The 2025 Physician Shortfall: How will it effect us?

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

igor_raptor

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2015
Messages
200
Reaction score
140
It gives Medical schools an excuse to expand like crazy and basically own all the money in the world.
 
I think this is all just marketing and has been for a long time.
 
cliquesh said:
I think it's better to restrict the supply of physicians in order to protect our profession. I'm obviously a little biased since I've already graduated, hah.
Click to expand...

I would think one would want to be careful with this too, because it is this real or perceived shortage that mid-level provider organizations have been using to their advantage to advocate for autonomy.
 
Become a doctor and don't look back. If the USA ever becomes saturated (but let's be real, why hire a PA or NP when they can hire a physician? Sure, physicians cost more but they also have more training and that can translate into less lawsuits), there is a global doctor shortage. It's easy to immigrate to many first world countries with a doctorate. Medicine won't be saturated for at least 20 years.
 
NontradCA said:
No and no.
Click to expand...
Yes and yes.

The current and worsening physician shortage threatens to undermine our health care system as we know it. The shortage of physicians are predicted to be in primary specialties (family med, gen surg, pediatrics, etc). Being that DO schools are advocates for holistic and primary care and that these school graduate more primary care physicians than most MD school, I think that the shortage ought to mean a great deal to any preDO.

It is very likely that the way medicine is practiced today will not be the way it is practiced in 10 years, or at least it shouldn't be for our health care system to survive. It will probably require more research into improve patient care practices, increased utilization of interprofessional health care teams, and other strategies I can't think of right now.

AdComs are inducting medical students not for four years of an education at their institution, but to serve the needs of our country for the decades to come. It would be foolish to think that the future of medicine is not on their minds when they are deciding who will be a part of their incoming class.

Understanding and appreciation for these real issues facing the profession are worth considering if not just for the fact that the world of medicine in which you will practice won't look like medicine today and you need to make sure you are prepared for that.
 
Komorebi2 said:
Yes and yes.

The current and worsening physician shortage threatens to undermine our health care system as we know it. The shortage of physicians are predicted to be in primary specialties (family med, gen surg, pediatrics, etc). Being that DO schools are advocates for holistic and primary care and that these school graduate more primary care physicians than most MD school, I think that the shortage ought to mean a great deal to any preDO.

It is very likely that the way medicine is practiced today will not be the way it is practiced in 10 years, or at least it shouldn't be for our health care system to survive. It will probably require more research into improve patient care practices, increased utilization of interprofessional health care teams, and other strategies I can't think of right now.

AdComs are inducting medical students not for four years of an education at their institution, but to serve the needs of our country for the decades to come. It would be foolish to think that the future of medicine is not on their minds when they are deciding who will be a part of their incoming class.

Understanding and appreciation for these real issues facing the profession are worth considering if not just for the fact that the world of medicine in which you will practice won't look like medicine today and you need to make sure you are prepared for that.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you've been hitting that Kool Aid hard.
 
Monkitty said:
So... reasoning for your "no and no"? comment then?
Click to expand...
Ok. I'll give some credence to this question, albeit stupid. Adcoms, if they cared about the physician supply, could do absolutely nothing about it by changing who they select for medical school. All of the seats to medical school become filled, and the only way to ensure those students become physicians to address this supply is to admit students in a manner in which they already do.
 
Might it be possible (not saying it's likely) that adcoms might focus on folks that REALLY seem to want do primary care (since that's a focus of the shortage)? Or perhaps there will be an increase in programs/scholarships that focus on primary care?

I'm not sure the question is really stupid... speculative yes, but then again there isn't much discussion that isn't speculative in some nature.
 
Monkitty said:
Might it be possible (not saying it's likely) that adcoms might focus on folks that REALLY seem to want do primary care (since that's a focus of the shortage)? Or perhaps there will be an increase in programs/scholarships that focus on primary care?

I'm not sure the question is really stupid... speculative yes, but then again there isn't much discussion that isn't speculative in some nature.
Click to expand...
So, DO schools already select for candidates to go into primary care, so there's nothing that's going to change. It's the mission of most schools. Also this shortage of physicians is bull**** for many reasons. For one, it is more a concept of distribution with primary care filled in metro areas and rural/les areas being underserved.

Secondly- what would you say is the solution to poor people having better health? More doctors? I'll let you think about it and answer that yourself.
 
Monkitty said:
Might it be possible (not saying it's likely) that adcoms might focus on folks that REALLY seem to want do primary care (since that's a focus of the shortage)? Or perhaps there will be an increase in programs/scholarships that focus on primary care?

I'm not sure the question is really stupid... speculative yes, but then again there isn't much discussion that isn't speculative in some nature.
Click to expand...
I think the answer to this question is yes. I (unfortunately) cannot speak to DO schools, but many MD schools have initiatives to encourage students to pursue primary care specialties in underserved areas especially. Here are a few examples:

  1. UNC Primary Care and Population Health Scholars: http://www.med.unc.edu/md/studentscholars/pcphsp
  2. Brown University MD/ScM in Primary Care and Population Medicine: http://www.brown.edu/academics/medical/education/other-programs/primary-care-population-medicine/
  3. UVA Generalist Scholars Program: http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/education/more/generalist-scholars-program/home
  4. UW Underserved Pathway: https://depts.washington.edu/fammed/education/programs/upath
Now some of these programs are geared towards supporting students' academic exposure to primary care fields. But others offer financial incentives as well.

If an applicant expresses interest in such programs, that may play a role in the application process.


NontradCA said:
Ok. I'll give some credence to this question, albeit stupid. Adcoms, if they cared about the physician supply, could do absolutely nothing about it by changing who they select for medical school. All of the seats to medical school become filled, and the only way to ensure those students become physicians to address this supply is to admit students in a manner in which they already do.
Click to expand...

Don't be rude. It's not a "stupid" question. If you can't support your opinion with legitimate reasons that would be call for concern.

NontradCA said:
So, DO schools already select for candidates to go into primary care, so there's nothing that's going to change. It's the mission of most schools. Also this shortage of physicians is bull**** for many reasons. For one, it is more a concept of distribution with primary care filled in metro areas and rural/les areas being underserved.

Secondly- what would you say is the solution to poor people having better health? More doctors? I'll let you think about it and answer that yourself.
Click to expand...

If the reasons for poor health is due to lack of physical access to health care providers, then yes, more doctors would be an appropriate answer. And this is certainly the case in some parts of our country. You can browse here to see if a health care site is in a Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSAs): http://hpsafind.hrsa.gov/

From that site: HPSAs are designated by HRSA as having shortages of primary medical care, dental or mental health providers and may be geographic (a county or service area), population (for example, low income or Medicaid eligible) or facilities (for example, federally qualified health center or other state or federal prisons). Medically Underserved Areas/Populations are areas or populations designated by HRSA as having too few primary care providers, high infant mortality, high poverty or a high elderly population.

However, I also agree that physical access to physicians does not always ensure actual access to care, which is a whole other concern entirely. But many programs today are changing the education of physicians to emphasize the importance of cultural competence and other "soft" skills that may aid in increasing patients' access to care in less obvious ways.

The physician shortage is not "bull s***." It is real. It is here. And it is getting worse.

Hiding behind your veil of false logic, unsubstantiated claims, and superlatives won't change that.
 
I would say access is what's needed more than doctors, hence my comment on programs/scholarships that focus on primary (I should have said rural) care. University of Missouri (MD, I know) has just such a program. Given that DO schools do put emphasis on primary/rural care and tend to be private institutions, MAYBE there will be more such scholarships in both MD and DO programs.

So if you think the shortage is just BS, why do you think it's being presented rather aggressively as a reality (this is not rhetorical, I am generally curious)?
 
Komorebi2 said:
I think the answer to this question is yes. I (unfortunately) cannot speak to DO schools, but many MD schools have initiatives to encourage students to pursue primary care specialties in underserved areas especially. Here are a few examples:

  1. UNC Primary Care and Population Health Scholars: http://www.med.unc.edu/md/studentscholars/pcphsp
  2. Brown University MD/ScM in Primary Care and Population Medicine: http://www.brown.edu/academics/medical/education/other-programs/primary-care-population-medicine/
  3. UVA Generalist Scholars Program: http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/education/more/generalist-scholars-program/home
  4. UW Underserved Pathway: https://depts.washington.edu/fammed/education/programs/upath
Now some of these programs are geared towards supporting students' academic exposure to primary care fields. But others offer financial incentives as well.

If an applicant expresses interest in such programs, that may play a role in the application process.




Don't be rude. It's not a "stupid" question. If you can't support your opinion with legitimate reasons that would be call for concern.



If the reasons for poor health is due to lack of physical access to health care providers, then yes, more doctors would be an appropriate answer. And this is certainly the case in some parts of our country. You can browse here to see if a health care site is in a Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSAs): http://hpsafind.hrsa.gov/

From that site: HPSAs are designated by HRSA as having shortages of primary medical care, dental or mental health providers and may be geographic (a county or service area), population (for example, low income or Medicaid eligible) or facilities (for example, federally qualified health center or other state or federal prisons). Medically Underserved Areas/Populations are areas or populations designated by HRSA as having too few primary care providers, high infant mortality, high poverty or a high elderly population.

However, I also agree that physical access to physicians does not always ensure actual access to care, which is a whole other concern entirely. But many programs today are changing the education of physicians to emphasize the importance of cultural competence and other "soft" skills that may aid in increasing patients' access to care in less obvious ways.

The physician shortage is not "bull s***." It is real. It is here. And it is getting worse.

Hiding behind your veil of false logic, unsubstantiated claims, and superlatives won't change that.
Click to expand...
Ok premed.
that's%2Ba%2Bcool%2Bstory%2Bbro%2Bbut%2Blet%2Bme%2Bget%2Ban%2Bexpert%2Bon%2Bcool%2Bstories%2Bdown%2Bhere%2Bso%2BI%2Bknow%2Bwhat%2BI'm%2Bdealing%2Bwith.jpg
 
NontradCA said:
Cool story premed.
Click to expand...
My lack of medical science education does not dampen my argument.

What is notable, however, is my extensive background at Harvard in health care policy, public health, and medical history that informs my opinions here. Can you speak to such qualifications, dear med student? Have your years learning pathology and histology really informed your opinions on matters of health care access?
 
Komorebi2 said:
My lack of medical science education does not dampen my argument.

What is notable, however, is my extensive background at Harvard in health care policy, public health, and medical history that informs my opinions here. Can you speak to such qualifications, dear med student? Have your years learning pathology and histology really informed your opinions on matters of health care access?
Click to expand...
My qualifications include not parroting political bs and common sense. A 5 minute epidemiology research would probably help remove your head from your ass, but that's probably giving you too much credit.
 
You are avoiding the questions... which would seem to hint that you lack said qualifications.

Again though, why do you think this is all BS? Seriously, do think med schools are pushing this to increase enrollment and revenue? Is it an Obamacare plot to get more physicians asking us if we have guns in our homes? Is it to "vaccinate" us, which totally isn't mind control?

Really? Why do you think this is BS?
 
I believe that this shortage is real, but I am yet to be convinced that simply training more doctors is the real answer, especially considering all the threads and articles I see regarding physician job prospects.
Now granted, those are for the more specialized fields of medicine and not primary care per se, but I still feel like something else is missing from the picture.

I mean, people have been talking about this for years, the number of doctors being trained has been going up for years, and yet there is no discernible "light at the end of the tunnel" for this issue. How come?

Wheres the bottleneck here really? where? Is it residency spots? Is it lack of incentive for the average medical student due to the low compensation rate and "assembly line medicine" that these practices are forced to employ to stay afloat?
Is it the facilities for these people to practice that are lacking?

I don't know what it is, but I do feel like simply training more doctors isn't the answer.
 
URMD said:
I believe that this shortage is real, but I am yet to be convinced that simply training more doctors is the real answer, especially considering all the threads and articles I see regarding physician job prospects.
Now granted, those are for the more specialized fields of medicine and not primary care per se, but I still feel like something else is missing from the picture.

I mean, people have been talking about this for years, the number of doctors being trained has been going up for years, and yet there is no discernible "light at the end of the tunnel" for this issue. How come?

Wheres the bottleneck here really? where? Is it residency spots? Is it lack of incentive for the average medical student due to the low compensation rate and "assembly line medicine" that these practices are forced to employ to stay afloat?
Is it the facilities for these people to practice that are lacking?

I don't know what it is, but I do feel like simply training more doctors isn't the answer.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. Training more Drs won't solve our issues, but it still is one piece of the puzzle that needs to be tackled. For me, this is especially clear when considering the impending "silver tsunami" of elderly that are about to turn 65 and qualify for Medicare. Our health care system is busting at the seems and it is only going to get worse. (Not to mention the implications of the ACA...)

Accordingly, I would agree that the issue needs to be solved at every level of medical education. This may mean that we need more residencies, more training in interprofessional health care teams and leadership for students, more exposure to primary care, etc.

But the big point, for me, is that we need more research to understand which models of care are effective in areas with few numbers of physicians. I firmly believe that even if we start graduating only primary care physicians from all MD/DO schools that we would still not have improved access. So how care we move forward? I think the answer lies in more comprehensive translational research. How can a community with one physician stay afloat? How can the physician lead other health care providers to care for the population and improve patient outcomes? There is just so much we don't know, it is embarrassing.

So yes, I think we need more Drs because, numerically, # Drs is not enough for all US patients. But I think other changes need to be made too. And I think the only way we can make informed changes in our education system is through research into the effectiveness of models of care and models of education.
 
There won't be a shortage- politicians and lobbyists will use the lack of physicians as an excuse to expand midlevel practice rights. Only certain specialties will have a shortage, particularly those like surgery that can't easily be replaced by midlevels.
 
igor_raptor said:
The AAMC released a new report saying that there will be between 46,000-90,000 physician shortfall by 2025, with a large portion being in primary care and surgical specialties.

https://www.aamc.org/newsroom/newsreleases/426166/20150303.html

Detailed report available here: https://www.aamc.org/download/426242/data/ihsreportdownload.pdf

Will this be on the minds of AdComs this coming cycle? Does it mean anything to us as PreDO students?
Click to expand...
The physician shortage is a boogeyman that doesn't really exist. 11 years ago when I first picked nursing as a major, everyone was projecting huge nursing shortages by like 2011. That didn't happen at all. Nursing schools sprang up like crazy, and the exact opposite has happened. The market is somewhat saturated with GN's who have trouble getting anything but the worst jobs out of school. You never here anything about a nursing shortage anymore. Even the worst schools just advertise 'projected growth of healthcare jobs' now.

Luckily, as physicians, our residencies are somewhat limited in number, so we shouldn't have the same thing. But what will ultimately happen is that the scope of 'other' primary care providers could be 'expanded' and family docs could get screwed. Now if there is limitations like there are currently (i.e. a NP can start their own clinic and practice by themselves, but only in rural areas), then we will be alright. But if states go stupid (see Arizona giving full practice to Naturopathic Doctors) then I feel that primary care will suck. Ultimately it will probably effect people 10 years from now, and not so much the current entering class (I hope). But this is the strongest argument for specialization I can think of.

If states really wanted people to go into rural primary care, they would give out (much more) full ride scholerships to Family Docs/Peds or w/e. The problem is they just want us to saturate like Nurses did, and then people will be forced into bad areas without any extra money payout (yay! win win politicians, sucks for you primary care guy!). Primary care shouldn't suck, but our current healthcare system is determined to make it suck.
 
Last edited:
With mid levels (NPs/CRNAs) striving for more and more independence, i am afraid they won't "[just] hire a physician." If you can get what is PERCEIVED as equal care, health administrators/etc are going to hire a mid level to do that task. Look at CRNAs claiming equal if not better outcomes, while charging less than anesthesiologists. The medical profession needs to worry about advocating for more residency/fellowships, and try to hedge against NPs gaining more medical rights. Someone is going to fill this "shortage," let us hope that it is physicians.

petyr_baelish said:
Become a doctor and don't look back. If the USA ever becomes saturated (but let's be real, why hire a PA or NP when they can hire a physician? Sure, physicians cost more but they also have more training and that can translate into less lawsuits), there is a global doctor shortage. It's easy to immigrate to many first world countries with a doctorate. Medicine won't be saturated for at least 20 years.
Click to expand...
 
Komorebi2 said:
My lack of medical science education does not dampen my argument.

What is notable, however, is my extensive background at Harvard in health care policy, public health, and medical history that informs my opinions here. Can you speak to such qualifications, dear med student? Have your years learning pathology and histology really informed your opinions on matters of health care access?
Click to expand...
If you think the shortage is real I got some beachfront property in North Dakota I wanna sell you.
 
"Shortage" is also corporatese for "obviously more residencies aren't opening soon so we'd better make our doctors more "productive"... by hiring more hospital administrators/assistant VPs/bean counters/process improvement consultants/industrial engineers/utilization experts/program managers/team facilitators/corporate drones/Excel jockeys and incentivize them properly with options and bonuses so they can help solve this terrible crisis...
 
I think the rural GP path that state like Missouri is a good way to put a damp in NP encroachment, but people seem to disagree... Physicians and med students think creating another path will somewhat diminish their 'standing', but no one seems to have an answer on how to stop NP encroachment... Lets face it! We are our worst enemy....
 
W19 said:
I think the rural GP path that state like Missouri is a good way to put a damp in NP encroachment, but people seem to disagree... Physicians and med students think creating another path will somewhat diminish their 'standing', but no one seems to have an answer on how to stop NP encroachment... Lets face it! We are our worst enemy....
Click to expand...

I wouldn't trust a new medical graduate to be a GP without any post-graduate training.
 
Komorebi2 said:
My lack of medical science education does not dampen my argument.

What is notable, however, is my extensive background at Harvard in health care policy, public health, and medical history that informs my opinions here. Can you speak to such qualifications, dear med student? Have your years learning pathology and histology really informed your opinions on matters of health care access?
Click to expand...
Wow! Dropping the "H" bomb already? Will you get off your high horse buddy and get back to me when you get into medical school. Just because you sat in a classroom for x number of years taught by liberal professors, doesn't give you the real world view what it's like to be in the trenches...There is NO doctor shortage...There is MALDISTRIBUTION of doctors because most doctors, like most other successful professionals, prefer to live in safe areas with good schools and numerous amenities where their spouses can find jobs... Now if you propose how to solve that problem, I would be very eager to hear
 
AM508 said:
I second that.
Click to expand...

Have you ever worked with a NP? The ones I work with are good. Maybe not as good as an attending physician, but definitely better than an intern or junior resident.
 
cliquesh said:
Have you ever worked with a NP? The ones I work with are good. Maybe not as good as an attending physician, but definitely better than an intern or junior resident.
Click to expand...

In my line of work yes I did regularly come in contact with NPs, one comes to mind as being very good, the others that I have come in contact with have left a fair bit to be desired. In addition, I have had at least 3 relatively bad experiences with mid-level providers as a patient (don't know if they were a PAs or NPs), and henceforth request for all my appointments to only see a physician in the the practice. Granted, n=~8 or 9 here, but still, I think I would trust a first year resident over a mid-level provider at this point. Perhaps more experience in the future will prove me wrong though🙂.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W19
cliquesh said:
I wouldn't trust a new medical graduate to be a GP without any post-graduate training.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between NP anesthesia/midwife and regular primary care NP in didactic education... The former has mostly solid programs; the latter--not so much. Since you are a gas resident, you probably interact mostly with the former...
 
Last edited:
I agree that where an NP gets their masters makes a HUGE difference in what kind of practitioner they will be. I commented to a fellow nurse once that I thought the biggest problem with NP programs was that so many were exclusive online programs. She got all uppity with me (apparently she was enrolled in such a program), and said she didn't think it effected the perception/outcome of our profession at all (talking about nursing here). I disagree, there is a huge difference b/t USF in Tampa (a top nursing school), and online MSN from po-dunk-U.

I know that I, personally, as someone who has been a nurse for awhile, will be very careful in hiring NP's with dubious (read😳nline only) masters background (i.e. I might not exclude you completely for having an online degree, but you better be ready to jump through some serious hurdles like getting me multiple LOR from physicians you did rotations with, and doing an lower paid internship while I get you upto speed).

CRNA is very different from regular NP (MSN). CRNA's are never online only, and have lots of graduate clinical training that is provided by their school. This is a far cry from a regular NP at the online only programs where the nurses set up their own rotations with their buddies (or worse fake it), and get no sort of standardized clinical education.

For example, I shadowed several days with a Internal medicine doc with a PA student from Nova, and a NP student from who-knows-where online university (she worked on the floor with my wife tho). PA student was on point, NP student was getting upset cause she never knew the answers. And this girl was actually getting a decent rotation with IM (cause she worked in the hospital and arranged to follow a teaching DO), but was clearly behind the PA student big time.

Now compare that to my colleague who was also in a NP program but not currently working as a nurse. Do I think there was almost any chance she was getting good rotations (or any)? No way. She is completely out of the loop being off the floor, and her school is online so they have minimal/no way to help her get a decent rotation. But she will get a chance to take a crack at NP boards just like the other nurse, and will be a licensed NP more than likely some day.

As a nurse I feel that MSN NP has a ton of variation between programs, and is not well regulated. I would tread with caution on any expansion of scope for all NP's without revision of current nursing education model at the graduate level. It is too easy to get into some programs, and the programs themselves are simply not good enough.

But I guess in a way this is a self-solving problem. After all, just look up 'Nurse Practioner can't find job' on google, and you will see that they aren't exactly treated well out of school anyhow. But politicians like to play both sides of the fence, and say they are a great patch for the lack of primary care, while also letting hoards of them flap in the wind with useless masters from bad schools. Nursing education is a rat race, from the start to the end, and I have never been a fan.
 
Last edited:
cliquesh said:
Have you ever worked with a NP? The ones I work with are good. Maybe not as good as an attending physician, but definitely better than an intern or junior resident.
Click to expand...
I think they're really hit or miss, myself. A lot of the newer grads are terrible, but many of the older NPs that have extensive experience seem relatively good. Generally, the less nursing experience prior to their getting their NP, the worse they'll be at the end of the day. There's damn near nothing worse than a kid who went straight from getting their BSN into a full-time NP program- they've got virtually no clinical skills but the NP training is meant to cater to a seasoned RN, so they come out of school as pretty worthless much of the time.
 
Mad Jack said:
I think they're really hit or miss, myself. A lot of the newer grads are terrible, but many of the older NPs that have extensive experience seem relatively good. Generally, the less nursing experience prior to their getting their NP, the worse they'll be at the end of the day. There's damn near nothing worse than a kid who went straight from getting their BSN into a full-time NP program- they've got virtually no clinical skills but the NP training is meant to cater to a seasoned RN, so they come out of school as pretty worthless much of the time.
Click to expand...
This is a big problem as well. And many of them go into nursing never wanting to work the floor in the first place/being unable to find a job, so they just go straight through for a masters. It is really hard for them to get a job tho with that kind of background, and many end up back on the floor. I used to work with several nurses who that happened to.
 
Komorebi2 said:
My lack of medical science education does not dampen my argument.

What is notable, however, is my extensive background at Harvard in health care policy, public health, and medical history that informs my opinions here. Can you speak to such qualifications, dear med student? Have your years learning pathology and histology really informed your opinions on matters of health care access?
Click to expand...
Dude, we're all much more informed than you think. Hell, my school has weekly 3-hour lectures on issues relating to health care access and quality of care, and many medical schools have ongoing research in regard to health care policy. Condescending comments that seek to elevate you via your dropping of names won't get you far in your dealings in medicine. Literally no one here is impressed when you say "Harvard" unless you actually trained as a physician at MGH. Many of us are actually very into policy, and have taken courses and read extensively on the issues at hand.

That all being said, there is a maldistribution of care, but there is no shortage. If physicians were adequately distributed and midlevels were willing to work in rural areas, we'd be able to cover the country quite nicely. Unfortunately, no one wants to live in the sticks or serve people with Medicaid, so a lot of people lose out on the access side of things. Personally, I think we shouldn't be expanding midlevel practice rights and instead should be training more physicians, because everyone deserves to have access to a physician for care. But thanks to the push by E. Emanual and the like, midlevel rights are being expanded so that the poor get access to care, albeit at a lower quality. Here's the liberal vision for the future of medicine in regards to the shortage, and very likely why this won't be an issue in 2025: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/opinion/no-there-wont-be-a-doctor-shortage.html?_r=0
 
Mad Jack said:
Dude, we're all much more informed than you think. Hell, my school has weekly 3-hour lectures on issues relating to health care access and quality of care, and many medical schools have ongoing research in regard to health care policy. Condescending comments that seek to elevate you via your dropping of names won't get you far in your dealings in medicine. Literally no one here is impressed when you say "Harvard" unless you actually trained as a physician at MGH. Many of us are actually very into policy, and have taken courses and read extensively on the issues at hand.

That all being said, there is a maldistribution of care, but there is no shortage. If physicians were adequately distributed and midlevels were willing to work in rural areas, we'd be able to cover the country quite nicely. Unfortunately, no one wants to live in the sticks or serve people with Medicaid, so a lot of people lose out on the access side of things. Personally, I think we shouldn't be expanding midlevel practice rights and instead should be training more physicians, because everyone deserves to have access to a physician for care. But thanks to the push by E. Emanual and the like, midlevel rights are being expanded so that the poor get access to care, albeit at a lower quality. Here's the liberal vision for the future of medicine in regards to the shortage, and very likely why this won't be an issue in 2025: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/opinion/no-there-wont-be-a-doctor-shortage.html?_r=0
Click to expand...
Only mentioned Harvard because NontradCA was not letting up. He was rude to another SDNer, didn't support his opinion, and was being supremely and unnecessarily antagonistic. And with all due respect, a couple classes a week and outside reading doesn't even come close to the 8 years of training I've had in public health and policy (I've actually worked with Zeke at Penn...). Please appreciate the fact that a medical education does not make you very qualified to speak about topics relating to public health and health policy. My sharp reply to Nontrad was result of me being fed up with his abhorrent attitude and condescension to myself and others on the forum.
 
Komorebi2 said:
Only mentioned Harvard because NontradCA was not letting up. He was rude to another SDNer, didn't support his opinion, and was being supremely and unnecessarily antagonistic. And with all due respect, a couple classes a week and outside reading doesn't even come close to the 8 years of training I've had in public health and policy (I've actually worked with Zeke at Penn...). Please appreciate the fact that a medical education does not make you very qualified to speak about topics relating to public health and health policy. My sharp reply to Nontrad was result of me being fed up with his abhorrent attitude and condescension to myself and others on the forum.
Click to expand...
I've got a much longer history than just "medical student" behind me. And I've seen enough white tower bull**** to know that the "experts" that are up there crafting policy aren't all that competent. Look no further than the ACA for proof of that. Policy crafted by people that have no idea what practice is like is often ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst, something you'd realize if you'd had to actually deal with policy ramifications in the hospital. I've taken formal public health courses prior to medical school, and honestly, the material covered isn't anything you can't get through independent study. Your public health training is as unimpressive and useless to the world at large as your egotistically expressed opinion is to this thread. I can't wait for you to actually get into medical school, so that you can see the works that you have wrought first hand. Only then will you understand the dislike and disregard for "experts" in health policy that have never worked within the system. That is, if you even plan to practice and not go right into consulting or system management to dodge the soul crushing bureaucracy that everyone below the top must work within.
 
Komorebi2 said:
Only mentioned Harvard because NontradCA was not letting up. He was rude to another SDNer, didn't support his opinion, and was being supremely and unnecessarily antagonistic. And with all due respect, a couple classes a week and outside reading doesn't even come close to the 8 years of training I've had in public health and policy (I've actually worked with Zeke at Penn...). Please appreciate the fact that a medical education does not make you very qualified to speak about topics relating to public health and health policy. My sharp reply to Nontrad was result of me being fed up with his abhorrent attitude and condescension to myself and others on the forum.
Click to expand...
Whoa, I take back my opinion, you are the man. I think I will just :corny: while you (t)roll.

@AlteredScale this guy is getting unfairly accosted for his loquacious expert opinion, please help.

Edit: Okay, okay, he has been generally polite, but man he comes in here and tells everyone that their experience = nothing compared to his, and he wonders why they are 'antagonistic' towards him. Maybe if you didn't come in a thread where OP asked what people thought, and then told everyone they were wrong and unqualified to have an opinion this wouldn't happen.
 
Last edited:
Mad Jack said:
I've got a much longer history than just "medical student" behind me. And I've seen enough white tower bull**** to know that the "experts" that are up there crafting policy aren't all that competent. Look no further than the ACA for proof of that. Policy crafted by people that have no idea what practice is like is often ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst, something you'd realize if you'd had to actually deal with policy ramifications in the hospital. I've taken formal public health courses prior to medical school, and honestly, the material covered isn't anything you can't get through independent study. Your public health training is as unimpressive and useless to the world at large as your egotistically expressed opinion is to this thread. I can't wait for you to actually get into medical school, so that you can see the works that you have wrought first hand. Only then will you understand the dislike and disregard for "experts" in health policy that have never worked within the system. That is, if you even plan to practice and not go right into consulting or system management to dodge the soul crushing bureaucracy that everyone below the top must work within.
Click to expand...
Very well, then.
 
Komorebi2 said:
Only mentioned Harvard because NontradCA was not letting up. He was rude to another SDNer, didn't support his opinion, and was being supremely and unnecessarily antagonistic. And with all due respect, a couple classes a week and outside reading doesn't even come close to the 8 years of training I've had in public health and policy (I've actually worked with Zeke at Penn...). Please appreciate the fact that a medical education does not make you very qualified to speak about topics relating to public health and health policy. My sharp reply to Nontrad was result of me being fed up with his abhorrent attitude and condescension to myself and others on the forum.
Click to expand...
🙄
 
Mad Jack said:
I've got a much longer history than just "medical student" behind me. And I've seen enough white tower bull**** to know that the "experts" that are up there crafting policy aren't all that competent. Look no further than the ACA for proof of that. Policy crafted by people that have no idea what practice is like is often ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst, something you'd realize if you'd had to actually deal with policy ramifications in the hospital. I've taken formal public health courses prior to medical school, and honestly, the material covered isn't anything you can't get through independent study. Your public health training is as unimpressive and useless to the world at large as your egotistically expressed opinion is to this thread. I can't wait for you to actually get into medical school, so that you can see the works that you have wrought first hand. Only then will you understand the dislike and disregard for "experts" in health policy that have never worked within the system. That is, if you even plan to practice and not go right into consulting or system management to dodge the soul crushing bureaucracy that everyone below the top must work within.
Click to expand...
Careful, he probably helped craft that wonderful piece of legislation, after all, hes been at this for 8 years :naughty:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
when will 2025-2026 med school forum start for DO schools?
Replies
1
Views
939
wysdoc
wysdoc
chilly_md
*The Official Osteopathic Underdawgs Thread 2025-26*
Replies
0
Views
1K
chilly_md
chilly_md
H
How hard will it be to soap to family medicine from DO
Replies
9
Views
3K
AlbinoHawk DO
AlbinoHawk DO
chilly_md
  • Sticky
*~*~Official AACOMAS Questions Thread 2025-2026~*~*
Replies
13
Views
3K
Maidenless??
M
D
DO Waitlist Support 2024-2025
Replies
5
Views
2K
Discardedtesttube
D
Top