship positions. Or at the very least, stop taking applicants who have not completed an IM residency.
 
I reference the original post that started this thread back in 2014! Isn't it amazing we are discussing exactly the same problems today, in 2020, that he complained about back then. Nothing has change in the 6 year span! I really do think it's time for nephrologists to stop arguing that their isn't a problem with this specialty. Instead, practicing nephrologists need to come together to pressure fellowship programs to decrease fellowship positions. Or at the very least, stop taking applicants who have not completed an IM residency.

I 100% agree that fellowships should reduce spots. Many programs shelf a lot of fellows to do way easy months of research/minimal call/clinic. Months that are far easier compared to residency for example. It's why many programs are still afloat even though they do not fill; they have the manpower to do the clinical work.

At the same time, I call bull**** on the OP. The setup he describes is INSANE. Not the typical experience. I would say not even the typical bad experience. What he describes is way beyond that? But he does not go find something else? Does not want to go to hospital medicine or other? I suspect he did not have any options for some reason. Perhaps visa related. It is difficult to know.

Much of his OP is erroneous. For instance, "Dialysis patient compensation is awful." LOL. The billing per time spent is far more lucrative than clinic work or hospital consults.

I would actually point out that 6 years ago, he said nephrology is dead, yet here we are...

I am not special. I had a typical experience. I found a good job easily. I have a laundry list of other fellows who are doing very well. Nephrology certainly has issues, but I have seen a lot of melodrama here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Do renal fellowships really take in non-IM trainee candidates? Like, not even graduated from a residency candidates?
 
What do you mean by cards? CT or is there another card field?

I have no dog in this fight as I matched into cards. However, after failing to match the prior year I was bombarded by unsolicited emails from unfilled renal programs offering me a position. A number of programs tried sweetening they deal with promises of combined renal/interventional fellowships, or renal/CC, or how salaries/lifestyle in nephrology weren’t as bad as advertised. Here‘s one email excerpt that stood out.

”Most of the fellows secure a job in Interventional/General combined Nephrology practices in the country and the fellows that are in practice for 3+ years take home on an average 400-600K salary. I add that as there is general impression that nephrology salaries are low”

I was wondering if there was any truth to this, or if there’s some big catch?
 
The bottom line is that nephrology programs are desperate and willing to take anyone who applies. Some even take people who can't match into IM(see article below). When programs go this low, you know their real priority is to have their busy service covered. CJASN is a respectable journal and this article should be a must read for all who plan to apply.

Resizing Nephrology Training Programs

Do renal fellowships really take in non-IM trainee candidates? Like, not even graduated from a residency candidates?

I do not see how that article shows that. They mention taking people out of the fellowship match (scramble) and IMGs.
 
I was referring to the last sentence of the post above (#119)

Right. I’m saying there is no evidence provided here to support that. I wonder if he is misinterpreting the article he posted earlier.

Unfortunately, that poster has not been quick to vet his sources or acknowledge when the source is outright wrong. I have had this issue before in the fellowship match thread.

Unless he has names of programs where he knows that happened. I would be interested in knowing about that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Right. I’m saying there is no evidence provided here to support that. I wonder if he is misinterpreting the article he posted earlier.

Unfortunately, that poster has not been quick to vet his sources or acknowledge when the source is outright wrong. I have had this issue before in the fellowship match thread.

Unless he has names of programs where he knows that happened. I would be interested in knowing about that.


This is just pettiness at this point. Yes, I personally know of programs who do this and I know of people who were accepted without an IM residency.
If you read the CJASN article closely, I quote:

For the last several years, there have been 0.6–1.0 applicants per position in the nephrology match in December. And yet, by July of the following year, most programs have been able to fill through the scramble, hiring fellows who may not have completed a United States internal medicine residency.
 
This is just pettiness at this point. Yes, I personally know of programs who do this and I know of people who were accepted without an IM residency.
If you read the CJASN article closely, I quote:

For the last several years, there have been 0.6–1.0 applicants per position in the nephrology match in December. And yet, by July of the following year, most programs have been able to fill through the scramble, hiring fellows who may not have completed a United States internal medicine residency.

It is not pettiness, and you know it. Between dumpster diving the ASN forum for threads years old, you routinely ignore my challenges to your “sources.” You have spread misinformation before, particularly in the other thread, and do not address it.

I want to know which programs that you know have taken on fellows who did not complete a residency anywhere. That is important information.

For the last part, they are referring to IMGs. They said as much in the first paragraph of the article. Why do you think in that bolded part they specified “United States”?
 
This is just pettiness at this point. Yes, I personally know of programs who do this and I know of people who were accepted without an IM residency.
If you read the CJASN article closely, I quote:

For the last several years, there have been 0.6–1.0 applicants per position in the nephrology match in December. And yet, by July of the following year, most programs have been able to fill through the scramble, hiring fellows who may not have completed a United States internal medicine residency.

Unless I’ve missed it, that article doesn’t seem to cite their source for the bolded claim. That’s a huge claim to make, and I’m genuinely interested in learning if that’s true or not
 
Unless I’ve missed it, that article doesn’t seem to cite their source for the bolded claim. That’s a huge claim to make, and I’m genuinely interested in learning if that’s true or not
It is definitely true. Saw it first-hand at a decent academic institution. The neph fellow was an excellent person but received their IM training abroad. Think they either have to do IM residency after the neph fellowship or somehow extend their fellowship another year to be eligible to take the boards is what they told me.
 
Unless I’ve missed it, that article doesn’t seem to cite their source for the bolded claim. That’s a huge claim to make, and I’m genuinely interested in learning if that’s true or not

See, I don’t think they are actually making that claim at all. They are restating what they already said, that programs have pulled from outside the match and from overseas.

It is definitely true. Saw it first-hand at a decent academic institution. The neph fellow was an excellent person but received their IM training abroad. Think they either have to do IM residency after the neph fellowship or somehow extend their fellowship another year to be eligible to take the boards is what they told me.

That’s not unusual though as those are IMGs. They completed their IM training somewhere else. Now, maybe depending on where they did it or where they matched, there could be a stipulation to do MORE to practice in the US. But that’s not the same as having never completed an IM residency in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Ah. See that I believe. Even UCSF had a renal fellow from the UK last year. After graduating they stayed on as attending, but I think can only remain within an academic system
 
Ah. See that I believe. Even UCSF had a renal fellow from the UK last year. After graduating they stayed on as attending, but I think can only remain within an academic system

Right. There was some ongoing concern that fellows were having a difficult time finding jobs, but it was not so across the board. AMGs do not really have any problems. But IMGs? They tend to have visa restrictions that limit them to academics or certain parts of the country or big cities.
 
The whole thing is a mess. Nephrology is labor intensive specialty and need fellow coverage at night for emergent dialysis.
So fellowship programs end up picking subpar/desperate applicants just to satisfy the manpower, which is not doing any service to the specialty.
The result is no decrease in the number of graduates(shocking to many) and not much improvement in the job market due to supply/demand
imbalance. There have been calls from many people for fellowship programs to decrease positions, but programs have their own selfish reasons
to keep doing the same thing because nobody can force them to do otherwise. It's a cycle that, unfortunately, I do not see any way out of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The whole thing is a mess. Nephrology is labor intensive specialty and need fellow coverage at night for emergent dialysis.
So fellowship programs end up picking subpar/desperate applicants just to satisfy the manpower, which is not doing any service to the specialty.
The result is no decrease in the number of graduates(shocking to many) and not much improvement in the job market due to supply/demand
imbalance. There have been calls from many people for fellowship programs to decrease positions, but programs have their own selfish reasons
to keep doing the same thing because nobody can force them to do otherwise. It's a cycle that, unfortunately, I do not see any way out of.

sounds like a field at risk for “nurse nephrologists”
 
The whole thing is a mess. Nephrology is labor intensive specialty and need fellow coverage at night for emergent dialysis.
So fellowship programs end up picking subpar/desperate applicants just to satisfy the manpower, which is not doing any service to the specialty.
The result is no decrease in the number of graduates(shocking to many) and not much improvement in the job market due to supply/demand
imbalance. There have been calls from many people for fellowship programs to decrease positions, but programs have their own selfish reasons
to keep doing the same thing because nobody can force them to do otherwise. It's a cycle that, unfortunately, I do not see any way out of.

Is dialysis reimbursement the main reason for mediocre salaries as a nephrologist?
 
sounds like a field at risk for “nurse nephrologists”

Not really, but programs would do well to reduce the amount of time fellows have dedicated to research to fill any gaps in the clinical work rather than accept subpar candidates. It's a 2-year fellowship, and some programs have fellows on reeeally cushy schedules for half their second year, 25% of the fellowship. Programs would also benefit from having a PA/NP fill in the gaps of work to be done so the rest can be more educational for fellows. Other subspecialty do this as well so nephrology should not be much different.

Is dialysis reimbursement the main reason for mediocre salaries as a nephrologist?

Nephrology salaries are not mediocre, but nephrology does fall in the same ballpark as ID, rheum, endocrine. Low procedure rate and thus lower reimbursement compared to cards, GI, etc. That is why interventional nephrology has been appealing for fellows as you can make quite a bit more.

Dialysis reimbursement per unit of time is more effective compared to hospital consults or clinic patients. A nephrologist who strictly did dialysis rounds (not really existent) would stand to make way more money.
 
  • Like
  • Dislike
Reactions: 2 users
The reality is that fellows are cheaper than a NP/PA, so it just make sense to take any person irregardless of qualification. I think we can all agree
that graduates need to be reduced for the specialty to turn around, but who's gonna make that sacrifice? Academic nephrologists are already underpaid and certainly didn't sign up to take their own night calls. What's in the best interest of the specialty is not in the best interest of fellowship programs. ASN is just happy their membership increases. Who's going to take the lead? Where would this specialty be if this continues for another decade? The people who have the power to change are content with the status quo, and that, is the crux of the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
From ASN website:


Nephrology Training Landscape:

Despite several closures the total number of accredited nephrology training programs overall (not training tracks) has remained steady at 149. This is partially due to the incorporation of five osteopathic fellowships through Single Accreditation, with an additional new allopathic program in Colorado. New data from the ASN Nephrology GME Census found an uptick in 1st-year fellows (partially due to inclusion of off-cycle trainees), while 32% of current nephrology trainees entered fellowship through the post-Match scramble process, which lacks the structure of the ERAS application cycle and NRMP Match.

The ratio of matched fellows to fellowship positions in the Match has been <1 since AY 2016, although increasing slightly over the past two years. Most recent cross-registration data from ERAS shows that 60% nephrology candidates applied to at least one other specialty

Two points:

1) Some people think that the specialty will turn around because their is a perceived decrease in supply of graduates. That is a completely erroneous assumption as all spots will eventually fill.

2) The majority(60%) of applicants who apply to nephrology do it as a backup specialty. I cannot think of any specialty where this many are hedging their bets. Even people who apply to this specialty knows that is has a lot of problems, so why do it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
From ASN website:


Nephrology Training Landscape:

Despite several closures the total number of accredited nephrology training programs overall (not training tracks) has remained steady at 149. This is partially due to the incorporation of five osteopathic fellowships through Single Accreditation, with an additional new allopathic program in Colorado. New data from the ASN Nephrology GME Census found an uptick in 1st-year fellows (partially due to inclusion of off-cycle trainees), while 32% of current nephrology trainees entered fellowship through the post-Match scramble process, which lacks the structure of the ERAS application cycle and NRMP Match.

The ratio of matched fellows to fellowship positions in the Match has been <1 since AY 2016, although increasing slightly over the past two years. Most recent cross-registration data from ERAS shows that 60% nephrology candidates applied to at least one other specialty

Two points:

1) Some people think that the specialty will turn around because their is a perceived decrease in supply of graduates. That is a completely erroneous assumption as all spots will eventually fill.

2) The majority(60%) of applicants who apply to nephrology do it as a backup specialty. I cannot think of any specialty where this many are hedging their bets. Even people who apply to this specialty knows that is has a lot of problems, so why do it?

1. Much of the scrambling is driven by IMGs. The rest of the data supports that as they are large chunk of candidates, and it has been that way for years. I found it interesting that DO candidates has been steadily increasing. I also found it interesting that as a whole, Internal Medicine has seen a 22% decline in USMG in the last 10 years so that has contributed to fewer USMGs to nephrology as well. I had no idea IM as a whole was down like that.

2. What you bolded just says they applied to one other specialty, not that nephrology was the back up. Practice some intellectual honesty here. We do not know what the priority was. This is driven by IMGs as well who have to play this game to get a spot somewhere.

I continue to see a lot of misrepresentation or confounding of data. No doubt nephrology does not fill its spots. I have not argued against that.

At the end of the day, if I am a US IM resident, I want to know how successful I will be getting a fellowship spot and how successful will I be finding a job. The rest of it is noise. USMGs can undoubtedly get a spot, just about anybody can. That is part of the problem, but that's a different post and not relevant to the individual fellow.

2019 NEPHROLOGY FELLOW SURVEY RESULTS AND INSIGHTS

Perception of the job market and the specialty as whole, by markers such as fellows recommending to residents, has improved. There is this perception on this board that graduates have to go to hospital medicine regularly because there are no jobs. Nope.

1589140755623.png


I am still waiting to find out which US nephrology programs accepted fellows who had not completed an IM residency. You can PM me if you would prefer.
 
I personally know someone who did an IM residency in Qatar and was a nephrology fellow at a NYC hospital. She was promised an IM residency position after the completion of her fellowship. She finished her US IM residency after her fellowship and is now an attending at that hospital.
 
I personally know someone who did an IM residency in Qatar and was a nephrology fellow at a NYC hospital. She was promised an IM residency position after the completion of her fellowship. She finished her US IM residency after her fellowship and is now an attending at that hospital.

So she was an IMG and did a residency prior to fellowship. That’s not what we are talking about here. Unless she did not finish the residency in Qatar then I would want to know which NY program went alongside with that and what year this was.
 
2) The majority(60%) of applicants who apply to nephrology do it as a backup specialty. I cannot think of any specialty where this many are hedging their bets. Even people who apply to this specialty knows that is has a lot of problems, so why do it?


Wow. This seems very concerning. This is such an amazing specialty but $$$$$ has gone down too much to sustain interest. I wonder if creating more Neph/Critical Care combined programs could help. Maybe we could start to see more and more jobs where it is feasible to do both nephrology and CCM. Something like this might help the field recruit good candidates.
 
So she was an IMG and did a residency prior to fellowship. That’s not what we are talking about here. Unless she did not finish the residency in Qatar then I would want to know which NY program went alongside with that and what year this was.

Read my post carefully. She did her IM residency in Qatar followed by a nephrology fellowship in NYC followed by an IM residency in NYC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think it's pretty safe to assume that if you are applying to more than one specialty, nephrology was not your first choice.
Anyone with common sense here trying to claim that nephrology was their first choice and cardiology was their backup?
Nephrology is the backup because there is no need for another backup. Anyone can match.

And why are we arguing whether taking IMGs with an residency from a foreign country makes it more acceptable?
Specialties like Cards and GI don't take these applicants.

There are no surveys to show what percentage of nephrologist quit the specialty after practicing nephrology for
couple of years. Anecdotally, this a common outcome and many have posted on SDN on their dissastifaction
with their lifestyle/reimbursement arrangements. It may take a few years in private practice to figure out it's
not worth it financially.
 
Wow. This seems very concerning. This is such an amazing specialty but $$$$$ has gone down too much to sustain interest. I wonder if creating more Neph/Critical Care combined programs could help. Maybe we could start to see more and more jobs where it is feasible to do both nephrology and CCM. Something like this might help the field recruit good candidates.

I will not go into what I have said before about reimbursement. It's not hard to make $350K+. However, to your main point, yes, options like neph/critical care and interventional nephrology are great options for folks looking to do more procedures and make more money. From what I have heard, the smarter programs are making those into more formal tracks. I would just have an interventional job already known before proceeding with that as that could be tighter.
 
I think it's pretty safe to assume that if you are applying to more than one specialty, nephrology was not your first choice.
Anyone with common sense here trying to claim that nephrology was their first choice and cardiology was their backup?
Nephrology is the backup because there is no need for another backup. Anyone can match.

"Assume." These are IMGs that are taking a shotgun approach. You started with a foregone conclusion then interpreted a piece of data to suit that fancy. I am sure nephrology is used as a back up, but I doubt it rises to that 60% from that statement.

And why are we arguing whether taking IMGs with an residency from a foreign country makes it more acceptable?
Specialties like Cards and GI don't take these applicants.

You brought it up...Like, you literally said programs are taking people who have not completed a residency to further trash the specialty.

You said:
Instead, practicing nephrologists need to come together to pressure fellowship programs to decrease fellowship positions. Or at the very least, stop taking applicants who have not completed an IM residency.

You said:
This is just pettiness at this point. Yes, I personally know of programs who do this and I know of people who were accepted without an IM residency.

Egghead said:
Unless I’ve missed it, that article doesn’t seem to cite their source for the bolded claim. That’s a huge claim to make, and I’m genuinely interested in learning if that’s true or not.

I said:
I want to know which programs that you know have taken on fellows who did not complete a residency anywhere. That is important information.

For the last part, they are referring to IMGs. They said as much in the first paragraph of the article. Why do you think in that bolded part they specified “United States”?

Your backpedaling is noted. I won't go so far as to say that a graduate from a non-US IM program is automatically worse or unqualified to do a fellowship. Maybe you are willing to do so.

There are no surveys to show what percentage of nephrologist quit the specialty after practicing nephrology for
couple of years. Anecdotally, this a common outcome and many have posted on SDN on their dissastifaction
with their lifestyle/reimbursement arrangements. It may take a few years in private practice to figure out it's
not worth it financially.

The available data shows things are improving. Otherwise, how does this work? If I find more people who are doing well, does that offset what is listed here? You are right. They are anecdotes. Anyone who has posted such a story, I have asked them for further details, and none are provided. They are drive by posts where people do not want to go into the details of generally where they are working, are there visa issues, was the contract vetted, etc. Nothing.

I'll continue to be active on SDN so we can check in every once in a while to see how the subspecialty and I am doing. I'll continue to be available for anyone to ask questions about nephrolgoy if one is interested. There needs to be a positive voice. You will probably remain on SDN exclusively to grind whatever axe you picked up along the way.
 
"Assume." These are IMGs that are taking a shotgun approach. You started with a foregone conclusion then interpreted a piece of data to suit that fancy. I am sure nephrology is used as a back up, but I doubt it rises to that 60% from that statement.



You brought it up...Like, you literally said programs are taking people who have not completed a residency to further trash the specialty.









Your backpedaling is noted. I won't go so far as to say that a graduate from a non-US IM program is automatically worse or unqualified to do a fellowship. Maybe you are willing to do so.



The available data shows things are improving. Otherwise, how does this work? If I find more people who are doing well, does that offset what is listed here? You are right. They are anecdotes. Anyone who has posted such a story, I have asked them for further details, and none are provided. They are drive by posts where people do not want to go into the details of generally where they are working, are there visa issues, was the contract vetted, etc. Nothing.

I'll continue to be active on SDN so we can check in every once in a while to see how the subspecialty and I am doing. I'll continue to be available for anyone to ask questions about nephrolgoy if one is interested. There needs to be a positive voice. You will probably remain on SDN exclusively to grind whatever axe you picked up along the way.

I’m perplexed why you are so hard campaigning to establish that nephrology is an attractive field and that it’s alive and well. If the field is indeed in despair as everyone believes, you need that belief to continue so the market has a chance to correct itself. If the field is actually in better shape than others believe, then you get to enjoy a bigger piece of the pie if that secret is kept. Unless you really need that validation, I feel you are campaigning to paint a rosy picture of the outlook of nephrology only to your detriment.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I’m perplexed why you are so hard campaigning to establish that nephrology is an attractive field and that it’s alive and well. If the field is indeed in despair as everyone believes, you need that belief to continue so the market has a chance to correct itself. If the field is actually in better shape than others believe, then you get to enjoy a bigger piece of the pie if that secret is kept. Unless you really need that validation, I feel you are campaigning to paint a rosy picture of the outlook of nephrology only to your detriment.

You know, it’s funny because I had some of the same thoughts, lol. I don’t imagine my posting here however does much for the specialty itself, maybe just help provide some useful information to those in training. I don’t imagine that I stand to benefit financially as that depends on my local market. My circle of influence is small so I think you give me much too credit either way.

Nephrology has its problems, but the truth is better, and I would argue much better at least for AMGs, than what is depicted here. That’s all.
 
Top