New Residency Guidelines Extend Training

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

DarthNeurology

Full Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
780
Reaction score
12
Wow . . . If you’ve read the latest news about the 2011 federal budget with regards to residency training then it seems like a whole lot of residents will be required to complete extra training to help close an expected demographic crisis regarding the longterm care of “vulnerable” patient populations who will be given federally subsidized health care coverage through Obamacare.

For example, my program director said that starting in 2012/2013 FY each resident will need to complete an end of year 8 week training session at an underserved outpatient health care facility (such as an HIV/AIDS clinic for the indigent), which after 3 years of IM training works out to an extra 24 weeks or almost six months! 😱

Some of us have loans to pay!

Here is one article pasted below:

Health and Human Services Deputy Secretary Bill Corr Announces Medical Education Initiative to Shore Up HIV/AIDS Care Services

Despite the ongoing legal battles over President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and democratic legislators mounting reluctance to debate the bill’s merits in public, Deputy HHS Secretary Bill Corr is laying the groundwork for the training of much needed HIV/AIDS specialists, and other medical specialties, which he says will experience critical shortages in the years to come.

“For years, really, we’ve known that we would face acute physician shortages in key patient care areas after the passage of PPACA, . . . and we’ve decided to proactively address these issue now, before the full scale implementation phase.”

Corr noted that while many doctors in training receive extensive hospital experience caring for critically ill patients, new diseases such as HIV/AIDS and pressing public health issues such as premature birth and smoking cessation are not emphasized enough during post graduate medical training.

“We are graduating doctors who are great at taking care of a hospitalized patients with pneumonia, but where we are falling behind is in the care, for instance, of a young homeless mother who has no access to prenatal care, or a father with HIV who is working two jobs and can’t afford medications. As a part of how we accredit newly trained doctors, we are adopting new standards which will address these shortages and help provide the workforce which will make PPACA economically sustainable and feasible in terms of provider capacity.”

The working group that Corr chairs at the HHS will submit new national guidelines to post graduate medical education training programs, and will require all non-surgical medical specialties to require their graduates to annually complete 8 weeks of training each year at a clinic in a federally designated health shortage area or one which addresses the needs of vulnerable patients such as those with HIV, chronic hepatitis, and substance abuse issues.

“We foresee the development of additional competency benchmarks which are adaptive to the healthcare needs of the nation, be they administered via a written examination or through completion of a clinically relevant educational experience with defined guidelines. Should these changes prove beneficial in terms of post graduate medical education, as we believe they will be, then we might expand them further at a later date,” explained Corr. Corr also suggested that both the effectiveness of the education, and the integration of newly graduated doctors into underserved health care settings will be evaluated from both a fiscal and an educational viewpoint.

“The demographic challenges are . . . huge to put it bluntly. A large number of physicians who are experienced with the care of HIV/AIDS patients will be retiring, and new medical school graduates are not gravitating towards these shortage areas like they have in past years. The administration decided that we needed to be proactive in terms of how we determined what sort of clinical experiences newly accredited doctors should have had and what sustainability means in difficult fiscal times from a public health standpoint.” Corr added that service to vulnerable populations should be ingrained in medical education through real world experience, rather than sidelined by emphasis on the care of critically sick patients which dominant current training guidelines.

Not all health education experts agree. Dr. Mary Williams, the director of the Kalamazoo Nurse Practitioner program, disagrees that the physician workforce can be expanded to meet the need. “For decades, nurse practitioners and other mid-level care providers have stepped up to the bat when it comes to the care of patients in resource poor clinic settings, especially when it comes to the care of a defined population of patients, such as the training we give students in caring for patients attending a diabetes clinic.” Dr. Williams pointed out that while the federal government can mandate the expansion of post graduate medical training, actually recruiting doctors to shortage areas has become much more difficult.

The new guidelines are expected to be released this July, and will take effect nationwide in one year.

Carlos Estevez Reuters/AP Wire



 
Last edited:
actually recruiting doctors to shortage areas has become much more difficult.

start paying them as much as cardiology or GI and they will come

not that hard to figure out
 
That's pretty solid. How long did it take you to write all that?
 
what specialties will have this additoinal training? maybe just IM and FP right?
 
... 😕

You do realize that this article was an April Fool's Day joke, right?

too bad.
would it be such a bad thing if docs/pa's/np's were required to do a stint working with the underserved as part of their training?
many other countries already do this...
 
too bad.
would it be such a bad thing if docs/pa's/np's were required to do a stint working with the underserved as part of their training?
many other countries already do this...

In a way, no, it wouldn't be bad at all.

In a way, yes, it would be. If all you do is a 6 month stint, you don't get the opportunity to develop the kind of long-term relationships with your patient and community that help improve the kind of care you give. This isn't the army, where a 2 year stint is a rite of passage, and one soldier is, once trained, interchangeable with another.

I go back and forth on the issue, as you can probably tell.
 
N

What is it with people who want to force/mandate/require/draft OTHER people to do the things they feel worthwhile?
Yeah, it would be awful if doctors had to provide care for those without resources and not get paid for it....it's not like they have any social responsibility as healers or public health figures or anything
 
Yeah, it would be awful if doctors had to provide care for those without resources and not get paid for it....it's not like they have any social responsibility as healers or public health figures or anything

Most people working in poorer US city hospitals (most places) already do that. It is called doing your job everyday.
 
NP's seem to already doing that for much more pay than a resident. the gov doesn't want to make extra residency programs to fill that rural area gap either.....
 
So how do you make a living? You don't volunteer 100% of the time? Don't tell me that you are actually... *gasp*... making money?! Money to feed your kids, buy some stuff, etc etc etc ... bad bad bad!

You are not holier than the rest of us.

didn't say I was.
I do VOLUNTEER though 2-3 days/month (domestically in my community) and 2-3 weeks/yr(overseas) without pay(and in fact this costs me money).
and yes, my regular jobs are in both urban and rural locations seeing folks who can't generally pay for their services.
if it was all about the money I could make bank.making 200k/yr is doable as an em pa if that is your focus.
my point was that health care providers have some responsibility to care for members of their community (however you define that) regardless of their ability to pay. we are civil servants, we are just very well paid civil servants. I'm not saying give away 100% of your time but 5%?, 10%?. you can still make a great living and care for folks who really need the help without looking always to your own wallet first. cops break up fights off duty. paramedics help little old ladies who collapse in church on their days off, etc. we aren't any different than these folks.
medicine has to be about more than just money. it has to be about public health and global health. if we don't stop a nasty infectious disease in the poor parts of town, guess what? soon it's in your neighborhood, sickening your kids at school and your friends in their nice offices....I need to make money just like the next guy to pay my mortgage and car insurance, etc but there is more to life than that.. I know some of you agree with me..after all there is a physicians for social responsibility group out there somewhere....
 
fine, how would you feel about incorporating it into the curriculum like some international medical schools do?( I'm thinking specifically of the mexican "guardia" rotations in which a team of residents and a supervisor go live and work in a rural village for a month several times during training). I'm not talking about extending residency by 1 day but how about having ent docs do 4 days/yr repairing cleft palates and ophtho guys removing cataracts, etc all under supervision of course and as part of the residency experience.
there is a lot of pathology which folks miss if they do their entire residency in a suburban community hospital or academic medical ctr in a well to do neighborhood. with the world population rapidly expanding we will see malaria, typhoid, dengue, cholera, etc back in the united states within our lifetimes. wouldn't it be nice to be able to recognize them? I saw cholera live and in person for the first time 2 months ago. not something I will ever forget.
 
im glad this was an just an april fools joke.........😀
 
LOL. yeah.

But what happens when the joke becomes reality? If the government completely nationalizes healthcare then I wouldn't be surprised to find the emergence of rationing/dictating of training even more severe than now. In that case, who knows on which tropical island your future ENT will be delivering babies.

i just hope they add more residency programs to fill in the gap, to create more doctors..there are plenty of med students out there world wide waiting to become residents in the US..instead of tacking on additional training...that's just more cheap slave work. we already do enough. and i agree just do an elective or two if you really want to do some extra rural area work. but it has to be in the US if the goal is to create more US doctors in underserved areas.
 
I'm not saying that everyone should be forced to do tropical medicine. my point was that programs should include a rotation or 2 (or even a few days/yr) where residents take care of folks they normally wouldn't.
the hospital I am at has an fp residency program and all the residents have to rotate through the local free clinic during their training. that's the kind of thing I'm mostly talking about.
for those in surgical fields it might mean doing some of their required procedures for free( they aren't getting paid for them anyway(on a per case basis) so what's the issue there?). would any ent residents complain if they had to go to south america at program expense for a week and do cosmetic procedures on an underserved population? or ophtho docs going to the deep south to remove cataracts?
 
You don't seem to have much faith in the humanity of physicians-in-training. 😉

I'm not saying that everyone should be forced to do tropical medicine. my point was that programs should include a rotation or 2 (or even a few days/yr) where residents take care of folks they normally wouldn't.

😕 What exactly do you mean? Take care of folks that they normally wouldn't??

Here's a couple things that characterize most, if not all, residency programs:

- Residency programs, almost by default, take Medicare/Medicaid/Medical assistance. It is rare to find a residency program that does not. For most residents, "taking care of folks that they normally wouldn't" would mean taking care of people who are wealthy, well-educated, and insured.

In my residency program, which is located in a fairly frou-frou part of town, we are the only practice in the area that will take Medicaid. For us, it's very unusual to do a pap on a woman who doesn't smoke, doesn't use drugs, and doesn't have unprotected sex with multiple partners. It is also very rare for us to take care of a pregnant woman who is married to the father of her baby. It happens, it's just not the norm.

If I have a patient who needs to see a specialist, I generally refer them to another residency/fellowship program. I have to; they're the only ones that will accept that patient's insurance.

So I don't really know why you have the idea that residents only take care of the wealthy insured; that's definitely NOT the case....

- Many residents would actually welcome the chance to work in an underserved clinic. Most underserved clinics usually have patients that are generally more receptive to residents than the wealthy snobs. The pathology is often more varied and more interesting, and there's more opportunity for residents to do hands-on learning. In a wealthy GYN office, for instance, it's unusual for residents to do much more than assist or shadow.

would any ent residents complain if they had to go to south america at program expense for a week and do cosmetic procedures on an underserved population? or ophtho docs going to the deep south to remove cataracts?

Aside from those that would have serious childcare issues if they were to leave home for a week at a time, probably not. It's just very hard to set these things up.
 
too bad.
would it be such a bad thing if docs/pa's/np's were required to do a stint working with the underserved as part of their training?
many other countries already do this...
Not going to read through everything. But, no not a bad idea and IMHO is already being done by almost EVERY resident! I can't speak for PAs/NPs.

Think about it most residents train at a "teaching institution". During my general surgery residency a massive percentage of the patients I cared for were underserved, uninsured, and/or indigent! We spent much of our day navigating the red-tape and enrolling these patients into special services and/or connecting them with social services, etc.... Just because your institution may be a shiny big university in the good part of town does NOT mean your patient population is from the shiny, afluent, good part of town. On the contrary, other then the Obama/Chicago patient dumping management, most university and/or major teaching hospitals were routinely the recipients of "patient dumping". A rule of thumb learned by residents early.... transfers for "complexity" generally meant a patient's SOCIAL situation caused their medical condition to be "too complex" for the private/community physician to handle.
I'm not saying that everyone should be forced to do tropical medicine. my point was that programs should include a rotation or 2 (or even a few days/yr) where residents take care of folks they normally wouldn't...
Really not sure what exactly that means, "...take care of folks they normally wouldn't...". No offense intended, but it suggests you do not fully understand the patient population "normally" seen by residents at major teaching institutions.... see preceding comments.
...Here's a couple things that characterize most, if not all, residency programs:

- Residency programs, almost by default, take Medicare/Medicaid/Medical assistance. It is rare to find a residency program that does not. For most residents, "taking care of folks that they normally wouldn't" would mean taking care of people who are wealthy, well-educated, and insured...
Exactly!!!👍
 
Last edited:
having worked at several places with fp residencies my perspective on this is that (at least at the residencies I have been involved with) the residents see folks several steps up the social ladder from the bottom.
young families and immigrants who might be poor but don't live on the street, older folks with medicare, single mom's(with jobs), etc
they are not doing "street medicine" with a homeless, drug addicted, etc population. they will see folks with medicare and medicaid but won't see folks who qualify for neither. they will see folks who can keep regular appts, folks who have home phone #s....they don't have same day availability at all....aside from the free clinics we have one medical practice in a city of > 500,000 who will see anyone regardless of ability to pay and will set up sliding scale payment plans..they have a 5-7 week delay for new patients and 2-3 weeks for returning pts....
 
Yeah, it would be awful if doctors had to provide care for those without resources and not get paid for it....it's not like they have any social responsibility as healers or public health figures or anything

I have a social responsibility of 350,000 dollars in student loans capitalizing almost 25k a year in interest while I train for another 6 years whilst trying to feed my kids on a resident salary. When my future 250,000 salary wont be 125,000 gone to taxes and another 50,000 to student loans, leaving me with 60k, less than most of you and your fellow PA's depsite the fact I will have trained for 14 years, I'll be happy to devote my time to good cause for free. Until then I'll leave it to those who aren't using WIC to feed their kids despite being a physician to provide the free care to the underserved....
 
Last edited:
I have a social responsibility of 350,000 dollars in student loans capitalizing almost 25k a year in interest while I train for another 6 years whilst trying to feed my kids on a resident salary. When my future 250,000 salary wont be 125,000 gone to taxes and another 50,000 to student loans, leaving me with 60k, less than most of you and your fellow PA's depsite the fact I will have trained for 14 years, I'll be happy to devote my time to good cause for free. Until then I'll leave it to those who aren't using WIC to feed their kids despite being a physician to provide the free care to the underserved....

👍
 
While I recognized prior to my first post that this thread was humor, the misconception being perpetuated demanded a response. I just love the idea that residents don't experience/practice/provide enough "street medicine" care. It seems everyone has an opinion and/or social agenda as to what a resident and/or physician should or must do for someone's perceived societal cause. That is all good and well, it's America after all and everyone gets an opinion informed or otherwise.....
...residents see folks several steps up the social ladder from the bottom.
young families and immigrants who might be poor but don't live on the street, older folks with medicare, single mom's(with jobs), etc
they are not doing "street medicine" with a homeless, drug addicted, etc population...
Interesting, ~not poor enough to meet your standards of serving the underserved.
...residents...will see folks with medicare and medicaid but won't see folks who qualify for neither...
Ahhhh, yeh, sure, that is based on a real understanding of reality.... not! As to appointments, I saw, and residents after me have seen plenty of drug addicts, prostatutes, etc, etc that lacked a contact phone number.... And yes, you are right, we generally do not see patients that don't keep their appointments. We do see them if the show up a few hours late for said appointment. But, there are limits. We aren't going out (regularly) to chase down a patient, remind them and or force them to have an appointment just because we are so paternal.....
 
Last edited:
having worked at several places with fp residencies my perspective on this is that (at least at the residencies I have been involved with) the residents see folks several steps up the social ladder from the bottom.
young families and immigrants who might be poor but don't live on the street, older folks with medicare, single mom's(with jobs), etc
they are not doing "street medicine" with a homeless, drug addicted, etc population. they will see folks with medicare and medicaid but won't see folks who qualify for neither. they will see folks who can keep regular appts, folks who have home phone #s....they don't have same day availability at all....aside from the free clinics we have one medical practice in a city of > 500,000 who will see anyone regardless of ability to pay and will set up sliding scale payment plans..they have a 5-7 week delay for new patients and 2-3 weeks for returning pts....

Please don't take offense at this, but you are thinking like a pre-med.

Many pre-meds think that the TRULY indigent (i.e. homeless) are the MOST challenging patients, who need the most help, that's why all doctors should volunteer their time at free clinics, etc.

In my experience, the easiest patients to arrange care for are the super wealthy and the very poor. There are many programs across the country designed to get medical aid to the very poor. Even at my hospital in a frou-frou part of town, there is a "Charity Care" program, which pays for medical care for the indigent.

It's the people that fall in between that are truly difficult to care for. It's the people that you described - "young families and immigrants who might be poor but don't live on the street, older folks with medicare, single mom's(with jobs), etc". These people are often just one paycheck away from disaster. These are people whose jobs, in this economy, are so tenuous that they are afraid to ask for days off so they can go to the doctor. If they have to take medical leave, they risk losing their jobs. These are people who make JUST ENOUGH so that they do not qualify for charity care, but who can only afford catastrophic insurance, which does not pay for ANYTHING.

I have a patient who has bad back pain, who very much needs an MRI. He doesn't qualify for charity care, because he holds a job. However, his job does not offer health insurance, so he buys his own catastrophic insurance. I had to PLEAD with his insurance company to please please please approve that MRI. I wrote 3 letters...and got denied each time. Finally, in desperation, I sent him to a nearby ortho residency program, hoping that he could be seen at their spine clinic. I called one of the attendings and apologized that he was coming without an MRI, but that I couldn't get one approved, and he couldn't afford to pay $2500 out of pocket for it. The spine attending completely understood. (He finally managed to get it approved, but it took him a couple of tries, too.)

I have another patient, who suffers from bad migraines. He also has terrible insurance, through his wife's job. His migraines are controlled by ONE specific medication....a medication that his insurance refuses to cover. The medications cost several hundred dollars out of pocket. If he were unemployed and uninsured, I could ask Glaxo's charity programs to help pay for it. As it is, he does not qualify. The other medications that his insurance company DOES cover do not work, or have intolerable side effects. I am in the process of writing my second round of letters to ask his insurance company to make an exception.

This is ignoring the fact that, yes, I see my fair share of homeless, hopelessly addicted patients who have no permanent address, no phone number, no contact information.

So yes, I think it's great that you do your share of "street medicine." However, they are NOT the only ones who need help, they are NOT the only ones who are underserved, and they are NOT the most socially complicated patients out there. The ones who aren't wealthy enough to pay for their healthcare out of pocket, but are not poor enough to qualify for charity care, are just as underserved, and need our help just as much.
 
i think the programs that get the most diversity of the patient population are those in NYC. Places like Iowa or Wyoming, etc, however probably don't, but its' not their fault. it is their geographical location. Maybe it would be good for those programs without diversity to experience diversity with away rotations to places like NYC, NJ, etc. but if you are already in NYC, you've pretty much seen it all just by being there.
 
So yes, I think it's great that you do your share of "street medicine." However, they are NOT the only ones who need help, they are NOT the only ones who are underserved, and they are NOT the most socially complicated patients out there. The ones who aren't wealthy enough to pay for their healthcare out of pocket, but are not poor enough to qualify for charity care, are just as underserved, and need our help just as much.

thanks you for your response. I totally agree with you by the way. the "working poor" certainly present their own specific challenges( do I pay rent or buy the abx for my kids, etc).
 
Maybe it would be good for those programs without diversity to experience diversity with away rotations to places like NYC, NJ, etc..
that was kind of my point....but I'm not a resident so my opinion doesn't count apparently...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i think the programs that get the most diversity of the patient population are those in NYC. Places like Iowa or Wyoming, etc, however probably don't...Maybe it would be good for those programs without diversity to experience diversity with away rotations to places like NYC, NJ, etc. but if you are already in NYC, you've pretty much seen it all just by being there.
that was kind of my point....but I'm not a resident so my opinion doesn't count apparently...
This really is toward emedpa, no offense is intended, but I anticipate will still result.

First, your opinion is fine, and in general, welcome. However, there are some points...
One: Your opinion as intitially stated and progressively defended, while likely not intended, does come accross as "pie in the sky idealism" while simultaneously offensive.

It/they [opinion/s] have been fairly generalized and very much not reflective of the realities in many if not most residencies. Residencies and teaching programs in general accross many [if not all] specialties are well known dumping grounds for the most underserved and under-insured. These institutions [aside from the Chicago M. Obama period] have served as the only and/or last resort for the "salt of the earth", addicts, criminals, prostitutes, unemployed, employed poor, and medicare/medicaid. If it is big enough, they often also include VA hospital coverage.

Then of course, on-top of that generalization, you as an outside observer are generally making a claim as to what a resident/physician should be obligated to do. A socialistic ideal, etc....

Finally, it is frustrating for comments that clearly imply one underserved population is more deserving. I have watched minorities for years fight to be the most worthy "bigger victim" for social programs. In our society, our system is as noted earlier skewed that the working poor and almost poor have few social services where the "street" poor have oodles and oodles of charities and social services. Yet, you suggest that population should be the focus and maybe I misread, but suggest residents should be going out of their way to deliver care to individuals that don't seek care/keep appointments.

To Turquoise: Your comment further expands on the misperception and/or misrepresentation. Honestly, it is a fairly ignorant [i.e. uninformed] comment. The folks in NYC may get a variety of cultures/"races" that differs from Kentucky, Montana, Wyoming.... However, every residency I know has ACGME guidelines of minimum pathology exposure. On top of that while the population in some areas may be more caucasian, there are plenty of criminals, prostitutes, addicts, unemployed, employed poor, uneducated, uninsured, underinsured, etc, etc, etc.... Should the NYC trainees go to Alaska for "Eskimo Medicine" exposure or the Dakotas for "Native American Medicine" exposure.... There is an infinite amount to learn. NYC, Wash DC, Miami, and Cali are NOT the perfect, all encompassing exposure training centers.

Ultimately, the goal of residency is to optimize training of physicians that will independently care for different populations. That training currently, in most if not all cases, entails a significant amount of care delivery to criminals, prostitutes, addicts, unemployed, employed poor, uneducated, uninsured, underinsured, medicare/medicaid, etc, etc, etc. If anyone is trying to tinker with the training requirements, etc for some social agenda, they should really have a better grasp of the realities and make sure they are not just complicating or worse damaging/decreasing the quality of training just because of some idealism.....
 
No offense taken or intended.
I feel like this thread got a bit out of hand and I apologize for any nonintended slam to residents.
I know you guys have a hard job, are underappreciated/underpaid, and go out of your way to deliver good care to the populations you serve.
 
having worked at several places with fp residencies my perspective on this is that (at least at the residencies I have been involved with) the residents see folks several steps up the social ladder from the bottom.
young families and immigrants who might be poor but don't live on the street, older folks with medicare, single mom's(with jobs), etc
they are not doing "street medicine" with a homeless, drug addicted, etc population. they will see folks with medicare and medicaid but won't see folks who qualify for neither. they will see folks who can keep regular appts, folks who have home phone #s....they don't have same day availability at all....aside from the free clinics we have one medical practice in a city of > 500,000 who will see anyone regardless of ability to pay and will set up sliding scale payment plans..they have a 5-7 week delay for new patients and 2-3 weeks for returning pts....

Definitely not true for the large majority of residency clinics! Did you actually work in any resident clinics? I'm not talking about working in the ER at a hospital with family practice residency programs and are assuming what type of population the residents see. We (resident clinics) are often one of the few places uninsured or underinsured people will be seen outside of free clinics. I find it frustrating when people assume things....I don't attempt to assume what your challenges are as a ED P.A. and would appreciate if you don't assume what mine as a resident are 🙂
 
Definitely not true for the large majority of residency clinics! Did you actually work in any resident clinics? I'm not talking about working in the ER at a hospital with family practice residency programs and are assuming what type of population the residents see. We (resident clinics) are often one of the few places uninsured or underinsured people will be seen outside of free clinics. I find it frustrating when people assume things....I don't attempt to assume what your challenges are as a ED P.A. and would appreciate if you don't assume what mine as a resident are 🙂

see my apology above(post #38).
but as to work setting- at a prior job I worked in an fp residency clinic seeing overflow/same day/urgent appts. my supervising physician was the director of the residency. I had interns with me on a procedures rotation fairly regularly. we cross covered each others pts. and shared common work space. I was very involved with the residency and socialized with many of the residents outside of work. I went to all their end of yr grad parties, etc
at my current job I still work with fp residents although I do not work at/for the program like I did previously.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The ones who aren't wealthy enough to pay for their healthcare out of pocket, but are not poor enough to qualify for charity care, are just as underserved, and need our help just as much.

Incredibly true statement...and unfortunately a growing segment of the population.
 
No offense taken or intended.
I feel like this thread got a bit out of hand and I apologize for any nonintended slam to residents.
I know you guys have a hard job, are underappreciated/underpaid, and go out of your way to deliver good care to the populations you serve.
see my apology above(post #38)...
No worries.
...😕 What exactly do you mean? Take care of folks that they normally wouldn't??

...Residency programs, almost by default, take Medicare/Medicaid/Medical assistance. It is rare to find a residency program that does not. For most residents, "taking care of folks that they normally wouldn't" would mean taking care of people who are wealthy, well-educated, and insured...
...In my experience, the easiest patients to arrange care for are the super wealthy and the very poor. There are many programs across the country designed to get medical aid to the very poor. Even at my hospital in a frou-frou part of town, there is a "Charity Care" program, which pays for medical care for the indigent.

It's the people that fall in between that are truly difficult to care for. It's the people that you described - "young families and immigrants who might be poor but don't live on the street, older folks with medicare, single mom's(with jobs), etc"...These are people who make JUST ENOUGH so that they do not qualify for charity care...

...."street medicine." ...are NOT the only ones who need help, they are NOT the only ones who are underserved, and they are NOT the most socially complicated patients out there. The ones who aren't wealthy enough to pay for their healthcare out of pocket, but are not poor enough to qualify for charity care, are just as underserved, and need our help just as much.
👍Agree with all of the above.
 
Last edited:
Top