Which subspecialty is most resistant to encroachment or expansion?

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

inthezone2

Full Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2021
Messages
43
Reaction score
53
As an MS4 who matched IM, I'm really trying to gauge whether fellowship will be worth it in the future. Growing up financially unstable and in debt currently, it's an important thing to consider whether the specialty I pursue will be gobbled up by APP's or will be destroyed by overexpansion of training spots (rad onc and EM being the most dramatic examples in recent hx).

Of course midlevels are involved in all the subspecialties, but which ones do you all believe will be the safest?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Hard to predict the future. I bet most of the replies will be do what you are passionate and what kind of job you can foresee yourself doing for 20-30 or even 40 years.
So much can change in that time. You think HemOnc is resistant to mid levels what if the population perception changes and you have more midlevels in HemOnc following AI generated chemo protocol ?
When I was interested in HemOnc my program faculty who is MD PhD said it's not worth the pain as he think IBM watson like AI will eventually take over HemOnc and you will function as a clerk clicking buttons (which midlevels can do as well). Not saying I agree with that but no one can predict the future.

I'm sure intensivists in the forum will disagree with your assessment on Pulm/crit. You have midlevels doing lot of scut in the ICU. You will know once you are an attending, procedures are not something fancy and that you can even train a lay person to do it. Your decision making skills are what makes you a doctor. You will realize eventually everything is a routine/mundane especially in community settings (for most specialities) so midlevels in such fields with 5-10 yrs experience might function in the same way. This fact makes employers hold on to midlevels preferentially than doctors.

For now, procedural specialities like cardiology and GI are less resistant and more in demand. Best course against midlevel encroachment is to do a speciality with private practice potential and be a business man (like psych,allergy,rheumatology).
Critical care is mostly hospital or contact group like sound physicians employed and you are at their mercy regardless of the pay. You will work with midlevels and you've no say in who gets hired or fired. All that adds on to the frustration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
This is my subjective assessment and how I rank subspecialties purely based on job availability, salary and lifestyle

1. GI - more jobs due to more demand than supply, better lifestyle, one of the top paying speciality (~500k median) very competitive

2. Cardiology - good salary (500-550k), lifestyle is not as good as GI unless you are doing EP, imaging, heart failure fellowship. STEMI calls for interventional cards and ED calls for gen cards make it less lifestyle friendly compared to GI. I have also seen few people concerned about midlevels tightening jobs for gen cards but ability to read echos,ekgs,stress tests are valuable (which midlevels can't do). Job market can be tight in desirable cities. Job market is very tight for EP because it's a very small field.

3. Hem/Onc good pay for non-procedural speciality, outpatient lifestyle, job satisfaction. Concerns could be more midlevel encroachment pushing new grads to less desirable places and ?AI

4. Pulm/crit - more popular now due to shift based work, tele-icu for higher pay per hour. Still there is high % of burnout and has potential to follow path of ER with contract management groups buying practices/tele-ICU. Have midlevels run the ICU with doc in tele-ICU supervising 2-3 community hospitals.

5. Rheumatology - good private practice potential, decent pay

6. Hospitalist - pay around 250k, shift based. More risk for midlevel encroachment but being already paid low sometimes midlevels don't save a lot of money unless they see as much patients we docs for less pay (which they don't)

7. Endo/ID/Palliative - same or less pay compared to 3 yr residency but you lose 2 yr salary potential. If you like the field it's worth it in the long run. Hospital medicine has poor job satisfaction, less respect and more burnout

8. Nephro - see the dedicated Neph thread you will learn about the issues with that field
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10 users
Members don't see this ad :)
Find something else to worry about because this aint it. Anesthesiology has been the most vulnerable to this for a long time and they are still making a ton of money and I have yet to see one homeless on the street.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
This is my subjective assessment and how I rank subspecialties purely based on job availability, salary and lifestyle

1. GI - more jobs due to more demand than supply, better lifestyle, one of the top paying speciality (~500k median) very competitive

2. Cardiology - good salary (500-550k), lifestyle is not as good as GI unless you are doing EP, imaging, heart failure fellowship. STEMI calls for interventional cards and ED calls for gen cards make it less lifestyle friendly compared to GI. I have also seen few people concerned about midlevels tightening jobs for gen cards but ability to read echos,ekgs,stress tests are valuable (which midlevels can't do). Job market can be tight in desirable cities. Job market is very tight for EP because it's a very small field.

3. Hem/Onc good pay for non-procedural speciality, outpatient lifestyle, job satisfaction. Concerns could be more midlevel encroachment pushing new grads to less desirable places and ?AI

4. Pulm/crit - more popular now due to shift based work, tele-icu for higher pay per hour. Still there is high % of burnout and has potential to follow path of ER with contract management groups buying practices/tele-ICU. Have midlevels run the ICU with doc in tele-ICU supervising 2-3 community hospitals.

5. Rheumatology - good private practice potential, decent pay

6. Hospitalist - pay around 250k, shift based. More risk for midlevel encroachment but being already paid low sometimes midlevels don't save a lot of money unless they see as much patients we docs for less pay (which they don't)

7. Endo/ID/Palliative - same or less pay compared to 3 yr residency but you lose 2 yr salary potential. If you like the field it's worth it in the long run. Hospital medicine has poor job satisfaction, less respect and more burnout

8. Nephro - see the dedicated Neph thread you will learn about the issues with that field
Thank you so much for this. I realize this task is like trying to glance at the future with a crystal ball, but I think trends are important.
 
Find something else to worry about because this aint it. Anesthesiology has been the most vulnerable to this for a long time and they are still making a ton of money and I have yet to see one homeless on the street.
I get that, but I think it's reasonable to look at long term trends. I've been rotating through EM and 1/2 of the senior residents couldn't even land a job. Oversaturation was something that people have been whispering about on the EM forums for years prior to this and it's finally happened. It's part of the reason why I didn't apply to EM and I'm thankful for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
I get that, but I think it's reasonable to look at long term trends. I've been rotating through EM and 1/2 of the senior residents couldn't even land a job. Oversaturation was something that people have been whispering about on the EM forums for years prior to this and it's finally happened. It's part of the reason why I didn't apply to EM and I'm thankful for that.
Nobody can predict what is going to happen with NPs, let alone in subspecialty fields. There are plenty of EM jobs outside of metro areas so those people who were bemoaning their inability to find work forgot to add the modifier that it was in a geographically constrained area which is true for many specialties, not just EM. Nothing in IM is even close to being threatened by NPs at this point and at this juncture should have 0 impact on your career decisions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
As an MS4 who matched IM, I'm really trying to gauge whether fellowship will be worth it in the future. Growing up financially unstable and in debt currently, it's an important thing to consider whether the specialty I pursue will be gobbled up by APP's or will be destroyed by overexpansion of training spots (rad onc and EM being the most dramatic examples in recent hx).

Of course midlevels are involved in all the subspecialties, but which ones do you all believe will be the safest? Here's my stab at a tier list from consolidating what I've read. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Most Safe:
Heme Onc, Rheumatology - public perception and depth of knowledge. Everybody wants the most qualified person to treat cancer. Rheum patients are some of the most demanding as well in terms of the quality of care they receive given that they've often been bounced back and forth.

Middle:
Cardiology, GI - Don't know much about midlevels in these fields. There seems to be threads on overexpansion in cardiology and a dry market in superfellowships. GI seems over-reliant on billing endoscopy/colonoscopy.

Least Safe:
Pulm/Critical Care - already tons of mid-levels. At my institution they grab procedures from residents.

Destroyed by Davita:
Nephro

??:
Endo, palliative, ID

Pulmonary and critical care is WAY more than just ICU procedures :rolleyes:. Central lines? Really aren't even worth the time from an RVU perspective to mess around putting them in. I'm happy to let the APP takes the time hit on the central line and still bill for it. APPs won't be doing complicated bronchoscopy anytime soon mostly because there is no need to train them. The rest of pulmonary and critical care is brain work. Which can't or won't be replaced by an APP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Hard to predict the future. I bet most of the replies will be do what you are passionate and what kind of job you can foresee yourself doing for 20-30 or even 40 years.
So much can change in that time. You think HemOnc is resistant to mid levels what if the population perception changes and you have more midlevels in HemOnc following AI generated chemo protocol ?
When I was interested in HemOnc my program faculty who is MD PhD said it's not worth the pain as he think IBM watson like AI will eventually take over HemOnc and you will function as a clerk clicking buttons (which midlevels can do as well). Not saying I agree with that but no one can predict the future.

I'm sure intensivists in the forum will disagree with your assessment on Pulm/crit. You have midlevels doing lot of scut in the ICU. You will know once you are an attending, procedures are not something fancy and that you can even train a lay person to do it. Your decision making skills are what makes you a doctor. You will realize eventually everything is a routine/mundane especially in community settings (for most specialities) so midlevels in such fields with 5-10 yrs experience might function in the same way. This fact makes employers hold on to midlevels preferentially than doctors.

For now, procedural specialities like cardiology and GI are less resistant and more in demand. Best course against midlevel encroachment is to do a speciality with private practice potential and be a business man (like psych,allergy,rheumatology).
Critical care is mostly hospital or contact group like sound physicians employed and you are at their mercy regardless of the pay. You will work with midlevels and you've no say in who gets hired or fired. All that adds on to the frustration.
Re; IBM Watson-I actually worked at IBM on the early calibration of the system by medically annotating step 1/2 style questions during med school (4th yr). Was really cool and I truly believed it would revolutionize medicine. The first application it was going to have was in oncology but unfortunately it failed miserably and it appears they are out of health care now



just an interesting side note to this conversation
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
When it comes to ai people always ignore how much junk data we take. 2/3 of the history is usually junk data. At least half the articles I read are junk data. Good docs make things look obvious in their notes and their consults because they filter through a mountain of poo and pull out the three nuggets of gold. That’s a really hard thing to teach ai. Especially when you’re a non-clinical computer scientist trying to make sense of the gap between what the “evidence” says and what we actually do
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10 users
As an MS4 who matched IM, I'm really trying to gauge whether fellowship will be worth it in the future. Growing up financially unstable and in debt currently, it's an important thing to consider whether the specialty I pursue will be gobbled up by APP's or will be destroyed by overexpansion of training spots (rad onc and EM being the most dramatic examples in recent hx).

Of course midlevels are involved in all the subspecialties, but which ones do you all believe will be the safest? Here's my stab at a tier list from consolidating what I've read. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Most Safe:
Heme Onc, Rheumatology - public perception and depth of knowledge. Everybody wants the most qualified person to treat cancer. Rheum patients are some of the most demanding as well in terms of the quality of care they receive given that they've often been bounced back and forth.

Middle:
Cardiology, GI - Don't know much about midlevels in these fields. There seems to be threads on overexpansion in cardiology and a dry market in superfellowships. GI seems over-reliant on billing endoscopy/colonoscopy.

Least Safe:
Pulm/Critical Care - already tons of mid-levels. At my institution they grab procedures from residents.

Destroyed by Davita:
Nephro

??:
Endo, palliative, ID
Regarding nephrology, what do you mean “destroyed by Davita”? Are you under the impression the midlevels that round at dialysis are Davita employees? They tend to be employed by the nephrology practices themselves and at the service of the docs.
 
Regarding nephrology, what do you mean “destroyed by Davita”? Are you under the impression the midlevels that round at dialysis are Davita employees? They tend to be employed by the nephrology practices themselves and at the service of the docs.
My understanding is that nephro used to be a very desirable specialty because physician-owned dialysis centers brought in good reimbursement, but nowadays a combination of large groups like DaVita, reimbursement cuts, and fellowship expansion has brought the field down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
To add to this thread, is anyone here unhappy with the way their professional association is taking the field? The EM folks seem dissatisfied with ACEP. The rad onc folks dislike ASTRO.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
My understanding is that nephro used to be a very desirable specialty because physician-owned dialysis centers brought in good reimbursement, but nowadays a combination of large groups like DaVita, reimbursement cuts, and fellowship expansion has brought the field down.
The paradigm has changed, but dialysis remains by far the most profitable part of nephrology care. I have worked within both systems, physician owned and with DaVita, and both systems have pros and cons. On the one hand, a practice can be more responsible for the logistics of the unit and reap more of a financial benefit, and on the other hand, a practice can relinquish that responsibility and spend its time elsewhere. Dialysis is very territorial; the companies cannot just establish their own dialysis clinic down the road and bully out the already established doctors. Number and range of dialysis clinics is tightly regulated. A need has to be established. If dialysis patients are already being served, there is not a need for a new unit. Historically, DaVita and others bought out practices who crunched the numbers and found it beneficial to let it go. I would liken it to IR taking over many procedures. Sometimes it's not worth the hassle.

However, DaVita and practices have joint ventures all the time. Practices will often own the property, and DaVita rent space to perform dialysis. These companies' business models are really focused on the dialysis component. They do not necessarily want to buy property. They do not want to hire their own doctors. They are happy to work with practices and rent space. There are also medical directorships that can be lucrative.

So it's a nice setup. Bill for the patient care. Bill for the medical directorship. Possibly collect rent on top of that.

Now, I'll be clear and say that working with a large health care entity is not all rainbows and butterflies, but my complaints are about other things and not what was just discussed.

Reimbursement is controlled by Medicare primarily, not DaVita. Coincidentally, reimbursement for nephrology is expected to go up quite a bit with changes to how dialysis compensation works, efforts to promote home modalities, etc.

It remains to be seen if the current fellowship load is still too much or enough for the specialty. The number of spots filled has not changed much over the years. There might have been slightly more over this past year. The lower end programs continue to run half full. There is a world where the field may be contracting, and good graduates will be in high demand. Anecdotally, it may take a practice a couple of years to find a good candidate. That has been the experience in my region.

That was probably more than you wanted! The above does not have much to do with midlevels. We use midlevels to help with dialysis rounding. Each patient needs to be seen four times monthly (3 quicker visits and 1 comprehensive visits) for maximum billing so docs will do the comprehensive visit and maybe a limited visit while the midlevels do the rest. That frees us docs up to be more productive in clinic (or maintain our 4-day work weeks).

I think nephrology is safe from midlevel takeover for a while. There is not more money in regular clinic visits...more complicated patients with similar billing to everyone else (unless they are transplants or GNs). They cannot handle the complexity. They cannot treat GN. We have to teach them how to manage hypertension for Pete's sake. Midlevels would have to go after dialysis and see patients independently for it to be worthwhile, but dialysis is so tightly regulated by the government/Medicare that I think it is going to be a long time before we see anything like that. I'm sure DaVita would like to make a buck, but dialysis patients are complicated, and we provide a lot of oversight. Outcomes would be poor. Midlevels don't learn any nephrology in their training so if there is not a nephrologist, DaVita would have to train them, and they have not shown much interest in doing that at this time.

Just do what you want. As long as you do private practice, you have a lot of control as far as midlevels go. You have less say if you are employed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Many hospitals tried to up their NP/PA hospitalist force, and it didn't pan out well, so they went in reverse and started hiring more hospitalists. I think because hospitals are soooo weary about scores and getting people out of the hospital faster, they just can't utilize NPs/PAs the way they want because they cannot get them out of the hospital fast enough. The Physician can see more, do more, and get them out of the hospital faster.

At least where I'm working currently, the NPs sit around looking through charts for hours for the same 4-5 patients while waiting for the specialists to come. Lol.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 9 users
Many hospitals tried to up their NP/PA hospitalist force, and it didn't pan out well, so they went in reverse and started hiring more hospitalists. I think because hospitals are soooo weary about scores and getting people out of the hospital faster, they just can't utilize NPs/PAs the way they want because they cannot get them out of the hospital fast enough. The Physician can see more, do more, and get them out of the hospital faster.

At least where I'm working currently, the NPs sit around looking through charts for hours for the same 4-5 patients while waiting for the specialists to come. Lol.
100%.

Couple years ago, the health system i work at abruptly terminated every midlevel in the hospital medicine department and hired a couple more hospitalists. They just did not find them cost effective at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
When it comes to ai people always ignore how much junk data we take. 2/3 of the history is usually junk data. At least half the articles I read are junk data. Good docs make things look obvious in their notes and their consults because they filter through a mountain of poo and pull out the three nuggets of gold. That’s a really hard thing to teach ai. Especially when you’re a non-clinical computer scientist trying to make sense of the gap between what the “evidence” says and what we actually do
The absolute worst is reading an ER note that is 90% garbage filled in by a smartphrase that pulls ANYTHING and EVERYTHING from their massive problem list spanning 15 years, into the one liner “80 yo male history of renal transplant, temporal arteritis, adrenal insufficiency, myocardial infarction comes in with brbpr” and say nothing in the HPI to clarify it.

“renal transplant” but no mention that it failed and pt is currently dependent on dialysis

“rheumatoid arthritis” but no clarification that a recent rheumatologist office visit note says patient doesn’t actually have it and this is a leftover problem inserted by a dimwit midlevel in an urgent care 10 years ago when the patient went in for complaint of wrist pain

“temporal arteritis” but this was effectively ruled out in a 2013 hospital admission and this is leftover from when pt was suspected to have it

“adrenal insufficiency” who knows how this got into the problem list? The pt really just never had it

“myocardial infarction” but fails to mention pt had DES to LAD 3 months ago and the DAPT is very important and relevant to their GIB situation

THERE IS NO WAY AI CAN FIX THIS
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 3 users
The paradigm has changed, but dialysis remains by far the most profitable part of nephrology care. I have worked within both systems, physician owned and with DaVita, and both systems have pros and cons. On the one hand, a practice can be more responsible for the logistics of the unit and reap more of a financial benefit, and on the other hand, a practice can relinquish that responsibility and spend its time elsewhere. Dialysis is very territorial; the companies cannot just establish their own dialysis clinic down the road and bully out the already established doctors. Number and range of dialysis clinics is tightly regulated. A need has to be established. If dialysis patients are already being served, there is not a need for a new unit. Historically, DaVita and others bought out practices who crunched the numbers and found it beneficial to let it go. I would liken it to IR taking over many procedures. Sometimes it's not worth the hassle.

However, DaVita and practices have joint ventures all the time. Practices will often own the property, and DaVita rent space to perform dialysis. These companies' business models are really focused on the dialysis component. They do not necessarily want to buy property. They do not want to hire their own doctors. They are happy to work with practices and rent space. There are also medical directorships that can be lucrative.

So it's a nice setup. Bill for the patient care. Bill for the medical directorship. Possibly collect rent on top of that.

Now, I'll be clear and say that working with a large health care entity is not all rainbows and butterflies, but my complaints are about other things and not what was just discussed.

Reimbursement is controlled by Medicare primarily, not DaVita. Coincidentally, reimbursement for nephrology is expected to go up quite a bit with changes to how dialysis compensation works, efforts to promote home modalities, etc.

It remains to be seen if the current fellowship load is still too much or enough for the specialty. The number of spots filled has not changed much over the years. There might have been slightly more over this past year. The lower end programs continue to run half full. There is a world where the field may be contracting, and good graduates will be in high demand. Anecdotally, it may take a practice a couple of years to find a good candidate. That has been the experience in my region.

That was probably more than you wanted! The above does not have much to do with midlevels. We use midlevels to help with dialysis rounding. Each patient needs to be seen four times monthly (3 quicker visits and 1 comprehensive visits) for maximum billing so docs will do the comprehensive visit and maybe a limited visit while the midlevels do the rest. That frees us docs up to be more productive in clinic (or maintain our 4-day work weeks).

I think nephrology is safe from midlevel takeover for a while. There is not more money in regular clinic visits...more complicated patients with similar billing to everyone else (unless they are transplants or GNs). They cannot handle the complexity. They cannot treat GN. We have to teach them how to manage hypertension for Pete's sake. Midlevels would have to go after dialysis and see patients independently for it to be worthwhile, but dialysis is so tightly regulated by the government/Medicare that I think it is going to be a long time before we see anything like that. I'm sure DaVita would like to make a buck, but dialysis patients are complicated, and we provide a lot of oversight. Outcomes would be poor. Midlevels don't learn any nephrology in their training so if there is not a nephrologist, DaVita would have to train them, and they have not shown much interest in doing that at this time.

Just do what you want. As long as you do private practice, you have a lot of control as far as midlevels go. You have less say if you are employed.
Thanks for taking the time to go into all this. I appreciate the insight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
When I was interested in HemOnc my program faculty who is MD PhD said it's not worth the pain as he think IBM watson like AI will eventually take over HemOnc and you will function as a clerk clicking buttons (which midlevels can do as well). Not saying I agree with that but no one can predict the future.
By the time AI can do this there will be many, many other careers already replaced by AI, IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Many hospitals tried to up their NP/PA hospitalist force, and it didn't pan out well, so they went in reverse and started hiring more hospitalists. I think because hospitals are soooo weary about scores and getting people out of the hospital faster, they just can't utilize NPs/PAs the way they want because they cannot get them out of the hospital fast enough. The Physician can see more, do more, and get them out of the hospital faster.

At least where I'm working currently, the NPs sit around looking through charts for hours for the same 4-5 patients while waiting for the specialists to come. Lol.
The absolute worst is reading an ER note that is 90% garbage filled in by a smartphrase that pulls ANYTHING and EVERYTHING from their massive problem list spanning 15 years, into the one liner “80 yo male history of renal transplant, temporal arteritis, adrenal insufficiency, myocardial infarction...” and say nothing in the HPI to clarify it.

“renal transplant” but no mention that it failed and pt is currently dependent on dialysis

“rheumatoid arthritis” but no clarification that a recent rheumatologist office visit note says patient doesn’t actually have it and this is a leftover problem inserted by a dimwit midlevel in an urgent care 10 years ago when the patient went in for complaint of wrist pain

“temporal arteritis” but this was effectively ruled out in a 2013 hospital admission and this is leftover from when pt was suspected to have it

“adrenal insufficiency” who knows how this got into the problem list? The pt really just never had it

“myocardial infarction” but fails to mention pt had DES to LAD 3 months ago and the DAPT is very important and relevant to their GIB situation

THERE IS NO WAY AI CAN FIX THIS

This is consistent w/ what I've heard from members of my own department. Thanks!
 
The absolute worst is reading an ER note that is 90% garbage filled in by a smartphrase that pulls ANYTHING and EVERYTHING from their massive problem list spanning 15 years, into the one liner “80 yo male history of renal transplant, temporal arteritis, adrenal insufficiency, myocardial infarction...” and say nothing in the HPI to clarify it.

“renal transplant” but no mention that it failed and pt is currently dependent on dialysis

“rheumatoid arthritis” but no clarification that a recent rheumatologist office visit note says patient doesn’t actually have it and this is a leftover problem inserted by a dimwit midlevel in an urgent care 10 years ago when the patient went in for complaint of wrist pain

“temporal arteritis” but this was effectively ruled out in a 2013 hospital admission and this is leftover from when pt was suspected to have it

“adrenal insufficiency” who knows how this got into the problem list? The pt really just never had it

“myocardial infarction” but fails to mention pt had DES to LAD 3 months ago and the DAPT is very important and relevant to their GIB situation

THERE IS NO WAY AI CAN FIX THIS
So how did you find out the actual history?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Find something else to worry about because this aint it. Anesthesiology has been the most vulnerable to this for a long time and they are still making a ton of money and I have yet to see one homeless on the street.

Nobody can predict what is going to happen with NPs, let alone in subspecialty fields. There are plenty of EM jobs outside of metro areas so those people who were bemoaning their inability to find work forgot to add the modifier that it was in a geographically constrained area which is true for many specialties, not just EM. Nothing in IM is even close to being threatened by NPs at this point and at this juncture should have 0 impact on your career decisions.
Wait... so your goal post is literally that doctors of a specialty are homeless on the street?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
So how did you find out the actual history?
I always scroll through office notes and discharge summaries and careeverywhere to prove/disprove smartphrased one liners and piece together things accurately
 
I always scroll through office notes and discharge summaries and careeverywhere to prove/disprove smartphrased one liners and piece together things accurately
So basically what you're saying is you're better at data mining than what you imagine the *currently non-existent clinical decision-making AI is capable of.

Why would it not be possible for AI to do what you do?
 
Nobody can predict what is going to happen with NPs, let alone in subspecialty fields. There are plenty of EM jobs outside of metro areas so those people who were bemoaning their inability to find work forgot to add the modifier that it was in a geographically constrained area which is true for many specialties, not just EM. Nothing in IM is even close to being threatened by NPs at this point and at this juncture should have 0 impact on your career decisions.

If you go to the EM forums, they are actually having trouble finding jobs in rural locations as well
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
So basically what you're saying is you're better at data mining than what you imagine the *currently non-existent clinical decision-making AI is capable of.

Why would it not be possible for AI to do what you do?
The same reasons AI hasn’t/ can’t replace human ekg interpretation or rads interpretation

No software developer is going to take on the liability to let their AI “delete” problems on the PMH that are misleading, inaccurate or false...think of all the stupid crap that an office medical assistant puts in the record forever on new patient intakes. Then when it comes to history taking, AI can’t replace human judgment on how to place the importance on patient complaints...think of how often you get folks with pan-positive ROS. We know which complaint is to be taken seriously and which is BS. The AI would explode generating a giant and misleading ddx list for someone who is “positive” for weakness, numbness, abdominal pain, pan-joint pain, chest pain, cough, headache etc etc etc
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
So basically what you're saying is you're better at data mining than what you imagine the *currently non-existent clinical decision-making AI is capable of.

Why would it not be possible for AI to do what you do?

It’s not really our job to defend why a non-existent technology can’t do our job. It’s like asking why the marines won’t get replaced by cyborgs.

But it were going to go into it it’s mostly because it involves actual thought, which we can’t replicate yet. It is always possible that a new unanticipated technology disrupts things, but you shouldn’t plan your life around it.

People who say docs will get replaced by ai or midlevel with ai usually fall into one of two categories
1.) know nothing about computer science
2.) know nothing about medicine

Making an algorithm that filters out problem lists is difficult: you can’t just search the chart and remove it, dx might be old, from an outside system, or have been treated but still relevant (prior unprovoked dvt). You can’t just ask the patient: half of them don’t even know what medications they are on, much less what conditions they have.

The shortest answer is that most of medicine is not deductive reasoning, it is inductive/intuitive thinking followed by deductive thought processes. Attendings make this look easier than it is because we want to record a clear thought process. The thinking is also usually parallel rather than serial in nature, which makes it more difficult to code.

Eventually when this tech is around, the end of the algorithm is going to be “ use clinical judgement” which isn’t going to fall on a midlevel, it’s gonna fall on a doc. It’s more likely to replace the part of the job we have mid levels do now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
If you are talking about pure resistance to encroachment- EP and interventional cardiology tops the list. For one, most general cardiology attending have no idea what’s going on in the EP lab or a complex coronary intervention. You will never see an NP or PA manipulating catheters in the lab, getting access would be beyond a stretch.

from a financial perspective, I would argue that GI/card, especially looking at the salary 3-5 years out of practice (and not focusing solely on starting salary) will probably top the list for the foreseeable future

lifestyle wise- heme/onc, rheum and endo are the safest bet
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Wait... so your goal post is literally that doctors of a specialty are homeless on the street?
You got it. Those poor anesthesiologists are barely making ends meet I'm sure despite the crna incursion. Only 250/hr now or so I hear. Might as well go work for taco bell right?
 
Last edited:
I don't pretend to know anything about AI, but on the subject of midlevel encroachment I just want to be another voice warning that we can't predict the future. Right now, because of their sudden growth and because of the mess that is EM, midlevels are the hot topic in job security. However, many specialties are going to have troubles completely unrelated to encroachment--look at rad onc, who managed to destroy their job market all on their own without the help of a single NP or PA, or at the drop in demand for cardiac surgery 25 years ago with the advent of emergent PCI (though that has since recovered a bit).

Hospitalist medicine may be overrun with midlevels in 10 years, or as others have pointed out, it will turn out that undertrained workers aren't able to do the job as efficiently as doctors and the fears will be overblown (which I think is more likely). GI is king right now because of scope reimbursement, but cuts in procedural RVUs because of health care reform or the invention of more accurate stool testing for CRC screening may lead to a big drop in salary. Primary care was supposed to be the first place midlevels took over and the last place physicians wanted to be, but demand and salary are higher than ever for PCPs. Something like EP or interventional cards is very safe from midlevels, but also more limited in the job market if you want to be somewhere specific.

Obviously you shouldn't ignore looming threats (like the pathology or rad onc job market), but trying to predict 5-10 years in the future is probably a fools errand. Someone graduating EM this year has been told their whole medical career that EM was safe and in demand all over the country, only to have the job market change in a year or two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10 users
Nothing in IM is even close to being threatened by NPs at this point and at this juncture should have 0 impact on your career decisions.

Many hospitals tried to up their NP/PA hospitalist force, and it didn't pan out well, so they went in reverse and started hiring more hospitalists. I think because hospitals are soooo weary about scores and getting people out of the hospital faster, they just can't utilize NPs/PAs the way they want because they cannot get them out of the hospital fast enough. The Physician can see more, do more, and get them out of the hospital faster.

At least where I'm working currently, the NPs sit around looking through charts for hours for the same 4-5 patients while waiting for the specialists to come. Lol.

strongly agree with above. worked at a very large hospital corp until recently and had the same experience.

the hospitalist is in the unenviable yet ensconced position of being a chart janitor, meat moving specialist, universal dump acceptor, liability sponge, and is the central hub for the medical wheel of nursing, consultants, admin, and case management. we even know a little medicine! this is not sexy work but is the grist that keeps the mill going.

edit: forgot to mention that capitated care is on the rise. Another way for hospitalists to earn their keep
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
The absolute worst is reading an ER note that is 90% garbage filled in by a smartphrase that pulls ANYTHING and EVERYTHING from their massive problem list spanning 15 years, into the one liner “80 yo male history of renal transplant, temporal arteritis, adrenal insufficiency, myocardial infarction comes in with brbpr” and say nothing in the HPI to clarify it.

“renal transplant” but no mention that it failed and pt is currently dependent on dialysis

“rheumatoid arthritis” but no clarification that a recent rheumatologist office visit note says patient doesn’t actually have it and this is a leftover problem inserted by a dimwit midlevel in an urgent care 10 years ago when the patient went in for complaint of wrist pain

“temporal arteritis” but this was effectively ruled out in a 2013 hospital admission and this is leftover from when pt was suspected to have it

“adrenal insufficiency” who knows how this got into the problem list? The pt really just never had it

“myocardial infarction” but fails to mention pt had DES to LAD 3 months ago and the DAPT is very important and relevant to their GIB situation

THERE IS NO WAY AI CAN FIX THIS

there are some AI tools that are extremely accurate at summarizing and generating text, GPT-3 for example. medicine functions at geological time scales in terms of tech adoption so i don’t think this will be a problem soon but i am certain even now you could get a passable DC summary feeding a chart into some of these language models
 
Last edited:
there are some AI tools that are extremely accurate at summarizing and generating text, GPT-3 for example. medicine functions at geological time scales in terms of tech adoption so i don’t think this will be a problem soon but i am certain even now you could get a passable DC summary feeding a chart into some of these language models
I thought that was what ID consults were for.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 5 users
Last edited:
Off topic a bit but do any IM subspecialties have base salary offers that top those of surgical specialties? GI maybe?

edit: yes GI for sure. Gastroenterology Physician at Marshfield Clinic

i mean just look at this:


$1M Earning Potential - Eastern Indiana: Orthopedic-Spine
  • $750,000 salary guarantee ($1M earning potential)
  • $100,000 sign-on bonus
Lol, and all you have to do for that $1M as a gastroenterologist is move to rural Wisconsin...
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 3 users
Anyone who thinks their specialty is immune to mid-level encroachment is smoking the crackpipe. I'd encourage you to read the Anes forums, circa 2005/2006, where some thought the CRNA thing was just a 'fad' and would go away.

The medical industrial complex---and make no mistake about it, health care is an industry, subject to all of the same economic pressures as any other industry---loves the PA/NP. They can throw them into in any context (outpatient, inpatient, adults, peds, etc), with minimal training, and they can do much of the scutwork (or what we physicians perceive to be scutwork).

They view us physicians as a total PITA: we take too long to educate and train (sometimes true: do I really need a sleep physician, PGY7+, to tell me someone's too fat to breath well at night?), we're expensive (to pay, to insure), and we're high maintenance. In any other industry, the economic mechanisms at hand will find a way to circumvent such a PITA commodity, and that's exactly what's happening in medicine.

So what do we do about it? We'll probably do nothing. We're not organized, and we don't care all that much (as individuals). Most of us have good jobs now, our immediate livelihood is not threatened. I can't say that about the generation following us.

What would I like to see happen?
-- Reduce the # of years in education/training (we've had this discussion before), so we can get physicians into the workforce sooner.
-- Stop making a fellowship/BC out of everything (again, too much formal training): more on-the-job training and certifications
-- get rid of BC, it's an unnecessary credential (test the individual all you want while they're in training, including a mandatory exit exam, but once they've graduated, they're done, and should be allowed to practice!)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Anyone who thinks their specialty is immune to mid-level encroachment is smoking the crackpipe. I'd encourage you to read the Anes forums, circa 2005/2006, where some thought the CRNA thing was just a 'fad' and would go away.

The medical industrial complex---and make no mistake about it, health care is an industry, subject to all of the same economic pressures as any other industry---loves the PA/NP. They can throw them into in any context (outpatient, inpatient, adults, peds, etc), with minimal training, and they can do much of the scutwork (or what we physicians perceive to be scutwork).

They view us physicians as a total PITA: we take too long to educate and train (sometimes true: do I really need a sleep physician, PGY7+, to tell me someone's too fat to breath well at night?), we're expensive (to pay, to insure), and we're high maintenance. In any other industry, the economic mechanisms at hand will find a way to circumvent such a PITA commodity, and that's exactly what's happening in medicine.

So what do we do about it? We'll probably do nothing. We're not organized, and we don't care all that much (as individuals). Most of us have good jobs now, our immediate livelihood is not threatened. I can't say that about the generation following us.

What would I like to see happen?
-- Reduce the # of years in education/training (we've had this discussion before), so we can get physicians into the workforce sooner.
-- Stop making a fellowship/BC out of everything (again, too much formal training): more on-the-job training and certifications
-- get rid of BC, it's an unnecessary credential (test the individual all you want while they're in training, including a mandatory exit exam, but once they've graduated, they're done, and should be allowed to practice!)
Sleep can be done at the end of residency for several 3/4 year programs. Its a 1 year fellowship open to FM, IM, anesthesia, psych, and neurology. It just happens that the vast majority most places are pulm trained as well, but it doesn't have to be that way.

And not to downplay any of this, but you're forgetting a few very important points we have in our favor. We are much more efficient and produce more than midlevels. If a midlevel costs half as much as me all told but I produce 2.5X what they do, I'm still the better bargain. Patients by and large still want to see doctors. That's not universally true, but I'd say its still a majority. As long as those hold true (and mainly the former), we're OK.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Anyone who thinks their specialty is immune to mid-level encroachment is smoking the crackpipe. I'd encourage you to read the Anes forums, circa 2005/2006, where some thought the CRNA thing was just a 'fad' and would go away.

The medical industrial complex---and make no mistake about it, health care is an industry, subject to all of the same economic pressures as any other industry---loves the PA/NP. They can throw them into in any context (outpatient, inpatient, adults, peds, etc), with minimal training, and they can do much of the scutwork (or what we physicians perceive to be scutwork).

They view us physicians as a total PITA: we take too long to educate and train (sometimes true: do I really need a sleep physician, PGY7+, to tell me someone's too fat to breath well at night?), we're expensive (to pay, to insure), and we're high maintenance. In any other industry, the economic mechanisms at hand will find a way to circumvent such a PITA commodity, and that's exactly what's happening in medicine.

So what do we do about it? We'll probably do nothing. We're not organized, and we don't care all that much (as individuals). Most of us have good jobs now, our immediate livelihood is not threatened. I can't say that about the generation following us.

What would I like to see happen?
-- Reduce the # of years in education/training (we've had this discussion before), so we can get physicians into the workforce sooner.
-- Stop making a fellowship/BC out of everything (again, too much formal training): more on-the-job training and certifications
-- get rid of BC, it's an unnecessary credential (test the individual all you want while they're in training, including a mandatory exit exam, but once they've graduated, they're done, and should be allowed to practice!)
The anesthesia reference again--look at their forums now. They are still doing completely fine....
 
Sleep can be done at the end of residency for several 3/4 year programs.

I would hope so. There should be no such thing as a '1-year' fellowship. If it's not important enough---no procedures, not enough pathology---to make it at least a 2-year fellowship, it shouldn't be a formal fellowship at all. We should have some mechanism of on-the-job training and certification, for some things.
(We wont allow this as physicians, this is where our psyche comes in. We have to make a fellowship/BC out of everything, to boost ourselves on that academic ivory pedestal, to then demand higher salaries and accolades. We want this, we yearn for this. And this is how we ultimately screw ourselves. In due time, mid-levels will be reading sleep studies.)

And not to downplay any of this, but you're forgetting a few very important points we have in our favor. We are much more efficient and produce more than midlevels. If a midlevel costs half as much as me all told but I produce 2.5X what they do, I'm still the better bargain. Patients by and large still want to see doctors. That's not universally true, but I'd say its still a majority. As long as those hold true (and mainly the former), we're OK.

Maybe. If you're speaking of primary care. And patients are becoming more accepting of mid-levels. When my 8-yo stuck and eraser in his ear and I took him to a pediatric urgent care, we saw a NP that promptly extracted is (her third of the week, it was school season). I didn't run in there demanding to see a board certified pediatrician. I was quite happy with the service provided by the NP. And I'm a doctor who knows the difference!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Just be like the local hospital here: start an IM program, get cheap labor, and dump the midlevels.

That is the expectation anyway. I don’t think there’s enough work to warrant adding 45 residents (15 per year) without cutting somebody.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The anesthesia reference again--look at their forums now. They are still doing completely fine....

I would ask you to define 'fine'. Yeah, nobody's starving. But ask a freshly minted anes grad about how hard it is to find work in a large metro city, or what pay they're taking for it? There's a vast difference between those numbers today, vs 2005, vs 1995, vs 1985.

What's really sad is that this new generation now just expects it to be harder to find a job, and expects their pay to be less, b/c of the whole CRNA utilization.

Same is happening in Internal Medicine, with respect to hospitalists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
I would hope so. There should be no such thing as a '1-year' fellowship. If it's not important enough---no procedures, not enough pathology---to make it at least a 2-year fellowship, it shouldn't be a formal fellowship at all. We should have some mechanism of on-the-job training and certification, for some things.
(We wont allow this as physicians, this is where our psyche comes in. We have to make a fellowship/BC out of everything, to boost ourselves on that academic ivory pedestal, to then demand higher salaries and accolades. We want this, we yearn for this. And this is how we ultimately screw ourselves. In due time, mid-levels will be reading sleep studies.)



Maybe. If you're speaking of primary care. And patients are becoming more accepting of mid-levels. When my 8-yo stuck and eraser in his ear and I took him to a pediatric urgent care, we saw a NP that promptly extracted is (her third of the week, it was school season). I didn't run in there demanding to see a board certified pediatrician. I was quite happy with the service provided by the NP. And I'm a doctor who knows the difference!
Utter nonsense. There's plenty of 1-year fellowships that you can't just learn on the job or with a weekend course.

Pain management and sports medicine being the main two that come to mind. I think lots (most?) of the anesthesiology fellowships are 1 year, though I can't speak to the utility of those.

As for your urgent care experience, that's exactly what midlevels are designed for - easy things. We've had to use an urgent care 3 times in the last year. Once, the doctor there picked up my wife's new Grave's disease. I'm not convinced a midlevel would been as thorough given the complaint my wife went in with.

On the other hand, a midlevel easily could have stapled my kid's scalp laceration or put a splint on the other kid's broken arm. Both of those are easy tasks after all.
 
Utter nonsense.

No, it's not utter nonsense. What it does require is some forward and out-of-the-box thinking, which most academic physicians aren't capable of.

I'm not delusional, I don't expect us to create a bunch of 'apprenticeships' and weekend courses, I know that wont happen. If anything: we're very much going towards the side of 'fellowshipizing' everything. We now have a Peds Hospitalist fellowship, Internal Medicine will soon follow suit, we'll have fellowships in Obesity, Addiction, Women's Health, Men's Health, HIV, etc etc. Most of us will be grandfathered in if we're already involved in these things, but the next generation of physicians will have to be PGY10+ trained in order to touch a patient.

And so . . .don't be surprised when mid-levels encroach in your specialty, b/c there aren't enough quadruple-board-certified physicians to do the work.


As for your urgent care experience, that's exactly what midlevels are designed for - easy things.

Define 'easy'. I just consulted hematology for a patient that's floridly pancytopenic (and has been > 10 days, with no obvious reason), I thought for sure warrants a BM biopsy. I get a call back from an NP on the service, who tells me nothing to do. It would be nice if the hematologist could look at the smear and weigh in, but he's not reachable; he has a full clinic, and he's using his NP to do his scut consult work at the hospital. Such is life in 2021.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Define 'easy'. I just consulted hematology for a patient that's floridly pancytopenic (and has been > 10 days, with no obvious season), I thought for sure warrants a BM biopsy. I get a call back from an NP on the service, who tells me nothing to do. It would be nice if the hematologist could look at the smear and weigh in, but he's not reachable; he has a full clinic, and he's using his NP to do his scut consult work at the hospital. Such is life in 2021.
This was my experience in residency. There'll be an NP on consults who acts like he/she knows everything because of their 10 years working in this same position for however long. The actual attending's just leisurely rounding and no one wants to break rank to interrupt workflow to ask him/her a question.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
lol, the implication from this thread and past ones like it is that medicine as a whole is being sold away piece by piece. I can only feel sorry for those high schoolers starting premed. There really will be nothing left by then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
lol, the implication from this thread and past ones like it is that medicine as a whole is being sold away piece by piece. I can only feel sorry for those high schoolers starting premed. There really will be nothing left by then.
High schoolers?
There won’t be much left for current medical students...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
No, it's not utter nonsense. What it does require is some forward and out-of-the-box thinking, which most academic physicians aren't capable of.

I'm not delusional, I don't expect us to create a bunch of 'apprenticeships' and weekend courses, I know that wont happen. If anything: we're very much going towards the side of 'fellowshipizing' everything. We now have a Peds Hospitalist fellowship, Internal Medicine will soon follow suit, we'll have fellowships in Obesity, Addiction, Women's Health, Men's Health, HIV, etc etc. Most of us will be grandfathered in if we're already involved in these things, but the next generation of physicians will have to be PGY10+ trained in order to touch a patient.

And so . . .don't be surprised when mid-levels encroach in your specialty, b/c there aren't enough quadruple-board-certified physicians to do the work.




Define 'easy'. I just consulted hematology for a patient that's floridly pancytopenic (and has been > 10 days, with no obvious reason), I thought for sure warrants a BM biopsy. I get a call back from an NP on the service, who tells me nothing to do. It would be nice if the hematologist could look at the smear and weigh in, but he's not reachable; he has a full clinic, and he's using his NP to do his scut consult work at the hospital. Such is life in 2021.
The ultimate blame for this should still rest with the hematologist, who is doing their part in selling out medicine to midlevels. They could instead try to hire an actual heme onc doctor to help cover the consult load..
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Top