Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Well, unsubstantiated claims are also crap. With a capital "C". You have a lot of nerve dismissing any school based on your emotional disconnect.
-
The 2026-2027 DO School Specific Threads are now available in the School Specific Discussions forum. The 2025-2026 discussions are now available in the prior year discussions forum.
Rocky Vista COM
Started by dasani2009atl
Well, unsubstantiated claims are also crap. With a capital "C". You have a lot of nerve dismissing any school based on your emotional disconnect.
No, the IRS link only qualifies them as "tax-exempt" based on their 501(c)(3) status. Which is not the same as "for-profit".
What am I missing here? How does this 501(c)(3) make these schools non-profit??? It clearly makes them "tax-exempt". I am not trying to be an ***** like some of the ego maniacs that have allready responded, just asking what is the real difference between a school that operates for proffit and a private instituation that gets money from the private sector. Lets face it, to think that Harvard, Stanford, Yale, or any other private institution would make decisions that would hurt its bottom is rediculous. RVU is not a threat to the credibility of medical education. Its the people who think only within the box that are getting their panties in a bunch, because something innovative has emerged and threatens the comfort zone they have lived in for so long.
I doubt it is going to fill that void you are talking about. The reason medical students dont go into primary care is because the re-imbursement blows for the amt of school you go through, the re-imbursement is steadily declining and there are major inroads being made by midlevels that make job security an issue. Add to those problems a major debt load to be paid off and you dont have a whole lot of excitement for primary care.
40K per year tuition is not going to make people want to enter primary care. If they really wanted to make people go into primary care they would have made an NFP school with low tuition only open to those who wanted to do primary care. "Filling the primary care shortage" is a essentially a political distractor to get funding and the OK from CO. Were their motives really about primary care you would see a lot more being done to funnel their students into primary care.
I agree that any new school will be met with some skepticism but there is a lot more skepticism about RVU. You have to be offered an interview and you are competing with every other medical student in the country. Why risk having one strike already against you.
People will continue to go to RVU even if its graduates are not doing as well as their DO colleagues. Look at the bad carribean schools. Sure the big 4 dont have problems filling their spots but even the disreputable ones still get students because the demand is so much greater than the supply of seats.
Huh?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
NOT for profit things are tax exempt. Things that make a profit are not tax exempt.
For profit status is a slippery slope that could or could not deteriorate into problems for medical education. The idea of for-profit status is counter to the idea of education; if the ends of a quality education are going to get in the way of the bottom line, corners will be cut.
Not for profit schools pump the "profits" back into the school. For profit schools take those profits out of the school.
A good analogy would be a bathtub. The money coming in (tuition, donations etc) is like the faucet running into the tub. Let's assume both NFP and FP schools have a similar flow of water into the tub. With NFP schools the water running into the tub (money) doesnt have anywhere to go so the tub fills up. FP schools however pull money out. It is like the drain is open so that while water is flowing in to the tub from the faucet, the tub never fills up because while money comes in, it runs right out the drain as profits.
NO. The IRS link explains it all.
YES, the 501(c)(3) status designates that they are a non-profit corporation. They are NOT organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, etc., etc.
Do they have to make enough money to operate? Of f***ing course they do.
Do they they do it to make money for their private interests? No.
A 501(c)(3) is a non-profit.
Hmmm...I was trying to clarify with my links. Mission failed, I guess. 
That used to be the way business was conducted. people invested in a company and expected regular dividends from the profits. But in reality today, few investers actually make money from dividends. They make money when the value of the corporation increases and they sell their shares. There are many huge corporations who have actually never made a "profit", yet people buy their stock because it consistently increases in value.
If you will really look closely at all the state-supported schools in the US you'll find that they waste tons and tons of money that could be better used. They tend to spend just as much money as they have in the budget, whether they need it or not. Because, if they don't spend it this year, it won't be a part of their budget next year-- the state will cut it out. Keep in mind that all of these "non-profit" state supported schools have suffered many, many cutbacks in state funding over the last few years. How do they deal with it? They either increase their income in some other way or they cut out some of the frivolous spending padding their budget.
Do you really think that a state-supported institution will be run as well as a "for-profit" corporation when it comes to spending? Private (for-profit) institutions can very odten be run more effectively and with less monet than the state can do it. It happens in every sector. That someone hasn't already tried it with medical schools is almost amazing. States have been ceding control of departments to private corporations for decades. Thye have a history of being able to be run just as well, while spending fewer dollars. It was really only a matter of time before this happened with medical schools.
People love to point out the Flexner report and say that he was soooo against "for-profit" medical schools, bit it wasn't the "for-profit" status that he was against; Rather, he thought that "for-profit" education would be too expensive when compared to the state-run model. We now know that letting "the state" run things isn't always the greatest idea. The state simply begins to cut programs if they don't have enough money to cover them.
Start taking a poll where you work. A lot of the scrub techs, x-ray techs, medical assistants, LPNs, etc. that you are working with were trained by a "for-profit" school. A lot of the hospitals you work in are now "for-profit". There are some "higher-ups" in the AOA that think they are on the "cutting edge" by opening RVUCOM.
Regardless of how I personally feel, it's hard for me to sit here and listen to some of the biggest critical arguments because they really don't hold water. This stuff about "non-profits" putting money back into the school and "for-profits" taking it out is a big joke. In real life it's just not that way.
There are two sides to every coinamong other things, the private sector just made a mess of the saving and loan industry.
Also, I don't think that the schools we're talking about here, Harvard, Stanford, Yale or even Rocky Vista, are state supported.
You make a point for sure but I thought that the latest argument here was regarding what a 501(c)(3) meant.
Anyone who wants to be a doctor ought to be able to look up what a 501(c)(3) is. I don't see why there would even be an argument. It's pretty much cut and dried.
This would have been a better initial link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_organization
Now, I admit to making the false claim that Harvard, Stanford, and Yale fall under the "for-profit" status. My mistake, I apologize profusely. But to think that just because any "surplus" in the case of a NPO is said to be put back into the organization does not preclude that that money will go towards directly benefiting medical students and/or their education. The amount of money faculty and admins make as apart of their salaries is unseenly at these ivy league schools (just as much as any CEO of a corp.). And trust me, any surplus funding is not going towards any research efforts--that is all funded by grants.
Next, there is no way that the quality of education is going to be compromised by FPO status. If FPOs do not produced competent physicians, then their "product" will not be able to perform and pay off the debts incurred to pay these FPOs and government will step in to put an end to this bad business. If this ends up happening the FPO will not only loose their appeal to their customers--but loose licensure and no longer be in business. Essentially, the education of the medical student is the FPO's main investment and I seriously can't see how any sound business model could argue differently.
I seriously think education at RVU and any future FPO school in the US will streamline itself to provide the best education for its students/customers. As this only makes the best business approach/strategy to sustainabilty and longevity of the business.
Or they could just aswell put this money back into the school to maximize their investment as argued above...
This won't happen at any FP medical school -otherwise it is a bad business model and the FP will not survive. And like any good business: longevity and sustainability is the most important aspect of running a business. And if operations do get more and more expensive--then tuition will just go up
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
There was a cat who couldn't figure it out.
Last post I'm going to make on the subject, these things are too time consuming and I have a ton of other things to do, but I have learned. So thank you to those who have engaged me 😀
I think what a lot of people truly have an issue with regarding the "morality" of for-profit status with medical education is that it puts a spin on and assumes that education becomes a sort of "business" and ultimately less "human" or lacks integrity. And many times than not this seems deeply counterintuitive and wrong--especially when we consider that this education involves the art of medicine; which is so intimately tied to the human condition (namely caring for the sick and suffering). Lets face it, no one wants to objectify medical education as a sort of commodity or service that is purchased--but rather something more intrinsically good, like a craft or art form. But this assumption is wrong, because by applying a "sound" business model to any sort of education we can begin to realize that in order for such a business plan to truly succeed, then the education of the students/customers is to be the main priority of the service as it is the final product that becomes the investment made by the business. What is a bit "unsetteling" is the trust we must put into the admins of a for-profit school to make the "right" decisions and realize that the students are the best investment for the sustainability and maybe even profitability of the organization.
Lets not kid ourselves and think that state schools and private schools are any better "moralistically" just because of their tax-status. These organizations have the same intentions as any other, and if they are loosing money then they are doing something wrong. And believe me, if something is not right changes will and are made all the time.
Rocky Vista is a new and innovative approach to medical education in the US. And it is only natural to expect that as RVU shakes the pot it will be met with some resistance. Regardless, I truly believe that with the test of time and the realization RVU students must make, this school and its future graduates will pave the way for a better healthcare system
.
I think what a lot of people truly have an issue with regarding the "morality" of for-profit status with medical education is that it puts a spin on and assumes that education becomes a sort of "business" and ultimately less "human" or lacks integrity. And many times than not this seems deeply counterintuitive and wrong--especially when we consider that this education involves the art of medicine; which is so intimately tied to the human condition (namely caring for the sick and suffering). Lets face it, no one wants to objectify medical education as a sort of commodity or service that is purchased--but rather something more intrinsically good, like a craft or art form. But this assumption is wrong, because by applying a "sound" business model to any sort of education we can begin to realize that in order for such a business plan to truly succeed, then the education of the students/customers is to be the main priority of the service as it is the final product that becomes the investment made by the business. What is a bit "unsetteling" is the trust we must put into the admins of a for-profit school to make the "right" decisions and realize that the students are the best investment for the sustainability and maybe even profitability of the organization.
Lets not kid ourselves and think that state schools and private schools are any better "moralistically" just because of their tax-status. These organizations have the same intentions as any other, and if they are loosing money then they are doing something wrong. And believe me, if something is not right changes will and are made all the time.
Rocky Vista is a new and innovative approach to medical education in the US. And it is only natural to expect that as RVU shakes the pot it will be met with some resistance. Regardless, I truly believe that with the test of time and the realization RVU students must make, this school and its future graduates will pave the way for a better healthcare system
.
Hmmm...I was trying to clarify with my links. Mission failed, I guess.
No, your links were perfectly clear. It was only westphi that couldn't figure it out.
Hmmm...I was trying to clarify with my links. Mission failed, I guess.
OMG The only reason I couldnt figure it out was because Chocolate Bear told me that tax-exempt" and "for-profit were opposite. But clearly they are the same in regards to this issue. m015094, get the facts straight before you start slandering someone. Its amazing how confident people are when they can hide behind a screen name.
2
235750
You know nothing on this subject. You did not even understand the difference between for-profit and non-profit schools until chocolatebear did the research for you. Why would we trust you?
And surprise, you are wrong again. A CEO of a large corporation makes millions. The best paid ones can get 86 million a year. There is not a single non-profit that will pay even close to that. You can get paid a lot at a non-profit, but not tens of millions.
Vista is an investment by Mr. Tien. Period. The tuition will go up and you will make him 3 million a year. This is money that could have otherwise been reinvested into the school. Maybe you don't get that, or you don't care, either way please educate yourself in the matter (eg for-profit/non-profit) before making posts on the subject.
2
235750
I love it when people are trying to drive home a point with misspelling.
I think spelling naughty words on student doctor gets **** put in their place. I put the "with a capital K" part in there to make sure people knew I spelt it wrong on purpose! 🙂
I trusted chocolatebear on the matter and he gave me wrong information (read above). I guess that's what I get for trusting people on the boards.
Wow. I love it how you put THE HIGHEST PAID CEOs. I know the president of Johns Hopkins was paid 2 million last year, now that is nowhere near the 86 million that some of THE HIGHEST PAID CEOs were paid--but it is not chump change for the reputable/moralistic non-profit school. I wonder how many people's tuition went to paying Dr. William Brody's salary? Doesn't matter right, because $2 mill is not a lot by your standards? And besides they are a "non-profit"...
Second, you have no idea how much money will go into Mr. Tien's pocket. That net $3 million made by the school could go anywhere. I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of it went to paying-back all the money that has been fronted and currently being lost during the school's initial years of operation. Regardless, there is no way it would all go into his pocket, as this school has a Board of Trustees that is in place. Besides, if the school under-invests in itself and the students it will not survive.
I wonder how much Ivy League "Non-Profits" net a year? http://vpf-web.harvard.edu/annualfinancial/pdfs/2008fullreport.pdf I thought it was interesting that the non-profit Harvard had netted 12.5 million in cash at the end of 2008--leaving them $27.3 million in liquid cash (not including investments) alone, along with their $64.1 BILLION in total assets. The last interesting tidbit I'd like to mention is that only 22% (3% for scholarship, 7% for supplies, and 12% for space and occupancy) is reinvested back into the school/students. While some 48% goes into salaries and employee benefits and 23% into "other expenses " whatever that is...
The point I'm trying to make is that RVU is hardly even a minnow in a large sea. And the money they make, pocket, or invest is up to the Board of Trustees. And if they don't use their money wisely, they are not going to survive. Regardless, as a future medical student my primary objective is to not only obtain the best medical education/guidance from my future school--but to put in the work myself, for myself. And no school, MD, DO, non-profit, for-profit, is going to do that for me other than me. So this whole: "RVU is bad because their tax-status is not like my school," is a bunch of moot. Good luck dude 👍
So does this mean someone in here would like to file my taxes for me?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
westphi.
not to get myself embroiled in the heated discussion going on, but you have a very good point. case in point, look at LECOM's three year accelerated PCP/FP program, and the lower cost of attendance at LECOM in general. it's a good model for how a school that is dedicated to turning out FPs should work - lower the cost, increase the odds of producing a family doc by making that part of the deal.
however, that said, i think opening new schools *anywhere* is a good thing. no one is gonna invest the money or recruit that kind of top faculty without carefully considering whether they'd go broke in the long run (and yes, the provisional accred. makes me very nervous as an applicant!) i spoke to my pre-health advisor, who used to sit on the adcom of a top 20 allopathic school, and she was absolutely of the mind that RVU's for-profit status would not necessarily hurt the students coming out - rather, that people might be bothered by programs that are not directly affiliated with a university, which is somewhat the case for RVU despite its UC connections (forgive me if i'm wrong here - i still have to do some more research on RVU, but that's what i'm gathering so far..). i asked her in every way i could think of whether i should or should not apply, and each time she trumped my argument ("but it's for-profit", "what about the fact it's provisionally accredited", "but it has no match list for me to consider") by saying it would still be a viable option for med school. and to give you some perspective, she is absolutely not a fan of foreign med schools - so it was surprising to hear her argue in favor (with the stipulation that RVU was not a full university) of a provisionally accredited institution.
phew!
I'm from CO. I have interviewed at both CU and Rocky Vista. As far as I know, there is no affiliation between the two schools. The possibility that you may rotate at the same hospital as a CU student does not equal affiliation between the two schools. They are two separate entities.
CU does have something in the works to open an affiliated branch, but that is in Grand Junction.
CU does have something in the works to open an affiliated branch, but that is in Grand Junction.
aha... thanks for the clarification 🙂 i was under the impression that RVU was trying to work out rotation sites/residencies at CU hospitals or something similar which to my mind = loose affiliation. my bad for passing along incorrect info...
Even though CU and RVUCOM are not connected I know that CU does support RVU and its mission to serve the rural areas of Colorado and create primary care doctors. I also remember reading that the President of CU Denver attended and participated in the ribbon cutting or ground braking for RVUCOM.
written almost a century ago...nuf said
So? Which part isn't valid? How many of the top 100 universities in the United States are for profit?
A hint: 0.
Education and for-profit shouldn't go together. I've always been uneasy about the for-profit nature of some overseas schools - I'd much prefer to go to a real university in Australia or somewhere else if I had to go outside to get my medical degree - but importing the for-profit medical education nonsense is ridiculous. How dedicated are they to education, or are they just going to treat students as many off-shore schools do?
So? What possible difference can it make if it's never been done before? This is exactlly what pisses people off, the Medical School Community is the single most bigoted and fearful of change group of individuals next to the K.K.K! This whole argument is highly reminiscent of the people who are against Osteopathic Medicine in in general, because they have lower G.P.A and Mcat requirements or put out less research then their M.D counter parts, again, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? As long as a school is educating top notch clinicians their tax status shouldn't make any more of a difference then the brand of toilet paper they put in the bathroom. In fact a University like RVUCOM has even MORE incentive to put out rock star docs because their success is entirely dependent upon the quality of their product. Not to mention when you get right down to the nitty gritty, 85% of their "profit" is pumped back into the university; this means that if RVU wants to hire the best damn Immunology and Biochemistry Professors in the country, or build a brand new lab, they can do it without going hat in hand to state lawmakers. I'm confident that when they graduate their first class and have graduates placing into top notch residencies all these nay-sayers will quickly change their tune and even more for profit schools will follow suit.
As opposed to other schools which pump back '100%' of their profit? Plus, the school is responsible to its shareholders, and they'll take as much profit as they can. And it's not about medical education, it's about education in general.
Increase the number of spots regardless of making sure everyone gets a quality education? Why not? More tuition for you. There'll be plenty of applicants, you can be sure of that. Same principle that all the Caribbean schools use. They still provide an education and in the end, produce fine clinicians, but look at the process, and it doesn't mean its a model that we want to use.
It is illegal to start an accredited US-MD school for money, but it isn't illegal to start a university for money. Why do you think none of the top universities, hell, none of even the top and mediocre universities, are for-profit? It's not a formula that lends itself well to a quality institution of higher learning. I don't think we want to go back to the medical education system of pre-Flexner days.
Increase the number of spots regardless of making sure everyone gets a quality education? Why not? More tuition for you. There'll be plenty of applicants, you can be sure of that. Same principle that all the Caribbean schools use. They still provide an education and in the end, produce fine clinicians, but look at the process, and it doesn't mean its a model that we want to use.
It is illegal to start an accredited US-MD school for money, but it isn't illegal to start a university for money. Why do you think none of the top universities, hell, none of even the top and mediocre universities, are for-profit? It's not a formula that lends itself well to a quality institution of higher learning. I don't think we want to go back to the medical education system of pre-Flexner days.
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Actually, it happens all the time, and its not ridiculous at all.
That's why they offer virtually free rides, including room and board, to people from poor backgrounds? And even from middle class backgrounds, Harvard is often cheaper than your state schools due to the massive aid they provide.
They could easily find enough people to spend $50,000/year for a Harvard education. In fact, they could raise it to $100,000 a year and they'd still fill up their class on the first day with qualified people. A for-profit company would do it.
Maybe because they are committed to a principle, not a bottom line. Chance of a for-profit doing anything remotely like that after they get accredited? Zero.
2
235750
After frustrating talk about what the distinction between for-profit and non-profit was, I swore to myself that I wouldn't post again. But then I saw this...
Shame on you for reducing the discussion to an exchange of insults. Americans are nothing if not fond of hyperbole. I think FutureHealer has watched too much Fox News where such comparisons are thrown around quite liberally (pun intended)
Lokhbar and people such as myself are concerned that turning medical education into a money-making industry might be bad for all of us. I hardly think that deserves a comparison to the KKK. Usually when one starts comparing his or her philosophical opponents to such extreme examples, it is because they lack proper arguments.
Do you really expect us to believe that best way to improve medical education is to bait professors and the institutions themselves with more money? This is a big problem in the US heathcare 'system': we view medicine and now apparently medical education as consumer goods. Leaving the system to the free market has gotten us to the point we are at now: nearly 20% of our GDP will be directed towards heathcare expenditure by 2015 while countries such as England spend half of that and and get much better results. If what you say is true, that turning a profit helps improve the quality of the product, then why is that Americans have comparatively bad health outcomes and pay more for it?
We must face the truth: using profit as a means of motivation to improve our system has FAILED and we need to rethink our strategy.
It is too late to complain about Rocky Vista because it is already up and running, so I think we should just let this post die. To the OP: what we need to do (and what I have already done when people bring up Rocky Vista) is to tell people that this is the expansion not of osteopathic medicine, but of Mr. Yife Tien's financial empire. I say that MDs have for-profit schools, they just keep them out of sight. I tell them that you wouldn't judge all college degrees because of the existence of places like DeVry, you would just be careful to note where the person got his or her degree from. Medicine's no different.
Shame on you for reducing the discussion to an exchange of insults. Americans are nothing if not fond of hyperbole. I think FutureHealer has watched too much Fox News where such comparisons are thrown around quite liberally (pun intended)
Lokhbar and people such as myself are concerned that turning medical education into a money-making industry might be bad for all of us. I hardly think that deserves a comparison to the KKK. Usually when one starts comparing his or her philosophical opponents to such extreme examples, it is because they lack proper arguments.
Do you really expect us to believe that best way to improve medical education is to bait professors and the institutions themselves with more money? This is a big problem in the US heathcare 'system': we view medicine and now apparently medical education as consumer goods. Leaving the system to the free market has gotten us to the point we are at now: nearly 20% of our GDP will be directed towards heathcare expenditure by 2015 while countries such as England spend half of that and and get much better results. If what you say is true, that turning a profit helps improve the quality of the product, then why is that Americans have comparatively bad health outcomes and pay more for it?
We must face the truth: using profit as a means of motivation to improve our system has FAILED and we need to rethink our strategy.
It is too late to complain about Rocky Vista because it is already up and running, so I think we should just let this post die. To the OP: what we need to do (and what I have already done when people bring up Rocky Vista) is to tell people that this is the expansion not of osteopathic medicine, but of Mr. Yife Tien's financial empire. I say that MDs have for-profit schools, they just keep them out of sight. I tell them that you wouldn't judge all college degrees because of the existence of places like DeVry, you would just be careful to note where the person got his or her degree from. Medicine's no different.
Trying to use the Flexner report is a pointless arguement because it is impossible to view medicine today in the context of what it was in 1910. The reports arguement against for profit education was that anyone could open doors and treat without any standardizaton of curriculum. Today no school, regardless of their tax status can operate without accreditation from either the A.M.A or A.O.A, so the fact that Flexner was against for profit schools a CENTURY AGO is moot in 2009. And as far as Harvard, Yale, Duke and Johns Hopkins are concerned it's pretty easy for Universities with multi-BILLION dollar endowments to say "oh it's not about the bottom line" considering that 1/35 of Harvards endowment could pay for the entire education (undergrad through med school) of 2,500+ physicians. The whole idea of being against for profit is pointless aslong as the institution in question educates strong physicians. The fact of the matter is if their doctors are sub par they won't pass their boards, won't get into competitive residencies and ultimately won't be licensed. If you really believe that earning a profit somehow degrades the noble profession of medicine I assume you'll refuse to bill your patients insurance right? And of course you would never consider working for the 15% of our nations hospitals that are for profit, would you? No, no because the only TRUE doctors are the ones who live in huts in third world countries, they're so much more holy then our doctors. I suggest that if you really want to score one for medical virtue how about investing some energy attacking the insurance companies that make 60,000,000,000 dollars a year bankrupting families,or the drug companies that make 40,000,000,000 keeping drugs out of the hands of people who need them, or the mal-practice attorneys who make 100k handcuffing doctors from helping their patients? Any of these would be fine
I guess only time will tell...I'm glad that YOU decided not to come to MY school. And to slam me for making an informed decision after consulting physicians in practice that I trust about where to choose to go to school is what is 'ridiculous'. How can you speak to the dedication of the administration and faculty at my school without being in my position. I would be willing to guess that if you were here, you would most certainly have a different perspective about 'importing for-profit medical education'. I can only hope that someday, you will have the opportunity to have your opinion challenged in a clinical setting by myself or one of my peers. Until then, I am done with this tired discussion...
I was mulling the same point in my head while reading the thread, thanks for making it.
But maybe what it really boils down to is this:
Do we know, or want to know, how much less or, perhaps, more, a for-profit school will represent the interests of their student body and employees, than a non-profit? I'm open to seeing how the answer unfolds.
I think all too often pre-meds, medical students, doctors and other members of the medical community forget the real reason we all press through long days and nights of hard work; the reason most have sought a career in medicine is to help people in need. We need to have a synergistic and collaborative out look on patient care within the medical community. If a university is providing competent physicians that are truly able to help individuals then more power to them.
I understand the principle of upholding the sanctity behind the tradition of osteopathic medicine but people are forgetting what they should be focusing on. AT Still was one that knew that there was a better way to treat people than the way being done. He was an innovator in his time that took a chance to HELP and BETTER individuals lives. I think most would agree if the goals of osteopathy are being accomplished and patients are properly being cared for then the integrity and sanctity of the institution will not be sacrificed.
No matter the profit status we need to keep the over all goal in mind and remember why we all strive to become the best providers we can be.
I understand the principle of upholding the sanctity behind the tradition of osteopathic medicine but people are forgetting what they should be focusing on. AT Still was one that knew that there was a better way to treat people than the way being done. He was an innovator in his time that took a chance to HELP and BETTER individuals lives. I think most would agree if the goals of osteopathy are being accomplished and patients are properly being cared for then the integrity and sanctity of the institution will not be sacrificed.
No matter the profit status we need to keep the over all goal in mind and remember why we all strive to become the best providers we can be.
Last edited:
People in the medical community are so reactionary because there is so much at stake. This is why a new therapy will not be used until it has at least some EBM behind it.
The issue is that people feel that the students are going to get short changed in some way and the quality of education will suffer. If you start cutting corners, it ends up showing up somewhere in the final product.
You have to be pretty sub-par not to pass the boards. Honestly just passing the boards is not exactly a great metric. I would not let a doc who just squeaked by passing the boards treat my family.
The issue is not about denigrating the profession; FP schools create a slippery slope that COULD lead to cut backs at the expense of the student. The entire purpose of a profit institution is counter to the idea of what a school should do and provide. They are set up to make money. The secondary goal is to produce competent doctors. When the secondary goal gets in the way of the primary goal... which do you think is going to take the hit?
A few points:
The US supports the rest of the world's drug costs because we pay for 90% of the R&D. This is partially why our drug costs are so high.
Medical care is expensive not because the insurance companies are screwing patients. If not for the insurance companies most people could not afford the catastrophes that are so common. For instance, a bad car wreck could easily set you back $50,000 in medical costs.
Some of the cost is defensive medicine, some of it is the sheer volume of technology that we have at our fingertips and that we use. Some is over pricing. A lot of this over pricing is forced on the hospitals when they have to absorb the costs imposed by EMTALA. There are too many mitigating factors in our healthcare system to blame it on one single factor.
I agree that the school's tax status shouldn't matter, but as Instatewaiter has mentioned, FP schools are set up to care about their investors.
I used to work for a FP occupational school, and after a year I quit and started to work at a Community College. I didn't see/feel that they truly cared about their students or about the quality of the student's education.
Education was second to their profit margins and I can definitely see the difference now that I've worked for a CC.
But that's not to say Rocky Vista won't be a wonderful school. I hope that it will produce excellent physicians... but bc it is a FP school I know I won't apply there.. unfortunately.
I used to work for a FP occupational school, and after a year I quit and started to work at a Community College. I didn't see/feel that they truly cared about their students or about the quality of the student's education.
Education was second to their profit margins and I can definitely see the difference now that I've worked for a CC.
But that's not to say Rocky Vista won't be a wonderful school. I hope that it will produce excellent physicians... but bc it is a FP school I know I won't apply there.. unfortunately.
Not to be a wiseass, but just how exactly will you find out their scores before you decide to let them treat you?
Look, I am not slamming you as a student. It's a medical school, and no matter what type it is, if its in the states and it's accredited (or in the process), they'll fill up completely. That's not the issue.
The problem lies above you - in the higher ups who approved such a school. It's not your fault, you are simply trying to get a medical education, and you might get a good one - just like many people in the Caribbean do. And that's great, we need more physicians.
However, that does not make the modality of that education as good one for the system as a whole, over the long term. I do not want to import for-profit Caribbean style mercenary education to the States. LCME has a very good reason for not accrediting for-profit institutions, they want the same thing. They want medical schools dedicated to education and research, as their only focus. The money made should be invested directly back into the school, not into Tien's bank account.
I am sure there is very good faculty who are well meaning and who will give you a good education - this isn't about you and please don't think I am slamming the students for picking a medical school. I don't slam people who go to the Caribbean either, as they too are simply trying to be doctors. But that doesn't make the operation of those Caribbean schools ethical.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Very partially. Three times as much money goes to marketing and physician kickbacks than R&D. Most of the research in basic science is done in academia with grant money from public and non-profit bodies. Drug companies do a lot of research, but overall, their profit margins are gigantic, and their spending on kickbacks and marketing is even larger. They have smartly figured out that treating physicians to free trips for 'education', and having a slick marketing campaign will make them more money than the same amount of money researching a new drug.
Again, they spend billions of dollars, and that is a reason for the prices, but that reason is way down the totem pole on the reasons why drugs are so expensive. Plus, the goverment bodies, when approving new drugs, do not require that they are more effective than the current drugs, so you can make a new drug, and sell it for a lot more, which is not any more effective than the established drug currently in use.
The issue is not about denigrating the profession; FP schools create a slippery slope that COULD lead to cut backs at the expense of the student. The entire purpose of a profit institution is counter to the idea of what a school should do and provide. They are set up to make money. The secondary goal is to produce competent doctors. When the secondary goal gets in the way of the primary goal... which do you think is going to take the hit?
I am curious how many of you have actually talked with Mr Yien or the Dean of Rocky Vista and asked how the money is being spent and if there will even be a profit seen by the investors. If you were to read the mission statement of RVU you would see that their mission is to graduate excellent physicians, which is the same as every other medical school. Their mission is NOT to make money and hopefully graduate some docs.
Personally, I was quite skeptical of the for-profit status and had many questions when I went to interview at RVU. In talking to them it is obvious that the reason the school is there is not to make money. In fact, Mr Yien put 200million dollars, of his own money, into a 200year trust to start the school and get it running. He did this because he saw a huge need in the Rocky Mountain region (projeceted to be short 500 physicians/year over the next 10 years) and the state of Colorado did not have the funds to support or start a school. So, Mr Yien took it upon himself to dish out his own money, which he will never see again, in order to establish a school that will provide physicians for a very underserved area. They quoted him in saying, "if I can provide a place to graduate 150 physicians a year, how many thousands of lives can I touch over the next 20 years?". That's a pretty incredible and selfless viewpoint. Had Mr Yien been associated with a non-profit organization he could have joined that with the school and changed the tax status that you are all so concerned about. But, because he doesn't have a non-profit organization and he saw it to be more important to use those funds to start RVU, the tax status is "for-profit".
I hope that when you are all physicians you will research the situation rather than making a decision based on surface-level information, feeling and judging someone without taking time to understand their motive and reasoning. Has anyone here talked with Mr Yien in person and asked him his reason for starting a for-profit school? Or asked him how many millions of dollars he hopes to make over the next 10years as a result? Or maybe, just maybe, that he did it out of a desire to graduate excellent medical professionals that will serve the people of Colorado? I have not, but my guess is that he is not some rich punk looking to make a buck off of this school. Just a thought.
I am curious how many of you have actually talked with Mr Yien or the Dean of Rocky Vista and asked how the money is being spent and if there will even be a profit seen by the investors. If you were to read the mission statement of RVU you would see that their mission is to graduate excellent physicians, which is the same as every other medical school. Their mission is NOT to make money and hopefully graduate some docs.
Personally, I was quite skeptical of the for-profit status and had many questions when I went to interview at RVU. In talking to them it is obvious that the reason the school is there is not to make money. In fact, Mr Yien put 200million dollars, of his own money, into a 200year trust to start the school and get it running. He did this because he saw a huge need in the Rocky Mountain region (projeceted to be short 500 physicians/year over the next 10 years) and the state of Colorado did not have the funds to support or start a school. So, Mr Yien took it upon himself to dish out his own money, which he will never see again, in order to establish a school that will provide physicians for a very underserved area. They quoted him in saying, "if I can provide a place to graduate 150 physicians a year, how many thousands of lives can I touch over the next 20 years?". That's a pretty incredible and selfless viewpoint. Had Mr Yien been associated with a non-profit organization he could have joined that with the school and changed the tax status that you are all so concerned about. But, because he doesn't have a non-profit organization and he saw it to be more important to use those funds to start RVU, the tax status is "for-profit".
I hope that when you are all physicians you will research the situation rather than making a decision based on surface-level information, feeling and judging someone without taking time to understand their motive and reasoning. Has anyone here talked with Mr Yien in person and asked him his reason for starting a for-profit school? Or asked him how many millions of dollars he hopes to make over the next 10years as a result? Or maybe, just maybe, that he did it out of a desire to graduate excellent medical professionals that will serve the people of Colorado? I have not, but my guess is that he is not some rich punk looking to make a buck off of this school. Just a thought.
If that was the primary goal, Mr. Tien would have made it a non-profit school. The fact is that they are projecting to make profits after about 15 years. Those profits aren't coming out of thin air, that money is what would go back into the school at a normal medical school. Here, that money is going into someone's pocket.
That's an oversimplification that really isn't true. If you look at state supported schools, without government funding they could not exist. They tend to spend their entire budgets because the school will lose that funding from the state if they do not use it. When the state cuts back on their funding, which happens quite often, the schools find ways to survive-- typically by ending lots of waste. Like any government-funded entity, there is lots of waste in a medical school's budget.
In the case of private schools, a lot of excess money ends up in their endowment, not neccessarily in making improvements to the school and the education of the students. Private schools are also interested in their perpetuity. If they lose money, they'll have to close. So, they have to be run in the same manor as a for-profit business-- there just aren't any shareholders.
For profit schools have an incentive to cut out the waste from their budgets that state-supported schools don't. It costs more in the long run because they don't get the government money. And, they cannot afford to cut out the necessary programs for their students or supply an inferior education because they will accreditation and be forced to fold. Then they would lose their entire investment. Yet, you look at the facilities at RVUCOM and you can see that no expense has been spared in the facilities. Further, they hired some darned good faculty to teach there.
While people may have philisophical differences regarding the school's tax status, it is unlikely that the school will produce inferior physicians. This continued argument is really kind of silly because it's a done deal. They will have a graduating class in a couple of years.
I disagree, as even though RVUCOM is a done deal, there could be other for-profit schools down the line. And I, for one, would like to prevent that and add a rule that prohibits for-profit medical school. So then we'd have one, and that's it.
Awesome plan. Let's shut down the opportunity to fix the physician shortage. That'll really stick it to the man.
Maybe we could just be open to a new concept. Everything was new at some point... internet, vaccines, nintendos, for-profit schools. And with all those things there was opposition from people who were used to the 'old way.' But sometimes we can improve on the old way. Give the school a chance. In a few years, let's see if Mr. Tien is pocketing the cash or if RVU still has some of the best facilities in the country.
If, in 2012, I'm using 3 year old needles and the paint has all chipped away, then you win. Until then, maybe have an open mind about a new way of medicine?
First:
Lets stop
Second:
I would be interested if you have actually written anyone or taken any kind of action based on your feelings? If so have you heard any feed back.
Third:
I have been watching this post for a while and what is the reason you feel so strongly against a school of a different tax status? I really have not heard anything but emotional appeal against it. I would love to see some more sound reasons why this could be a bad thing. I for one think it addresses a problem that is huge in Colorado and that is the under served population (that's a whole other post).
Fourth and FINAL:
Remember why we are here....as I stated earlier, to help people in need. Keep that in mind.
Last edited:
Although.... with my current knowledge I am strongly opposed to the establishing of a medical school with a "for profit" motive I hope that the future graduates of RVU can prove me wrong. It will be a constant battle for them to have to defend their school and the best way to do that is to be a great physician and I wish all that are accepted to RVU the best luck in their journey.
Last edited:
The alternative should not be mercenary schools. That's not a solution, even if people want to close their eyes and pretend it is.
For-profit medical school is not new. They were all shut down for a reason.
Well, he'll definitely be pocketing some cash at some point, otherwise he wouldn't have bothered with a for-profit status, you get a lot of tax and other advantages with non-profit. We'll see how the students are treated though.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Similar threads
