to all IMGs....

Started by doctorP
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Here it is. From http://www.valuemd.com/ftopic12622.html (originally posted by azskeptic)

NB Tried the URL on the news site, the article doesn't seem to be posted anymore.

Rocky Mountain News said:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_2625257,00.html
Proposal irks doctors
Measure would give foreign physicians at CU a break

By Bill Scanlon, Rocky Mountain News
February 3, 2004

Several Denver doctors and hospital officials are bristling over a bill that would give foreign doctors teaching at the University of Colorado up to five years before they have to pass a basic science test.

They say it's unfair to single out academic teaching hospitals for the waiver and that five years is too long to wait to make sure a doctor knows the science.

But CU officials say a five-year window is essential if they are to lure top teaching doctors from Europe and elsewhere and not lose the recruiting battle to other American medical schools.

They say the doctors they seek are experts in their specialties, but often are in mid-career and may have trouble on a test covering basic science that has changed so much since their medical school days.

The controversy highlights the reliance Colorado places on foreign doctors, not just at CU, but also at rural hospitals.

The CU Health Sciences Center employs five foreign doctors to teach medical students and residents, said spokeswoman Sarah Ellis. In the past five years, some 25 foreign doctors have taught at University Hospital or CU's affiliates: Denver Health Medical Center and Denver's Children's Hospital.

Colorado's strapped rural hospitals, which can't offer the salaries that urban and suburban hospitals can to U.S.-trained doctors, often recruit doctors right out of foreign medical schools.

Colorado's Board of Medical Examiners doesn't keep track of the number of licenses given to foreign doctors, said director Susan Miller.

The bill, which moved rapidly through the Senate and now is being considered by the House, would change from two years to five years the time foreign doctors at academic hospitals can apply to stay without passing the test.

The bill's Senate sponsor, Dan Grossman, a Democrat from Denver, said the change would enable Colorado to compete with other states to recruit top foreign physicians.

He said he limited the bill to academic hospitals because he doesn't want to encourage foreign doctors to come here to practice medicine. Instead, he wants to make sure the CU School of Medicine can recruit foreign doctors to teach specialties that aren't being taught by American doctors.

One of the reasons CU wants the bill involves Children's Hospital's highly recruited head of cardiology, Dr. Francois LaCour-Gayet of France, who will have been here two years in July.

"This is a factor in his case," said Dr. Moritz Ziegler, surgeon-in-chief at Children's Hospital.

Asked if LaCour-Gayet had taken and or passed the test, Children's spokesman Rachel Robinson would say only that "Dr. LaCour-Gayet is an active participant in the licensing test."

LaCour-Gayet deferred to Ziegler for comment on this story.

Ziegler called the hiring of LaCour-Gayet, who earns $750,000 a year, a huge coup for Colorado.

"The recruitment of (Dr. LaCour-Gayet) has changed the face and level and skill of cardiac surgery available to Colorado's children," Ziegler said.

Ziegler said Colorado faces substantial shortages in the areas of radiology, heart surgery, neurosurgery and anesthesiology, among other specialties.

"This bill tries to say that for a variety of good reasons - language barriers, time between basic science training and clinical training - there should be some flexibility to the exam process," Ziegler said. "Every hospital would still have a rigorous credentialing process."

Doctors describe the U.S. Medical Licensing Exam as difficult, especially the first of the three parts that deals with basic science.

Last year, 91 percent of U.S. medical school graduates and 64 percent of those from countries other than the U.S. or Canada passed the basic science test on their first try, according to the National Board of Medical Examiners.

Of those who had to take it a second time, 64 percent of those from U.S. schools passed, while just 36 percent of those from foreign schools passed.

But Dr. Roger Barkin, a pediatric emergency room specialist at Rose Medical Center, said the bill isn't fair. He said many foreign physicians who work in Colorado have had to complete the Board of Medical Examiners' test before they start working.

"Why should we have an inequity between physicians who work in the academic setting and those that work in other settings?" he asked.

CU School of Medicine Dean Richard Krugman said recruiting is a particular problem for academic hospitals because other hospitals are raiding their doctors by offering more money. CU and other academic hospitals can't match the compensation packages offered by private or nonprofit hospitals, he said.

"On the other hand, there are highly qualified people at medical schools in the United Kingdom, Europe and other parts of the world who would love to come to our institution," Krugman said.

Krugman said CU's competition for those doctors isn't hospitals, but medical schools in other states. Six states are considering extending the window up to five years, or already have done so, Krugman said.

Krugman said that after 14 years as dean, he's not sure he could jump right back into pediatrics practice, but is still in top form in his specialty area, child abuse work.

"The basic science I learned 40 years ago has changed. We don't ask physicians in their 40s to retake the basic science exam every five years. We ask that they keep up in their specialties. The hurdle is the basic science exam. Two years is too short a time."

Most of Colorado's hospitals also have shortages in certain disciplines and try to recruit foreign physicians on occasion, said Linda Kanamine, spokeswoman for Health One.

"We get no grace period. Before they can practice, they have to pass state licensure," she said.
 
f_w said:
What are you gaining from denying that carib graduates run into licensing issues ?

What 'proof' do you want me to post ? The names of the people involved (they are happy that they could put this behind themselves and settled into decent jobs in the state they could get licensed in) Their transscripts ? A jpeg copy of the denial letter ?

This isn't about Carib. grads. Everyone acknowledges that Carib. grads from most schools have licensing issues. Please don't change the subject.

It is specifically about SGU, Ross and AUC grads.

You have yet to post any evidence to support your assertion that they have trouble getting licensed, or in your words:

f_w earlier said:
Actually, the people I know who run into brickwall after brickwall with the state medical boards are Ross and SGU graduates. It really stinks if you shelled out large amounts of money on your medical education, and in the end you are limited to the one state that you could convince to give you a medical license.

The truth is that these three schools all have California approval, which is by far the strictest in the nation.

True FMGs as you yourself have admitted have trouble getting licensed in California:

f_w earlier said:
I know plenty of FMG's who are not citizens and went to real medical schools back home, none of them hat trouble getting their licenses (exception CA).
 
Amazingly, though California's laws are the strictest regarding full licenses...

Sacramento Bee said:
Board seeking more clout over guest doctors
Statutes lack teeth to regulate foreign physicians in program.
By Dorsey Griffith -- Bee Medical Writer
Published 2:15 am PST Sunday, March 20, 2005

The Medical Board of California wants to beef up oversight of a 30-year-old program that allows foreign doctors to practice medicine in the state under the supervision of an academic medical center.

Citing numerous violations of the state statute that governs the program and a frustrating lack of enforcement authority over program participants, the board hopes to enhance its regulatory muscle without stanching the flow of guest doctors.

"We have a very, very weak statute," said Cindi Oseto, an analyst with the medical board's licensing division who will present recommendations to board members in May. "One of my goals is to significantly strengthen the statute to ensure that anyone reading it would know what an individual should and should not be doing."

According to Oseto, some foreign doctors involved in the program have violated the law by:

* Holding themselves out as medical doctors licensed in California or practicing medicine in medical offices unaffiliated with the academic medical centers sponsoring them.

* Failing to annually renew their program application with the medical board.

* Billing insurance companies and government health care programs for medical care.

* Admitting patients to nursing homes and signing death certificates.

In addition to strengthening the law governing the program, the board wants to more closely monitor participants. Because the doctors are not licensed in California, for example, the board does not list them by name on its consumer Web site. Names of licensed California doctors, on the other hand, are listed, as well as board disciplinary actions and, in certain cases, malpractice awards made against them.

The law in question is Section 2113 of the Business and Professions Code. Created in 1974, it was intended to permit medical schools to recruit foreign-trained faculty. At the time, the measure was deemed urgent, "necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety."

Incomplete board records dating to 1989 show that nearly 600 guest doctors have practiced at academic medical centers in California under Section 2113, including 73 at the UC Davis Medical Center. The board estimates that about 150 are practicing in the state under 2113.

Program applicants must be licensed in another country and have completed at least three years of postgraduate training. Most are either board-eligible or have board certification from their country in their field of expertise. If appointed under a 2113, participants are granted a "certificate of registration" by the state medical board.

The certificate entitles them to full faculty privileges, and they may conduct research, teach medical students and see patients. They may remain in the program for five years, as long as the medical board renews their certificate annually.

Dr. Allen Siefkin, chief medical officer for the UC Davis Health System, said the program has allowed universities to recruit experts from around the world into very narrow medical specialties for which there may otherwise be tremendous competition.

"We don't train enough doctors," he said. "That is the first issue."

But the certificates are not equivalent to a California medical license and restrictions apply, said Oseto.

The law, for example, prohibits participants from seeking reimbursement for medical care, but many nevertheless do, Oseto said.

"The physician is to be paid by the institution, but the institution is not to bill insurances," she said.

In addition, 2113 participants are not allowed to call themselves California "medical doctors" outside of their sponsoring institution. But evidence suggests some do, whether as authors of medical journal articles or in other venues.

For example, Nicholas Evans, an orthopedic surgeon and sports medicine specialist at UCLA, is touted as a Los Angeles physician on a Web site advertising his book "Men's Body Sculpting."

The ad, said Oseto, would be in violation of California law because Evans, who is from the United Kingdom and a 2113 participant, does not have a California medical license.

William F. Friedman, senior associate dean for academic affairs at UCLA, said administrators at the university's David Geffen School of Medicine disagree.

"UCLA believes being the author of a book or advertising the book is neither a violation of Section 2113 nor considered a part of the practice of medicine," he wrote in an e-mail response.

Oseto said that while many 2113 violations technically constitute the illegal "practice of medicine without a license," the medical board has never disciplined a program participant.

"The reason for that is these are very old statutes and there is no enforcement mechanism," she said.

The board also has expressed concern that while 2113 participants can be sued for malpractice, the sponsoring institution is not required to report that action to the medical board as it would be for licensed physicians.

UC Davis Medical Center, for example, paid out $735,000 between May 2001 and June 2003, the result of three malpractice cases involving Jan Paul Muizelaar, chief of neurosurgery and a guest doctor at UC Davis, according to the medical center. That information is not listed on the state medical board's Web site.

Muizelaar, educated in the Netherlands, was a 2113 participant until August 2000, when he qualified for a related state program designed to allow "academically eminent" physicians full-time appointments without a California license.

Muizelaar declined to comment for this story. Siefkin, of UC Davis, vigorously defended the surgeon's record and emphasized his high-risk specialty.

"Neurosurgeons have tons of lawsuits," Siefkin said. "I am a critical care physician. I have been sued many times and I am a fantastic physician."

Regardless of the risks involved in certain medical specialities, lawyers for two patients involved in the lawsuits said the public deserves easy access to information about its doctors, licensed or not.

"There is no disclosure to anybody that these doctors aren't licensed," said Sacramento attorney Brooks Cutter, who won a settlement against UC Davis and Muizelaar for a client injured during a spinal surgery. "People expect when they go to an institution they are getting a fully credentialed physician."
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Ah, all animals are equal, just some are more equal than others.

You are right, Ross SGU and AUC try to create a brand-name for carib education. They groom their graduates for the USMLE's and keep up with the various state requirements. Their owners see that to stay in this business in the long run they have to improve the acceptance of their product.

The people I worked with and whoose troubles I could watch from close up happened to be Ross and SGU graduates. I guess, you'll have to take my word for it.
 
Miklos said:
Skip,

Believe it or not, f_w has a very valid point. It is one that most medical boards do not like to advertise.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/10257.html

However, many of them provide 'special' or 'limited' licenses for faculty members and even exempt them from taking the USMLE for a number of years. In fact, last year I saw an article about a French Pediatric Cardiologist in Colorado who had not been able to pass his USMLEs; as a result, the Colorado legislature wanted to change the requirements.

As soon as I find the article, I'll post it.

Miklos

Even better!! This actually means, contrary to whatever convoluted argument he's been trying to make, that it's even easier for some foreign doctors to get a license - especially if they are eminent physicians from their native country. This flies entirely in the face of everything he's been saying up to this point... he's so twisted around, I'm not sure even he knows what his original point was. I take back my comments about him being a good lawyer; he's actually arguing against himself!! :laugh:

By the way, I'm still waiting for an answer on this one:

f_W said:
What 'proof' do you want me to post ? The names of the people involved (they are happy that they could put this behind themselves and settled into decent jobs in the state they could get licensed in) Their transscripts ? A jpeg copy of the denial letter?

Yes, I'm waiting for proof of the Caribbean grads from St. George's and Ross who were denied positions based on their graduating school. You offered. Let's see the proof.

-Skip
 
f_w said:
The people I worked with and whoose troubles I could watch from close up happened to be Ross and SGU graduates. I guess, you'll have to take my word for it.

No, we won't take your word for it. Show us proof.

-Skip
 
I already wondered what had happened to you. Did you hold your breath a bit too long ?

I don't know how we ended up on that faculty license tangent. I guess my point was that if you come from a real overseas medical school (you know, one with a university hospital and a strong research program), Iowa will license you without problems (if necessary without USMLE).
 
f_w said:
Ah, all animals are equal, just some are more equal than others.

You are right, Ross SGU and AUC try to create a brand-name for carib education. They groom their graduates for the USMLE's and keep up with the various state requirements. Their owners see that to stay in this business in the long run they have to improve the acceptance of their product.

First, education is classified as a service not a product. You don't manufacture physicians.

Second, IMO, there is nothing wrong with making a profit when it comes to educating medical students. (NB Private US schools do it for a profit, as do state schools, though indirectly.)

More power to the owners if they have been able to successfully battle legislatures and state boards, who've mostly acted simply to limit competition for home grown physicians.

Miklos
 
> First, education is classified as a service not a product. You
> don't manufacture physicians.

I don't know what the difference would be. So they branded a service, like the Rota-Rooter franchise.

> Second, IMO, there is nothing wrong with making a profit when it
> comes to educating medical students. (NB Private US schools do
> it for a profit, as do state schools, though indirectly.)

Even in the most private stateside schools, the actual income from tuition amounts to peanuts compared with grants and patient care revenue. Most regular medical schools would continue to exist just fine if from one day to the next the students would stay home. Something you can't say about the 'teaching only' outfits. (if during your first year, you turn out to be a complete tool at HMS, it is no financial loss for them to drop you. For a small commercial school it DOES make a difference whether they will be able to milk another 60k from you or not.)

> More power to the owners if they have been able to successfully
> battle legislatures and state boards, who've mostly acted simply
> to limit competition for home grown physicians.

Well, so goes the propaganda of the school owners. Except for California, that argument just doesn't cut it. All of the other notoriously difficult states for caribbean graduates (TX, NY, TN, IL) have no problems giving medical licenses to folks with a regular overseas education.
The medical boards are responsible to the citizens of the respective state. If you ever looked at the composition of the boards, they typically have a good number of non-physician community members. In the past, there have been significant problems with graduates who had a diploma but never attended classes and the like, the stringent standards for the carib schools are a result of that. It would be nice if the medboard was under the control of the local physician community, but unfortunately it is not.
 
f_w said:
Even in the most private stateside schools, the actual income from tuition amounts to peanuts compared with grants and patient care revenue. Most regular medical schools would continue to exist just fine if from one day to the next the students would stay home. Something you can't say about the 'teaching only' outfits. (if during your first year, you turn out to be a complete tool at HMS, it is no financial loss for them to drop you. For a small commercial school it DOES make a difference whether they will be able to milk another 60k from you or not.)

If the private schools weren't medical schools, their grants would evaporate. Without students and residents they would only be able to service a small fraction of the patients they currently do. (In other words, they'd turn into community hospitals.)

> More power to the owners if they have been able to successfully
> battle legislatures and state boards, who've mostly acted simply
> to limit competition for home grown physicians.

Well, so goes the propaganda of the school owners. Except for California, that argument just doesn't cut it. All of the other notoriously difficult states for caribbean graduates (TX, NY, TN, IL) have no problems giving medical licenses to folks with a regular overseas education.

Not entirely so. Take a look at Texas and its insane lists.

The medical boards are responsible to the citizens of the respective state. If you ever looked at the composition of the boards, they typically have a good number of non-physician community members. In the past, there have been significant problems with graduates who had a diploma but never attended classes and the like, the stringent standards for the carib schools are a result of that. It would be nice if the medboard was under the control of the local physician community, but unfortunately it is not.

Except in extremis (e.g. distance learning, very poor schools) I don't buy the patient safety argument. Take a look at how many LCME grads get discliplined by medical boards.

A residency (and board certification) makes a physician/surgeon.

The local medical boards are controlled directly or indirectly by LCME (AAMC) educated physicians, whose primary interest is economic. How many LCME educated physicians have their license applications reviewed (or denied based on their medical school) as foreign graduates do?

IMO, there is a mix of xenophobia and economic interests at the heart of the matter. Unless there are national licensing standards for IMGs, IMO this will not change.

Then again, I'm probably wrong to be ingrateful to the AAMC.

Thanks to their misguided policies in limiting the number of allopathic grads, we now look to have a physician shortage. It seems as if DOs and IMGs (whereever they come from) will be needed for some time to come, unless the LCME schools open up more slots (guess who would fill those slots --- people who currently end up at SGU, Ross & AUC).

Alternatively of course, the U.S. can decide to follow the Canadian model with regard to their physician shortage, something I believe that we are both well aware of. (I will only barely mention in passing the increased role of mid-levels in the US...another consequence of the AAMC policies.)
 
> Not entirely so. Take a look at Texas and its insane lists.

Granted, it is painful to get a medical license in TX, but that applies to US graduates as well.

> Except in extremis (e.g. distance learning, very poor schools) I don't
> buy the patient safety argument. Take a look at how many LCME
> grads get discliplined by medical boards.

The reason the boards are sceptical is the unsavory history of certain schools to give out diplomas to anyone who paid. Even some of the top schools today apparently will cut corners if it helps the bottom line (e.g. by allowing people to finish the two year pre-clinical curriculum in 16months.)

> A residency (and board certification) makes a physician/surgeon.

I strongly disagree with that. Your practical training is part of what makes you a physician. If the knowledge base you built before that lacks (e.g. by limiting your knowledge to the USMLE syllabus), you are missing a crucial piece.

> The local medical boards are controlled directly or indirectly by
> LCME (AAMC) educated physicians, whose primary interest is economic.

The big conspiracy theory. Of course, it is easier to bear the situation if you can explain it by a master theory.

> Thanks to their misguided policies in limiting the number of allopathic
> grads, we now look to have a physician shortage.

The US has more physicians per capita than most other civilized countries. They just work in a very inefficient way as they are bogged down with redundant paperwork and other issues extraneous to their core competencies. In addition, there is a tremendous maldistribution of physicians. The absolute numbers would be sufficient.
 
f_w said:
  • First, education is classified as a service not a product. You don't manufacture physicians.

I don't know what the difference would be. So they branded a service, like the Rota-Rooter franchise.

  • Second, IMO, there is nothing wrong with making a profit when it comes to educating medical students. (NB Private US schools do it for a profit, as do state schools, though indirectly.)

Even in the most private stateside schools, the actual income from tuition amounts to peanuts compared with grants and patient care revenue. Most regular medical schools would continue to exist just fine if from one day to the next the students would stay home. Something you can't say about the 'teaching only' outfits. (if during your first year, you turn out to be a complete tool at HMS, it is no financial loss for them to drop you. For a small commercial school it DOES make a difference whether they will be able to milk another 60k from you or not.)

  • More power to the owners if they have been able to successfully battle legislatures and state boards, who've mostly acted simply to limit competition for home grown physicians.

Well, so goes the propaganda of the school owners. Except for California, that argument just doesn't cut it. All of the other notoriously difficult states for caribbean graduates (TX, NY, TN, IL) have no problems giving medical licenses to folks with a regular overseas education.
The medical boards are responsible to the citizens of the respective state. If you ever looked at the composition of the boards, they typically have a good number of non-physician community members. In the past, there have been significant problems with graduates who had a diploma but never attended classes and the like, the stringent standards for the carib schools are a result of that. It would be nice if the medboard was under the control of the local physician community, but unfortunately it is not.

  • Not entirely so. Take a look at Texas and its insane lists.

Granted, it is painful to get a medical license in TX, but that applies to US graduates as well.

  • Except in extremis (e.g. distance learning, very poor schools) I don't buy the patient safety argument. Take a look at how many LCME grads get discliplined by medical boards.

The reason the boards are sceptical is the unsavory history of certain schools to give out diplomas to anyone who paid. Even some of the top schools today apparently will cut corners if it helps the bottom line (e.g. by allowing people to finish the two year pre-clinical curriculum in 16months.)

  • A residency (and board certification) makes a physician/surgeon.

I strongly disagree with that. Your practical trainig is part of what makes you a physician. If the knowledge base you built before that lacks (e.g. by limiting your knowledge to the USMLE syllabus), you are missing a crucial piece.

  • The local medical boards are controlled directly or indirectly by LCME (AAMC) educated physicians, whose primary interest is economic.

The big conspiracy theory. Of course, it is easier to bear the situation if you can explain it by a master theory.

  • Thanks to their misguided policies in limiting the number of allopathic grads, we now look to have a physician shortage.

The US has more physicians per capita than most other civilized countries. They just work in a very inefficient way as they are bogged down with redundant paperwork and other issues extraneous to their core competencies. In addition, there is a tremendous maldistribution of physicians. The absolute numbers would be sufficient.

What the hell are you babbling about? So much of what you say is just, quite simply, wrong. I really don't know where you are getting this stuff!?!? You are doing a great job of showing how a little knowledge can be dangerous... What exactly is your point anyway? Do you even have one? You are all over the place, man. I don't see how you can even follow yourself.

Please, PLEASE, PLEASE just show me one instance where Ross graduates currently have a problem getting any type (training or permanent) medical license in any of the 50 states. Other than that, the only thing you've proven is that you have a high aptitude for blowing a lot of hot air around with no real substantiation, and making convoluted arguments that don't seem to have any real point (i.e., mental masturbation). I read your posts and I get the strong sense that you are, at best, half-informed and just thinking out loud - clearly full of opinion, but not fully informed.

-Skip
 
f_w said:
Skippy, sit quiet while adults talk !

AHH!!! The "Skippy" comes out. Guess what? You lose, dude. Whenever someone calls me "Skippy", I know I've gotten to them. :laugh:

JUST SHOW THE PROOF, DUDE! Quit jaggin-off for us with all of your smelly opinions, and show me one Ross graduate who couldn't get a license after passing all of his/her requirements and graduating - in ANY state. Just one! And, I'm not talking about Canadians who couldn't get a J-1. I'm not talking about people who didn't match or couldn't (for whatever reason) find a program that would take them.

I'm talking about a graduate who matched into a U.S. residency program that couldn't get a license in whatever state they applied in.

JUST ONE, DUDE! You're the one trying to derail this thread with all of your unsupported mental diarrhea.

-Skippy
 
You are getting disruptive, I think you need a time-out.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
> So much of what you say is just, quite simply, wrong.

What in the quoted post is 'wrong' ?
 
f_w said:
You are getting disruptive, I think you need a time-out.

STOP DERAILING!

Just one, dude.

You may not like us, but we're here and we're not going away anytime soon.

:laugh:

-Skip
 
f_w said:
What in the quoted post is 'wrong' ?

For starters, this...

f_w said:
Even some of the top schools today apparently will cut corners if it helps the bottom line (e.g. by allowing people to finish the two year pre-clinical curriculum in 16months.)

Substantiate this statement - namely your insinuation that some schools are "cutting corners" - and do so beyond a rhetoric-laden, unsupported, and irrelevant opinion (which is not, as you seem to like to believe, a substantiation).

-Skip
 
f_w said:
What in the quoted post is 'wrong' ?

Another wrong statement...

f_w said:
The US has more physicians per capita than most other civilized countries. They just work in a very inefficient way as they are bogged down with redundant paperwork and other issues extraneous to their core competencies. In addition, there is a tremendous maldistribution of physicians. The absolute numbers would be sufficient.

You sure you want to stand by that statement? Positive?

-Skip
 
f_w said:
What in the quoted post is 'wrong' ?

Yet, another wrong statement that shows you are, at best, half-informed...

f_w said:
All of the other notoriously difficult states for caribbean graduates (TX, NY, TN, IL) have no problems giving medical licenses to folks with a regular overseas education.

:laugh: New York? Illinois? Are you serious? From which Caribbean schools do graduates have a problem getting a license in either of these states? Where are you getting your information?

Name one state where a Ross grad can't get a license.

Also, you think that these states just hand out licenses to anyone with a "regular overseas education"? You're deluded.

I can back up those statements. Can you back-up yours? (I don't think you can.)

You don't know what you're talking about, dude. You're already losing... best to just quit now before you get even further behind.

-Skip
 
I guess the WHO is part of that evil conspiracy.

Human Resources for Health -> Basic data (last updated 26 October 2004) -> Physicians, density per 100 000 population
(Periodicity: Year, Applied Time Period: lastest available data)

1. Australia latest available as of 2004 n/a 2004 249.13 view
2. Canada latest available as of 2004 n/a 2004 209.474 view
3. Netherlands latest available as of 2004 n/a 2004 329.1227 view
4. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland latest available as of 2004 n/a 2004 166.4574 view
5. United States of America latest available as of 2004 n/a 2004 548.9067 view
 
f_w said:
I guess the WHO is part of that evil conspiracy.

Human Resources for Health -> Basic data (last updated 26 October 2004) -> Physicians, density per 100 000 population
(Periodicity: Year, Applied Time Period: lastest available data)

1. Australia latest available as of 2004 n/a 2004 249.13 view
2. Canada latest available as of 2004 n/a 2004 209.474 view
3. Netherlands latest available as of 2004 n/a 2004 329.1227 view
4. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland latest available as of 2004 n/a 2004 166.4574 view
5. United States of America latest available as of 2004 n/a 2004 548.9067 view


Oh, now you're going to be cutesy and coy, and try to move the target. What sentence from the quoted passage (that you said and I referenced) above is underlined?

-Skip

P.S. Stop derailing: name just one.
 
  • The heaviest concentration of IMGs is in New Jersey (40.3% of doctors); and New York (40.2%); and Illinois (33.7%); and Florida (33.1%).

:laugh:


  • Of the 22,230 IMGs who are [currently] in residency training or are clinical fellows [as of 2002], more than 4,000 are American citizens, 8,200 are immigrants and are permanent residents, and 8,900 are in the U.S. on an exchange visitor visa and plan to return to their country of origin unless the INS grants them a waiver because they are needed to provide care to the American public. Therefore, some 55% of all IMGs in graduate medical education programs are U.S. citizens or lawful immigrants.

So much for your "regular overseas education" theory. :laugh:

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/211.html

To anyone else reading this thread, don't believe or listen to this over-opinionated, windbag f_w.

-Skip
 
Something like 25% (give or take) of US MD's did not graduate from a stateside school. So, even if you took all of them out of the equation, you would still have more docs per capita than such clearly underdeveloped places as the Netherlands or Australia 🙂)
 
f_w said:
Something like 25% (give or take) of US MD's did not graduate from a stateside school. So, even if you took all of them out of the equation, you would still have more docs per capita than such clearly underdeveloped places such as the Netherlands or Australia 🙂)

WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING??!?!

Stop derailing: name just one.

-Skip
 
f_w said:
Something like 25% (give or take) of US MD's did not graduate from a stateside school. So, even if you took all of them out of the equation, you would still have more docs per capita than such clearly underdeveloped places such as the Netherlands or Australia 🙂)

uh, your quote just gives a per capita count. it says nothing about suffecient numbers.

i agree that there are a lot of doctors in the states. yet, we still seem far from meeting the needs of the current population, much less the boom in the elderly coming up, and the effects of the aging doctor population nearing retirement as well.

it is a fairly commonly held belief that there is a significant doctor shortage looming.
 
Two questions:
- how many medical licenses have you so far applied for ?
- how many times have you applied for medical staff priviledges ?
 
neilc said:
uh, your quote just gives a per capita count. it says nothing about suffecient numbers.

i agree that there are a lot of doctors in the states. yet, we still seem far from meeting the needs of the current population, much less the boom in the elderly coming up, and the effects of the aging doctor population nearing retirement as well.

it is a fairly commonly held belief that there is a significant doctor shortage looming.

Neil,

This guy is all opinion and agenda, and what's worse he's not very well informed. My only goal is to point this out for other readers who may be looking at this thread and forming the wrong conclusions based on the bad information he his promulgating.

To that end, thanks for helping. And, yes, I can supply a credible link to actual, factual data that supports what you are saying here, something he seems incapable of when it really matters.

-Skip
 
f_w said:
Two questions:
- how many medical licenses have you so far applied for ?
- how many times have you applied for medical staff priviledges ?

Dude, if you are asking me, I already intimated a few days ago - and I will be happy to go even further and state - that I will be delighted to post my medical license on this forum (with my name blotted out) when I get it. I anticipate absolutely zero problems in getting it. Likewise, provided I complete my training without any hiccups (as I've done thus far at Ross), I will have no problems getting privileges at any hospital in any state that I want to live and work in.

Can I do that right now? No. If you try to infer out of that anything other than what I just said, you're an idiot.

-Skip
 
you are a medstudent whoose experience in matters of licensing and priviledges amounts to n=0
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
f_w said:
you are a medstudent whoose experience in matters of licensing and priviledges amounts to n=0

whooopdeeedooooo!!!

1) nobody knows what you are
2) you have yet to back up your statement that ross grads have problems with proof.

the main point is that you say stuff, and expect us to believe it. why should we? and, then you go around using this tactic of redirecting with statements like quoted above.

my vote is for troll of the week. can i get a second? :laugh:
 
neilc said:
my vote is for troll of the week. can i get a second? :laugh:

Hear, hear! I second that. Troll or not, someone coming onto a forum and fomenting a pseudo-credibility with a lot of hollow, unsupported, fear-mongering, yet plausible-sounding rhetoric has to be exposed because other people may come here and read this tripe thus becoming misinformed, confused, scared (etc.) themselves.

-Skip
 
Your 'proof' is limited to:
- whatever your school administrator feeds you
- what google yields
- whatever you can piece together from the information on the medboard websites.

My knowledge is based on the experience of:
- beeing an FMG in a US residency at this time (almost no carib IMG's in my field)
- having married into a family of overseas FMG's practicing in various states.
- having done a non-competitive primary care residency with plenty of carib IMG's in the past (who where btw quite cool. they freely admitted that this caribbean thing was a means to an end, and nothing more. And yes, one Ross grad couldn't go for his fellowship in TX, and a SGU grad lost a lot of money after beeing denied a license in Iowa).
 
f_w said:
Your 'proof' is limited to:
- whatever your school administrator feeds you
- what google yields
- whatever you can piece together from the information on the medboard websites.

No, my proof is based on the Ross graduates I personally know who graduated last year (some of whom landed very competitive residencies), the AMA and other credible sources including links I've provided that show people are, in fact, in residencies or licensed in states where you suggest that they will ineluctably run into a "brickwall" when they apply for license, and my personal experience of landing a residency in anesthesiology at my #2 choice, where I start in July side-by-side with U.S. medical school graduates, none of whom are "regular overseas education" IMGs.

f_w said:
My knowledge is based on the experience of:
- beeing an FMG in a US residency at this time (almost no carib IMG's in my field)
- having married into a family of overseas FMG's practicing in various states.
- having done a non-competitive primary care residency with plenty of carib IMG's in the past (who where btw quite cool. they freely admitted that this caribbean thing was a means to an end, and nothing more. And yes, one Ross grad couldn't go for his fellowship in TX, and a SGU grad lost a lot of money after beeing denied a license in Iowa).

So, you're basing your entire argument on the experience of two people - and then extrapolating that experience to an entire group despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary that's been posted here - and expect us to believe this is the "norm" despite the fact that you still have not provided any information that can be independently verified?

Sheesh. What do you take us for? Credulous weaklings who are willing to believe anything they read on an Internet forum?

(Besides, does anyone else see the irony that f_w completely contradicts himself and the entire argument he's been trying to make in his third bullet point? Unbelievable!)

Just keep your opinions to yourself, dude. You're not even remotely helping out here, save for your own apparently very fragile ego.

-Skip
 
f_w said:
The US medical system is full of FMG's in leading positions (look at Elias Zerhouni), you can't say that of any of the carib schools.

The only thing I will say in this thread:

Charter member of the American College of Rheumatology, (associate?) professor at UT-Southwestern (Dallas), author of the chapter in Harrison's about general rheumatic disease - Jack Cush, MD, SGU class of 1981.
 
Well until this thread is locked, I'd like to make one or two more points.

Let's continue to beat the dead horse...

f_w said:
> Except in extremis (e.g. distance learning, very poor schools) I don't
> buy the patient safety argument. Take a look at how many LCME
> grads get discliplined by medical boards.

The reason the boards are sceptical is the unsavory history of certain schools to give out diplomas to anyone who paid. Even some of the top schools today apparently will cut corners if it helps the bottom line (e.g. by allowing people to finish the two year pre-clinical curriculum in 16months.)

I think that everyone agrees that the Carib has a history of unsavory places. The disagreement here is whether SGU, Ross & AUC are a breed apart. I believe them to be, due to their track records.

> A residency (and board certification) makes a physician/surgeon.

I strongly disagree with that. Your practical training is part of what makes you a physician. If the knowledge base you built before that lacks (e.g. by limiting your knowledge to the USMLE syllabus), you are missing a crucial piece.

I (no surprise) disagree. The skills as a specialist, IMO are developed during residency. What besides the USMLE syllabus would you teach in basic sciences?

> The local medical boards are controlled directly or indirectly by
> LCME (AAMC) educated physicians, whose primary interest is economic.

The big conspiracy theory. Of course, it is easier to bear the situation if you can explain it by a master theory.

No conspiracy theory. If you do not think that local medical establishments act to protect their own from competition, I think that you are awfully naive. In fact, I'm certain that you don't believe it yourself. (Didn't you post something about European elites acting to protect their own on another thread...I don't have the time to search). Good ole boy networks are the same wherever you find them.

> Thanks to their misguided policies in limiting the number of allopathic
> grads, we now look to have a physician shortage.

The US has more physicians per capita than most other civilized countries. They just work in a very inefficient way as they are bogged down with redundant paperwork and other issues extraneous to their core competencies. In addition, there is a tremendous maldistribution of physicians. The absolute numbers would be sufficient.

I disagree. I don't believe in centrally planned economies. Let's see the numbers you posted:

1. Australia latest available as of 2004 n/a 2004 249.13 view
2. Canada latest available as of 2004 n/a 2004 209.474 view
3. Netherlands latest available as of 2004 n/a 2004 329.1227 view
4. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland latest available as of 2004 n/a 2004 166.4574 view
5. United States of America latest available as of 2004 n/a 2004 548.9067 view


I am not familiar with neither the Australian nor Dutch healthcare systems. I have, however done rotations in both the UK and Canada.

What you neglect to mention is the level of service that is provided by these physicians.

I'm certain you know about the Canadian healthcare shortage, both in primary and specialty care. Also, noone is going to convince me that the average Joe gets better care in the UK than the US (unless of course, you believe in hands-off medicine).

Though there maybe inefficencies in US healthcare (e.g. defensive medicine), the ones I've seen in centrally planned healthcare economies are simply astounding.

In addition, according to surveys, the US has the lowest malpractice ratio in the world.

Also, if there weren't a shortage, why do mid-levels keep gaining additional responsibilities/priviledges. I believe that fundamental market forces are at work.

(Now, I'll try to exit from this thread...)
 
Miklos said:
Let's continue to beat the dead horse...

Don't let him derail, Miklos, and try to change the argument. This guy's got a lot of opinions on how he perceives things to "really" work, most of which is not grounded in the facts.

So, let's refresh everyone's memories and remind everyone what we're still waiting to hear an answer on:

f_w said:
I just happen to know a couple of people running into brickwall after brickwall during their career bc of their primary medical education. Some medical boards had trouble with candidates even from the more known caribbean schools. As a result, they will scrutinize further applicants with much more zeal than your regular overseas FMG. ... While a carib school might give you a slight edge in getting into a residency, in the long run a regular foreign school will be better.

He has yet to back-up these statements with anything other than hearsay based on assumptions garnered from his own extremely limited personal experience in the midwest - if we are even to believe that, whereas others of us have clearly refuted the principle of his argument with supported facts.

Again: just one, dude. Just one.

f_w said:
I stand by my assessment that a :
- US citizen or permanent resident
- with identical competitive USMLE scores
- graduate of a 'real' overseas medical school

will beat a carib graduate in the game for a residency interview in a competitive specialty any day.

That must explain why I saw so many of these 'real' overseas medical school candidates on the interview trail this year. :laugh:

-Skip
 
Again, I am sorry for causing this nasty intrusion of reality into your online world.

sorry
 
Maybe you would want to put this question into the 'Europe' forum, I don't think you will get too much useful information from the few people still looking into this thread.

There is no standardized process throughout the EU for non-european graduates. Some countries like the UK are more organized than others, it also depends on the level you want to enter the system.

If you want to go for a residency in spain, you need to go through the ministry of education to get a 'reconocimiento' of your medical school education or a 'Homologacion' of your specialty qualifications. Also, if you want to enter into a formal residency program: the candidates are selected based on the MIR, a national exam.

The ministry of education website:
http://www.mec.es/
http://www.mec.es/univ/jsp/plantilla.jsp?id=413

Some information on the MIR for foreigners (on the website of a commercial provider of preparatory courses for the MIR, a spanish Kaplan)
http://www.ctomedicina.com/Medicina/med.asp?id=ext&contenido=1
 
f_w said:
Again, I am sorry for causing this nasty intrusion of reality into your online world.

sorry

If you want to characterize your own postings as nasty, then far be it from me to stop you. But, there's no need to apologize. The "reality" is that none of your "intrusions" have proved anything. So, contrary to the continued delusion under which you seem to be operating, the real truth is that you haven't accomplished anything here.

-Skip
 
I think it's fairly obvious, that Carib. graduates DO have a tougher time getting licensed in some US states. Witness the considerable amount of work undertaken by Ross to get equivalency certification in Texas, and the decision by Calif. to refuse to accept a number, in fact the majority, of Carib. schools. Also, being a Carib. grad WILL effectively lock you out of certain residencies, like Derm and Rad Onc today.

For me, the main problem with the Carib schools is the lack of independent oversight and accreditation. LCME can and will threaten to decertify US schools that are deemed unacceptable, and national schools in Europe and Asia are established to provide physicians for their own population, which helps to insure adequacy of training. In contrast, Carib. islands do NOT depend on the "offshore schools" for their own physician needs. In fact, the majority of the Carib islands still operates on a European system, like the MBBS of the Univ. of the West Indies.

I think it would be fair to say that:
1. All offshore schools, incl. the Carib., are money-making entities designed for those who cannot gain admittance to US schools. This fact, and not only the quality of training, is a factor when applying for a residency.
2. Certain schools, specifically the "Carib top 3", do have a fairly good reputation, and allows hard-working grads to get into most, but not all, residencies.
3. I've never heard of a US grad being refused by state medical boards. Some boards - Calif and Texas most prominently - WILL however refuse grads of some Carib. schools as a matter of policy. Others can require significantly more documentation before licensing.
3. The main problem is that there's no requirement to seek real accreditation or oversight among the offshore schools, and a number of Carib. schools are frightfully close to being complete scams - which obviously tends to affect all Carib. schools to some degree.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
PathOne said:
I think it's fairly obvious, that Carib. graduates DO have a tougher time getting licensed in some US states. Witness the considerable amount of work undertaken by Ross to get equivalency certification in Texas, and the decision by Calif. to refuse to accept a number, in fact the majority, of Carib. schools. Also, being a Carib. grad WILL effectively lock you out of certain residencies, like Derm and Rad Onc today.

A cordial welcome to the dead horse beating party.

Foreign grads from real 'bricks and mortar' schools have similar difficulties in Texas.

If the SGU/AUC/Ross grad does his/her homework when it comes to rotations, they will be eligible for licensure in all 50 States. As far as other Carib. schools go, what you write is a given.

Re: Rad Onc. I refer you to the moderator of the Rad Onc forum here. She is an SGU grad. When you go abroad (be it Carib or elsewhere), Derm and Rad Onc (as well as Plastics, Orthopedics, Optho, ENT, etc..) become very difficult (perhaps near impossible) to obtain.

It is only foreign grads (whether Carib or elsewhere) with stellar records that can beat US grads for those super competitive residencies.

(Still can't walk away from this stupid thread!)
 
I think the points that can be made on this issue have been made, and PathOnes post sums up many of the issues regarding the carib schools pretty well.
The rest is just entertainment.

just one more thing:

> the real truth is that you haven't accomplished anything here

I didn't have any delusions about the likelihood of achieving 'anything' with you personally.
You seem to be a bit self-conscious about the fact that you had to go to a carib school. As a result you will lash out at anyone doubting your 'Harvard of the Caribbean'. This is understandable and once you hit the harsh reality of residency life, you will come to realize that there are more important things to worry about.
 
It would help to know what steps are required to get a license. What must a doctor do to fulfill the criteria for licensure (and what are the criteria) and on what grounds can a doctor be refused a license?
 
f_w said:
I didn't have any delusions about the likelihood of achieving 'anything' with you personally.

You are quite deluded regardless.

de·lu·sion

1. a. The act or process of deluding.
b. The state of being deluded.
2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
3. Psychiatry. A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=delusion

f_w said:
You seem to be a bit self-conscious about the fact that you had to go to a carib school. As a result you will lash out at anyone doubting your 'Harvard of the Caribbean'. This is understandable and once you hit the harsh reality of residency life, you will come to realize that there are more important things to worry about.

Thanks for the psychoanalysis, Dr. Freud. 🙄 Or, perhaps you're just projecting. Either way, you've proven yourself to be quite the artiste when it comes to liberally slathering your posts with ad hominem in lieu of actually talking to the issues.

This thread clearly reflects that I substantiated what I said with facts; you did not. Furthermore, I'm not - nor have I ever been in this thread or anywhere else in my entire history of this forum - referring to the "Spartan's" and the "University of Health Sciences" of the Caribbean. If you go that route, you WILL have licensure problems. No disagreement here.

I've been referring to the legitimate, established schools - a few of whom have been around longer than some U.S. medical schools - who've got a solid track record of graduating physicians, getting them into training, and getting them licensed. Again, you want to paint it like it's the "norm" that graduates from these schools will unavoidably run into licensing issues. All I've asked you to do is back that up. You haven't. I assume you can't. That makes your opinion meaningless. The fact remains, you're poorly informed and have a clear agenda.

The reall problem is that psuedo-intellects like yourself, f_w, always want to make this a zero-sum game. Notice that I never denigrated or attacked the route you chose, namely getting your degree in Europe. However, going that route is also fraught with issues (e.g., trust me - if you don't have the credentials to get into a U.S. school you sure as heck aren't going to get a spot at Karolinska, you may have to learn a foreign language and difficult culture, you may have a difficult time setting-up rotations in the U.S., etc.). These are things that we've skipped over in over-focusing on trying to pin your statements down with some credible, verifiable proof.

Now, it seems you just want to sling arrows because you've clearly lost this argument. Fine. I trust that most people reading this thread are intelligent enough to see through your childish little game. If not, well, that's not really my problem.

Finally, as I suggested before, if you have nothing better to do than offer personal attacks, why not find a better way to spend your time? Or, are you now going to prove my point and respond offering more meaningless drivel?

My bet is on the latter.

-Skip
 
Arb said:
It would help to know what steps are required to get a license. What must a doctor do to fulfill the criteria for licensure (and what are the criteria) and on what grounds can a doctor be refused a license?

It varies state by state. Check out here first:

http://www.fsmb.org/

The biggest obstacles are (1) foreign grads who don't have a green card or can't get a visa and (2) getting into a residency program.

If you come from some completely unknown school - no matter where that is - and/or you have immigration/legal resident issues, then you're going to have a really tough time getting a residency spot. If you can't get a residency spot (and complete that residency), you can't get a license. If you can't get a license, you can't practice medicine in the U.S. (unless you are one of those rare loopholes being an eminent professor from another country who gets a limited and usually temporary license via sponsorship from some medical college here... i.e., don't count on this).

That's the facts.

-Skip