Pathology in Europe vs USA

[Pugzilla]

---

Members do not see this ad.

What happened to pathology in the US? Everything seems to suggest the job market is screwed over there?

It's is one of the more competitive specialties in many European countries with a major shortage of pathologists. I'm currently in training and I'm guaranteed a job in any location I want. It seems to be the opposite in the US.

Is the USA simply producing too many pathologists?

 

[octopusprime]

Simply put, yes: we're training too many. There are too many programs of mediocre quality.

Do European systems dictate the number of training spots & subsequent jobs?

 

[coroner]

Is the USA simply producing too many pathologists?

No one knows because this topic has never been discussed here.

 

[Pugzilla]

Do European systems dictate the number of training spots & subsequent jobs?

Yeah, the numbers in training are strictly controlled. Every resident in training is directly overseen by a national specialty college, Royal College of Pathologists for example. Intake is adjusted every year to keep the total number of residents constant.

 

[jp123ok]

Yeah, the numbers in training are strictly controlled. Every resident in training is directly overseen by a national specialty college, Royal College of Pathologists for example. Intake is adjusted every year to keep the total number of residents constant.

How much are pathologists paid in different parts of Europe? I've read that salaries are relatively low in the UK. Is this correct?

 

[octopusprime]

Yeah, the numbers in training are strictly controlled. Every resident in training is directly overseen by a national specialty college, Royal College of Pathologists for example. Intake is adjusted every year to keep the total number of residents constant.

I mean our overlords dictate the number of spots too, but the total number of programs & spots per program isn't restricted based on the number of jobs--that's the disconnect here...the government sets the number of training locations & spots per location, but there's no direct relation with jobs...the various specialties lobby for or against increased training.

In path, our governing bodies spend 99% of their time lobbying for maintained/better reimbursement / maintaining their slice of the pie, while the training institutions themselves fight to maintain training spots as matters of pride/funding/perception/cheap labor.

 

[gbwillner]

I mean our overlords dictate the number of spots too, but the total number of programs & spots per program isn't restricted based on the number of jobs--that's the disconnect here...the government sets the number of training locations & spots per location, but there's no direct relation with jobs...the various specialties lobby for or against increased training.

In path, our governing bodies spend 99% of their time lobbying for maintained/better reimbursement / maintaining their slice of the pie, while the training institutions themselves fight to maintain training spots as matters of pride/funding/perception/cheap labor.

The above is true, but its more complicated than "there are too many pathologists". If looking at volume of work, we are not making too many. The underlying issue is that reimbursement is down, and pathology has been dis-proportionally affected by this. This results in people doing more volume to maintain income, meaning less available work. This is compounded by competing interests between labs/large diagnostic companies and practicing pathologists; as well as consolidation and commoditization of pathology work.

 

[octopusprime]

The above is true, but its more complicated than "there are too many pathologists". If looking at volume of work, we are not making too many. The underlying issue is that reimbursement is down, and pathology has been dis-proportionally affected by this. This results in people doing more volume to maintain income, meaning less available work. This is compounded by competing interests between labs/large diagnostic companies and practicing pathologists; as well as consolidation and commoditization of pathology work.

But reimbursement going down is not something that happened overnight...and that's the only direction it has ever gone and will ever continue to go. And given that pathologists will have to sign out ever increasing volumes to prevent a loss of revenue, how does maintaining the same # of graduates help the situation?

This last reality--the pool of job applicants--is one our governing bodies have control over...they're never going to lobby successfully to increase payments any appreciable amount...and while their efforts in preventing or fighting continued cuts are worthwhile, decreasing the size of the field as a whole would make the job marker better and more importantly shrink the pool of dead weight pathologists dragging us down in the race to the bottom. If there's not a bottomless pool of grads willing to take $175 from LabCorps or Ameripath to work 60hr weeks for 4 weeks vacation, the compensation & working conditions necessarily improve.