Petition for Combined Match Status Thread

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

Bookworm

Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
54
Reaction score
0
Fellow Student Doctors

Attached to this post is a PDF version of the finalized combined match petition. Please print it our for distribution at your school. (Duplicate Page 2 as needed)

NOTE: (1/5/05) I have reposted the PDF with a minor change to include a slot for signature and date. Sorry for any inconvenience.
(if you have already printed and passed out the earlier form, please write in the date)

So far, our volunteers for collecting signatures at the respective COMs are:

PACtoDOC - UNT HSC/TCOM
delicatefade - CCOM
bookworm - UMDNJ SOM
elysium - TUCOM NV
Thousandth - DMU
jhug - AZCOM
docslytherin - KCOM
DrMom - OSU COM
raptor5 - PCOM
donvicious - COMP

If you are willing to collect signatures at a COM not listed yet, please add to this list.


This thread will also be used to monitor the status at each respective school.
When you have collected signatures, please post on this thread as to the progress. It would also be helpful to know a rough idea of how many signatures were collected.

Thanks to everyone who contributed to the final petition, and thanks in advance for everyone's support.
 

Attachments

Quoted from Bookworm:

"Fellow Student Doctors

Attached to this post is a PDF version of the finalized combined match petition. Please print it our for distribution at your school. (Duplicate Page 2 as needed)

So far, our volunteers for collecting signatures at the respective COMs are:

PACtoDOC - UNT HSC/TCOM
delicatefade - CCOM
bookworm - UMDNJ SOM
elysium - TUCOM NV
Thousandth - DMU
jhug - AZCOM
docslytherin - KCOM
DrMom - OSU COM
raptor5 - PCOM
donvicious - COMP
AUdacious - NSUCOM

If you are willing to collect signatures at a COM not listed yet, please add to this list.


This thread will also be used to monitor the status at each respective school.
When you have collected signatures, please post on this thread as to the progress. It would also be helpful to know a rough idea of how many signatures were collected.

Thanks to everyone who contributed to the final petition, and thanks in advance for everyone's support."

War Eagle,
AUdacious
NSUCOM Class of 2007
 
NOTE: (1/5/05) I have reposted the PDF with a minor change to include a slot for signature and date. Sorry for any inconvenience.
(if you have already printed and passed out the earlier form, please write in the date)
 
Bookworm said:
NOTE: (1/5/05) I have reposted the PDF with a minor change to include a slot for signature and date. Sorry for any inconvenience.
(if you have already printed and passed out the earlier form, please write in the date)

Hey, can we have everyone report how many signatures they have and when they officially sent them off to the AOA?

Thanks
Ryan
 
I passed this around among first year students several times. I got about 120 signatures. The second year student president wanted to opted to wait. Not quite sure why, yet.

Would you like me to send this directly to the AOA or should I send it to the author?
 
They should be sent to the AOA. If you can, send the entire list for your school at once, but if you can only send for a class or 2 that'll do.

I've gotten a chunk of MS1/2/4, but none from my class (we're dispersed). Still working on it. 👍
 
Thanks for the info. There seem to be some gears grinding up in the second year classroom so I'll hold off on sending it just yet.
 
update from UMDNJ:

got about 1/2 of the 3rd year class so far.
starting to collect sigs from 1st and 2nd years.

also, if possible, before sending the petition to the AOA, please make a copy with all of the sigs (if we have to send it again)
 
hi everyone!

just wanted to say, keep up the good work here! what all of you are doing is very important, and we need to get as many signatures as possible. i'll send out out more information soon on this issue.
 
what i believe we are going to do at azcom is send slightly changed individual letters as well as letters from the presidents of supporting clubs (soma/ama etc...)
We figure they are just going to throw these away, so we might as well make them remeber it🙂
 
Update on CCOM: Our class president and I met with our Dean to tell her about the petition and our concerns. She didn't really seem to have an opinion either way (or she was being extremely tactful) but she did share with us a few of her thoughts on the AOA's position. She said that her impression is that as a whole, upper AOA leadership holds a neutral to slightly negative opinion on the joint match. She said that some of the reasons we may be seeing opposition to the idea are:

1. Some of the older DO's are carrying over some baggage from other hasty decisions she has seen the AOA make that didn't quite have the results they expected.

2. There is concern that if there is a joint match, instead of MORE DO students applying for DO residencies (which is what we are arguing), they fear that DO students will stop applying to DO residencies, go all allopathic and try to get their internships approved for the 5 states that require osteopathic internships for licensure. This would mean the demise of many of the DO hospitals/residency programs, etc.

She was supportive and willing to listen to us and had no bad things to say about trying to get the petition sent around our classes. She did mention that there is a DO who is head of the AOA committee for graduate medical education, and she said that HE IS THE KEY TO THIS ISSUE. Meaning, if enough people call him and actually get him to change his mind, the AOA will likely change their minds. She unofficially gave us his phone number but told us to please leave her name out of the discussion. 😉

PM me if you want the name and number.

So far we have some signatures and I'm working on the rest.
 
Thanks goes to Raptor5 for bringing this issue to PCOM. Here's an update on what we've been doing on campus:

  1. We've brought the combined-match issue to our student government and SOMA representatives.
  2. Our SGA president was extremely active on this issue last year and is going to be a huge asset in helping to educate our classmates on the importance of this topic.
  3. Ideally, we would like to educate everyone about what they would be signing, but I don't think the administration is too keen on teaching students about the match so early in their education. It will be the students' unofficial obligation to circulate knowledge at this point.
  4. Our outgoing and incoming SOMA presidents are actively working with SOMA to develop an official SOMA position on the issue.
  5. We anticipate circulating the petition within the next 2 weeks.

Opinions? Advice?
 
Sorry to those who have PM'd me about the name and number of that individual. I have misplaced the number, and I'm contacting our class president to get it for you. I'll PM you soon.
 
Hi everyone,

I am an executive officer of the Council of Osteopathic Student Government Presidents (COSGP) which represents all osteopathic medical students. We are currently working on a resolution to be submitted to the AOA for the next House of Delegates in July. There was a resolution at the last House of Delegates for a combined match that was spoken very strongly for by students that represent your schools. Unfortunately, the greater majority of the AOA at this time does not feel it is in the best interest of students to go this route. The reasons mentioned by the CCOM dean seem to be most prominent, though not all physicians that way. There are people, such as herself, who feel students should have more of a say. Let's hope students such as yourselves can continue to bring active discussion to the table.

The best thing to do is to get in touch with your SGA President. We have a meeting of COSGP in late February where this topic will be discussed. It is imperative that the Council goes into the discussion knowing how their student body feels of this issue. Not all students agree this is a good issue but we represent the majority voice.

For anything to occur in the AOA, a formal resolution needs to be passed at the AOA House of Delegates. We need your input to lobby as we begin to write the resolution stating all the points that have been mentioned. I will take this petition to our meeting and with your added comments, we can build a solid foundation for arguement.

Again, please get in touch with your SGA President or other officer. You can also PM me, and I will also take your comments to the meeting.

Thanks for your help.

njdo

PS...Throughout the year the AOA schedules visits to each of the schools by the AOA President, Dr. Thomas. Please bring this topic up when he visits so he can hear from the student body members directly what the overwhelming opinion is.
 
I just wanted to call something to everyone's attention. The format of the petition does not include a summary above each signature page. This is pretty standard on all legal petitions. Conceivably, someone could collect signatures and switch the wording of the petition.

I realize this is not a legal petition but I thought it possible that someone in the AOA might turn this detail against us.
 
hi everyone. i was approached by our SOMA president this morning. she indicated that SOMA wanted to present the petition through their organization thinking that it would have more pull with the AOA. i told her i thought that some schools had sent in their petitions already, so i wanted to see what the status was for everyone.

apparently the SOMA presidents feel that it would be better received by the AOA if it comes from them... i'm not sure if i think that's necessarily true.

my view is that a grassroots organization of DO students without a club's oversight is a much more powerful statement. it demontrates a committment from the whole community rather than a fraction of the student body.

what does everyone else think? personally, i'm skeptical of sending the petition in under the supervision of SOMA, not because i believe that they might undermine the cause intentionally, but because this isn't a SOMA issue, it's a DO student isssue.

john
 
what i *believe* we are going to do at AZCOM is have each individual student mail a letter along with a letter from the leadership of each national club on behalf of the students they represent. We haven't sent anything yet though.


my personal take (this is in no way a reflection of AZCOM admin/student body...just what i think) is that the clubs (esp. SOMA) are important channels to use, and we should include them...but obviously dr. thomas doesn't care to listen to SOMA or the infamous letter would never have been sent to the AMA!!! He would have waited for this to be presented to the body of the AOA. It would have been discussed, debated, and voted upon...instead, he decided to bypass all legitimacy and send out a mandate he made up...

my $.02
 
I think that it would send a very strong message to have SOMA's endorsement.


docslytherin said:
hi everyone. i was approached by our SOMA president this morning. she indicated that SOMA wanted to present the petition through their organization thinking that it would have more pull with the AOA. i told her i thought that some schools had sent in their petitions already, so i wanted to see what the status was for everyone.

apparently the SOMA presidents feel that it would be better received by the AOA if it comes from them... i'm not sure if i think that's necessarily true.

my view is that a grassroots organization of DO students without a club's oversight is a much more powerful statement. it demontrates a committment from the whole community rather than a fraction of the student body.

what does everyone else think? personally, i'm skeptical of sending the petition in under the supervision of SOMA, not because i believe that they might undermine the cause intentionally, but because this isn't a SOMA issue, it's a DO student isssue.

john
 
NSUCOM update:

Robz and I have gotten about 130 signatures from the second year students and will speak to the first year students next week. We will let you know the final count when we are finished.

War Eagle,
AUdacious
NSUCOM Class of 2007
 
Hey all,

I think that going through SOMA is a great idea also, as long as they are willing to become the sponsors. On a second note. We still need more numbers on for the Combined Match Survey that is currently in progress. Can you please urge your students to visit the site and fill out the 9 questions. It only takes about two minutes. COSGP and SOMA Leadership are tracking the numbers and at last count we had 2600 replies.

The thread is:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=177459

and the survey site is:
http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?p=WEB2244PGSFGG8

I understand that many people are in the process of tests and the current match, but in order for COSGP and SOMA to effectively move forward and validate our petitions, we need to get as many current students to fill this out as possible.

Any questions about the survey can be posted on the thread and will be answered the same day.

Once again, many thanks to you all.
 
NSUCOM update:

Robz and I have collected right at 300 signatures from M1s and M2s. Its hard to get the M3s and M4s b/c they are scattered all over. SGA did send out the survey link though so hopefully the M3s and M4s will all participate through that means.
 
Hey everyone, we just had our meeting with Dr. Thomas, the AOA president at UNE. The topic came up and he said in not so many words, the he does not support it because he believes that DO students will begin to use the AOA residencies as safety net programs if the match is combined. He said, and I quote, "if the AOA match was after the Allopathic match, this would not be an issue." THAT statement made me really mad.... although on another issue, the whole time he seemed just to be saying what the AOA told him to say, he seemed very much like a figure head type, at least that's what I got out of his talk. Like he doesn't really have that much power, all the power is in the subcommittees. Any other opinions?
 
jonb12997 said:
Hey everyone, we just had our meeting with Dr. Thomas, the AOA president at UNE. The topic came up and he said in not so many words, the he does not support it because he believes that DO students will begin to use the AOA residencies as safety net programs if the match is combined. He said, and I quote, "if the AOA match was after the Allopathic match, this would not be an issue." THAT statement made me really mad.... although on another issue, the whole time he seemed just to be saying what the AOA told him to say, he seemed very much like a figure head type, at least that's what I got out of his talk. Like he doesn't really have that much power, all the power is in the subcommittees. Any other opinions?

PLEASE tell me you followed up with more schools opening and not enough new residencies in multiple specialties to accomidate them....please....


(he would just side step it anyway)
 
I just had another thought.....

If they are considered cream of the crop residencies then why would you worry about forgoing them for another type? It seems that statement alone he gave you says the general perception is people would perfer the later option.
 
oh, the extra school issue was brought up. He simply said that the AOA can't do anything about it, they appoint the accredidation board and they can't influence it at all. (even though I believe these new schools do not have to be separately accredidated because they are "branch campuses" of already existing schools... am I right on this) He basically side stepped every "real" question that was thrown at him... This SO makes me want to get involved in the AOA... 🙄
 
jonb12997 said:
oh, the extra school issue was brought up. He simply said that the AOA can't do anything about it, they appoint the accredidation board and they can't influence it at all. (even though I believe these new schools do not have to be separately accredidated because they are "branch campuses" of already existing schools... am I right on this) He basically side stepped every "real" question that was thrown at him... This SO makes me want to get involved in the AOA... 🙄


You are correct, the only way that these new schools have been allowed to open is that they are extension of their parent schools, and actually gain accreditation form the parent school. This means if the parent loses accreditation, so does the extension.

Did you have anyone taking minutes for your conversations with Dr. Thomas? And, if possible, can you post a list of the questions you asked him and his responses please? This will help other schools as Dr. Thomas makes his rounds. Also, I understand that the BIR is coming soon. If you didn’t have a note taker for this session, may I suggest that you please have one for that session and keep us all informed?

And in the end I agreed with you. When Dr. Thomas visited us, he had similar responses to these questions. His biggest fear is that ALL D.O. students will apply to ACMGE first and then to AOA only as a backup. The question he should be asking himself and the rest of the AOA is why he feels this way?

Are our programs that bad that he is this insecure about their fill rates? I really doubt that the AOA education system is really that bad, as a whole. True some sites need work and some sites should be shut down, but isn’t that the case for ACMGE programs as well? I’m sure that the ACMGE has some sites that students always rank last, either due to a crappy location or what they have heard about the education there. It is time put your money where your mouth is and believe in students and placing some trust in the philosophy that you teach. Although not all D.O.s go into school knowing what this means, many are grateful for the perspective that is gained in 1st and 2nd years. The AOA surely sees the need now to address these issues if they feel this terrified about them and not use a pressure system to fill programs which will only cause hatred of the AOA in the end.
 
Found this today, we have some supporters in state chapters, now the question is how do we leverage this to our benifit.

CHICAGO -- The American Osteopathic Association's House of Delegates weighed in at its annual meeting on a number of hot topics in medicine, including medical liability reform, the use of placebos in end-of-life care, and a proposal for a joint match with allopathic residency candidates.

The group debated whether to pursue some type of collaborative process to match both osteopathic and allopathic residency positions at the same time.

With opinions divided, the AOA House of Delegates voted to send the resolution back to the drawing board.

But the issue is unlikely to go away, said Dr. Karen J. Nichols, a member of the AOA board of trustees and dean of the Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine. In fact, AOA has already been studying the match process and has had discussions with the National Resident Match Program (NRMP), which administers both the allopathic and osteopathic matches, she said.

A possibility discussed at the meeting was a collaborative process in which osteopathic students would participate in the same Match Day as allopathic students but osteopathic students would be given priority to match with osteopathic programs.

The concept of a unified match was also introduced by the California delegation at the American Medical Association's House of Delegates meeting in June. The proposal, which was part of a larger effort to reform the NRMP process, was sent back to the AMA board of trustees for further review and a report is expected next year.

Osteopathic programs and students are disadvantaged by the current two-match system, said Dr. Bruce P. Bates, president of the Maine Osteopathic Association and chair of family practice at the University of New England College of Osteopathic Medicine.

Some students are skipping the osteopathic match and many dually accredited programs may not offer all of their available positions to osteopathic students due to the separate nature of the match, he said.

Currently, there are two matches--one for allopathic residency slots that takes place in March and one for osteopathic residencies at the end of January.

Osteopathic students can choose to participate in the osteopathic match, but if they match to a program they cannot go through the allopathic match. However, if they fail to match, they can choose to participate in the allopathic match.

AOA should work with the NRMP to design a collaborative process that maximizes the opportunity for osteopathic students and osteopathically approved programs to preferentially match with each other, Dr. Bates said.

"Whether we like it or not our profession has grown so large that we need to expand training opportunities to our students," he said.

But some of the resident delegates at the meeting disagreed. Dr. Lilibeth C. Sanchez, a general surgeon in New Mexico and a recent resident, said that a collaborative match would not help osteopathic students or the profession in general.

She estimated that about half of student DOs are already choosing to participate in the allopathic match, and a joint match would only serve to increase the number of osteopathic students in allopathic residencies.

Instead of working on designing a collaborative match, AOA's focus should be on improving the osteopathic intern and residency programs available by increasing options geographically and within specialties, Dr. Sanchez said at the meeting.

There's no need for a combined match, said Dr. Kasey Nelson, a resident in emergency medicine at Michigan State University, East Lansing, and a recent participant in the match. Today, osteopathic students have access to both matches, making all positions open to osteopathic students, he said.

In other action at the meeting, the House of Delegates voted to partner with other groups, such as the American Medical Association, to explore additional reform options to decrease the frequency and severity of medical liability claims including arbitration, prelitigation panels, and insurance reform.

"We have agreed that collaboration is the way to go," said Dr. Darryl Beehler, immediate past president of the AOA.

They will also work on getting their patients involved in urging reform, commented Dr. Kevin V. de Regnier, a family physician from Iowa. "It's ultimately about the patients."

The group also voted to tackle problems in Medicare physician payment. AOA delegates voted to work with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Congress, and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission to reform the Medicare physician reimbursement formula.

They plan to pursue a long-term fix to the sustainable growth rate formula that has resulted in cuts to physician payments in recent years.

The House of Delegates also voted to support federal legislation that would give patients more avenues to sue HMOs. The group voted to support reforms to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to ensure that patients are able to sue in state court.

A recent Supreme Court decision (Davila v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare et al.) denies patients the right to sue self-insured health plans in state courts and instead grants jurisdiction to federal courts where the patient can only be awarded the value of the benefits denied.

But Dr. Robert S. Maurer, a family physician in New Jersey, said he sees a conflict in calling on Congress to limit lawsuits against physicians through medical liability reform legislation but at the same time urging more legal avenues to sue HMOs.

The House of Delegates also addressed clinical issues such as the use of placebos and musculoskeletal research. The group issued a white paper that comes out against the use of placebos in pain assessment at the end of life. The use of placebos in place of effective pain medication is unethical, ineffective, and potentially harmful, according to the white paper. The only circumstance when it is appropriate to use placebos is in an approved clinical research study in which the participant is informed on the use of placebo, according to the new AOA document.

BY MARY ELLEN SCHNEIDER

Senior Writer
 
Docgeorge said:
Found this today, we have some supporters in state chapters, now the question is how do we leverage this to our benifit.

By keeping up the momentum, staying focused and on message, not getting distracted by "identity issues," and constantly framing the issue in terms of the overall benefits to the profession at large.
 
I am amazed at the fear shown by our leadership. They are taking a head in the sand approach, this is hardly what I would call effective leadership. This topic is so frustrating as it brings to light how totally inflexable the AOA really is. I wish we could sit down and have a real disscusion with the AOA, not that they would do anything more than listen. ARRRRRRRGGGGGGGG! 😡
 
Thousandth said:
I am amazed at the fear shown by our leadership. They are taking a head in the sand approach, this is hardly what I would call effective leadership. This topic is so frustrating as it brings to light how totally inflexable the AOA really is. I wish we could sit down and have a real disscusion with the AOA, not that they would do anything more than listen. ARRRRRRRGGGGGGGG! 😡

Nice try Thousandth, but if you'd like to sit down with anyone at the AOA you had better change your moniker from MS-1 to OMS-1. It's sll about identity my friend. The sooner you learn that the better off you'll be.
 
Thousandth said:
I am amazed at the fear shown by our leadership. They are taking a head in the sand approach, this is hardly what I would call effective leadership. This topic is so frustrating as it brings to light how totally inflexable the AOA really is. I wish we could sit down and have a real disscusion with the AOA, not that they would do anything more than listen. ARRRRRRRGGGGGGGG! 😡


i fully understand your frustration and i disagree with the way that the leadership has delt with this issue - just try and keep in mind that there are many other issues (many of which we would potentially agree on), and that membership in the AOA is essential to maintain influence. change is unavoidable but sometimes moves slow - just try and understand the current system and work within it as best as you can.
 
JMC_MarineCorps said:
Nice try Thousandth, but if you'd like to sit down with anyone at the AOA you had better change your moniker from MS-1 to OMS-1. It's sll about identity my friend. The sooner you learn that the better off you'll be.

Yeah I know, but that is another thing that is frustrating. We are all medical students DO or MD. You dont see the MD students labeling themselves as AMS-I etc.?!! I agree with keeping our identity but self segragation breeds animosity not unity. That along with the AOA's current slogan of "We treat the whole person not just the symptom" (may not be exact wording) is increadably arrogant. For our community to be taking such an elitist attitude only increases distain for our profession not enhancment.
 
As much as I would like a combined match, I have seen the AOA president speak about this issue and it is unlikely to happen. I think it is better to be proud of bein DOs instead of hoping for a MD combo match. I would likethe safety of having a combo match but realisticly, I doubt it will happen
 
luckyDO said:
As much as I would like a combined match, I have seen the AOA president speak about this issue and it is unlikely to happen. I think it is better to be proud of bein DOs instead of hoping for a MD combo match. I would likethe safety of having a combo match but realisticly, I doubt it will happen

understand that the AOA house of delegates - not the AOA president - sets the official policy of the organization. the AOA president has not provided a rationale or data to support any of the reasons he gives against the combined match (honestly - i do have a great deal of respect for him - but we disagree on this issue).

there is broad support for a combined match among student, and there is significant (and growing) support from residents, physicians, and faculty of osteopathic academic institutions. it is clearly in the best interests of the individual osteopathic medical student - and there is rationale and indirect data (see previous posts on the issue) to support the position that this is also in the best interests of the educational system and profession. this is in no way an identity issue (see explination on previous posts).

the perspective that "this won't happen so we should not try to make it happen" is defeatist and avoids forcing a healthy and open debate on the issue.

i hope everyone will continue to learn more about this issue.
 
TCOM-2006 said:
understand that the AOA house of delegates - not the AOA president - sets the official policy of the organization. the AOA president has not provided a rationale or data to support any of the reasons he gives against the combined match (honestly - i do have a great deal of respect for him - but we disagree on this issue).

there is broad support for a combined match among student, and there is significant (and growing) support from residents, physicians, and faculty of osteopathic academic institutions. it is clearly in the best interests of the individual osteopathic medical student - and there is rationale and indirect data (see previous posts on the issue) to support the position that this is also in the best interests of the educational system and profession. this is in no way an identity issue (see explination on previous posts).

the perspective that "this won't happen so we should not try to make it happen" is defeatist and avoids forcing a healthy and open debate on the issue.

i hope everyone will continue to learn more about this issue.

Well I have to disagree with you on the combo match. It seems like the DO community will end up losing residency positions if the match is combined. There are a lot of students who would rather do the MD program rather than DO programs. Although the combo match would benefit me, I don't think that the combo match would help our profession and future students since there would be less DO residency opportunities.
 
luckyDO said:
Well I have to disagree with you on the combo match. It seems like the DO community will end up losing residency positions if the match is combined. There are a lot of students who would rather do the MD program rather than DO programs. Although the combo match would benefit me, I don't think that the combo match would help our profession and future students since there would be less DO residency opportunities.

How do you figure that there would be less DO residencies? The people who choose to go AOA now do so ad the ones who want only AMA do so as well. How would allowing an easier process in which those who would like to go to either can have MORE choices, posibly close residencies?
 
Dr. Thomas will be visiting PCOM next week. What pertanent follow-up questions would you like us to ask?
 
BklynWill said:
Dr. Thomas will be visiting PCOM next week. What pertanent follow-up questions would you like us to ask?

above all - please try and tell your classmates to be respectful, and realize that this is just one of many issues. in this case - students and some AOA leadership happen to be on opposite sides of this issue. however, i would definitely bring it up, and try to ask specific questions, such as:

since the match has nothing to do with residency accreditation or physician licensure - do you think this is an "osteopathic identity" issue? a follow up might be - how is this different than the AOA choosing to go with the AAMC owned ERAS for an application service for AOA programs?

do you believe that a combined match would lead to a decrease in the % of DO graduates who enter AOA programs? if so, can you specifically explain your rationale?

i would not ask more than 3-4 questions about this, since there are other important med ed and healthcare issues - give him a chance to talk about other things too.

best of luck
 
TCOM-2006 said:
above all - please try and tell your classmates to be respectful, and realize that this is just one of many issues. in this case - students and some AOA leadership happen to be on opposite sides of this issue. however, i would definitely bring it up, and try to ask specific questions, such as:

since the match has nothing to do with residency accreditation or physician licensure - do you think this is an "osteopathic identity" issue? a follow up might be - how is this different than the AOA choosing to go with the AAMC owned ERAS for an application service for AOA programs?

do you believe that a combined match would lead to a decrease in the % of DO graduates who enter AOA programs? if so, can you specifically explain your rationale?

i would not ask more than 3-4 questions about this, since there are other important med ed and healthcare issues - give him a chance to talk about other things too.

best of luck

Thanks much. These are good questions. I am especially curious to know the answer to the second so I will contemplate asking that one. I will let you know how it goes...
 
Over the weekend we held an osteopathic regional conference at PCOM with serveral talks, including one on the joint match issue. After the presentation, a nice lady named Vera spoke on behalf of the AOA and gave an argument against the joint match. Her argument was that AOA residencies will lose funding if they are not filled for 3 years. Secondly, due to increasing pressure to populate the industry, allopathic schools are being encouraged to churn out more graduates. Supposably, if DO grads participate in a joint match, things will be okay for a few years... until the increase in MD grads begins to populate all of the ACGME residencies, leaving DO grads to have nowhere to turn because many AOA residencies will have lost their funding.

What is your opinion of this argument?
 
BklynWill said:
Over the weekend we held an osteopathic regional conference at PCOM with serveral talks, including one on the joint match issue. After the presentation, a nice lady named Vera spoke on behalf of the AOA and gave an argument against the joint match. Her argument was that AOA residencies will lose funding if they are not filled for 3 years. Secondly, due to increasing pressure to populate the industry, allopathic schools are being encouraged to churn out more graduates. Supposably, if DO grads participate in a joint match, things will be okay for a few years... until the increase in MD grads begins to populate all of the ACGME residencies, leaving DO grads to have nowhere to turn because many AOA residencies will have lost their funding.

What is your opinion of this argument?

Scare tactics and probably not true. If DO residencies perceive that DO graduates have more options and more choices then they will strive to be more competitive and attractive to osteopathic students. The ones that are succcessful will survive.
 
Thousandth said:
How do you figure that there would be less DO residencies? The people who choose to go AOA now do so ad the ones who want only AMA do so as well. How would allowing an easier process in which those who would like to go to either can have MORE choices, posibly close residencies?

The president of the AOA told us that there would be fewer DO residencies if the slots were not filled by our students. The MD slots would more likely be filled than DO slots because only DO students can get the AOA slots.

Don't get me wrong, I personally would prefer the combo match; but realisticly for our profession, it may cause us to lose our collective idenity and decrease the number of slots for future DO students.
 
luckyDO said:
The president of the AOA told us that there would be fewer DO residencies if the slots were not filled by our students. The MD slots would more likely be filled than DO slots because only DO students can get the AOA slots.

Don't get me wrong, I personally would prefer the combo match; but realisticly for our profession, it may cause us to lose our collective idenity and decrease the number of slots for future DO students.


Sooo... what you're saying is, our collective identity is defined by our residencies? How so? I suppose you could point to the OMT component but whether OMT defines a DO or not is a whole other argument.
 
BklynWill said:
Over the weekend we held an osteopathic regional conference at PCOM with serveral talks, including one on the joint match issue. After the presentation, a nice lady named Vera spoke on behalf of the AOA and gave an argument against the joint match. Her argument was that AOA residencies will lose funding if they are not filled for 3 years. Secondly, due to increasing pressure to populate the industry, allopathic schools are being encouraged to churn out more graduates. Supposably, if DO grads participate in a joint match, things will be okay for a few years... until the increase in MD grads begins to populate all of the ACGME residencies, leaving DO grads to have nowhere to turn because many AOA residencies will have lost their funding.

What is your opinion of this argument?


If this happens we are royally screwed weather we have a combined match or not. We do not have enough residecies to place all of our graduates as it is. This will only get worse when you add the graduates form the new school and the branch campuses starting in 2007. Even if the number of allopathic graduates dramitaiclly and rapidly increased, the first group of people to be squeezed out would be the IMG's.

For the 2005 match there were 21,404 allopathic PGY 1 positions offered of those 13,798 were filled by US allopathic graduates. 4230 PGY 1 positions were filled by IMG (both us citizens and forigen born) and only 1045 were filled by Osteopathic students. So 19,760* of 21,404 (92%) of offered positions were filled in the match. This left 2331 positions unfilled for which presumabally the remaining 5588 unmatched applicants scrambled for. 25% of positions filled in the match were by IMG's and only 6% of matched positions by osteopathic students. For Osteopathic students to be squeezed out of the NRMP Allopathic schools woud have to icrease their output by 1.5x, and this is just enough to graduates needed to fill available positions in 2005. The number of spots available have not been static, in 2005 were 4% more PGY1 positions then there were in 2004.(more on this later)

The view that was put forth by the AOA repersentative is at best can be described as being rooted in paronia, overly simplific and overlooking data that was generated by the COGSP poll that showed that it would actually increase the number of osteopathic students who would actively participate and match AOA programs. They also are not taking into consideration of the the changeing physician work force and increasing deficit of physicians. With the current studies showing a deficit of 100,000-200,000 physicians esp in non primary care it is highly doubt full that Congress will keep funding for GME at current levels. The other question that they have not sufficiently anwserd is how the OGME system has not imploded with with the current fill rates of 57% (when looking at this you must take into consideration that there will be 2862 graduates in 2005 but only 2165 slots available of which only 1240 filled).

I find it hard, espcially given the data that was generated by the COGSP poll that we will actually fill less programs. Additionally if they are that affarid of being able to compete in a level playing field they are then they are by their assertions implying that OGME programs are deficient in something. This cannot be good for the patient, the resident physican, or the profession.

The questions that I believe that the AOA needs to ask (and actually do something with the data they gater rather then ignoreing it if they dont like what it says) is why are over 1/2 of its graduates chooseing ACGME positions? Should OGME be open to Allopathic students, after all they see us as equal and have opened theirs to us? How about to those who allopathic student who have taken the AAO course or one offered by one of the COMS and are now certified to practice and bill for OMM? Should OGME programs seek dual accredidation (as one of the studies publised in the JAOA last year alluded to) to increase the preception of quality and enhance fellowship oppertunites. Both in obtaining them and subsaquent board certifaction. Is the AOA adequately repersenting the views it's constituents?

The identity issue and accusations of lack of pride in one chosen profession is a club that is idiscriminatly wielded by AOA in a reflexive manner to anybody who questions the status quo. I personally find those assertions of loss of identity as invalid in the face of Resolution 42 with it's rentery program, and with only a small number of DOs practicing OMM on a regular basis the rest OTW practiceing as their allopatic brethern. I find accusations of a lack of pride in my profession offensive. It is because I have pride in my profession that I want to see changes in it in order for it to be viable force in the future. If I did'nt have pride in my profession, I would bite my lip, take my ACGME training and not look back.


Reference
Reference 2
Reference3
Reference4

*This takes into account US physicians and 5th path way students who matched through the NRMP in 2005. This number also dont repersent the the PGY 2 spots that were available in the match.

Ok I'm done rambleing.
 
luckyDO said:
Don't get me wrong, I personally would prefer the combo match; but realisticly for our profession, it may cause us to lose our collective idenity and decrease the number of slots for future DO students.

sorry I'm confused what loss of slots are you talking about? Slots in ACGME programs or AOA?
 
I think the AOA misunderstands the students and only has the best interests for itself...if they really cared about keeping us away from a Joint Match...why dont' they fund more AOA residencies to keep us...I want to do a DO residency, but there aren't many good quality programs out there, at least in the way they are run...I think our school doesn't even have a DO residency program anymore or they aren't taking any new applicants...I want the best education possible and the assurance that I don't have to search for a new place to train in case a site will close...I think going the MD route is a much safer option rather than gambling whether I'll be screwed...this information has just been passed onto me from other DOs I know...but its a concern of a lot of my classmates as well...

I noticed the AOA and NBOME are 10 years behind the NBME and stuff like that... 😱
 
I've been asked to present a "pro joint match" viewpoint at a lunch meeting this Friday. A fourth year student is presenting a "against joint match" viewpoint. I've agreed but unfortunately do not have a lot of time to prepare. Can anyone help me narrow down the pro-match position to 3 main points that I can focus on??? If a few people can give me some suggestions I'll take it from there. Thanks
 
Top