Why doesn't a shortage of PCPs reflected in residency availabilities?

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

zut212

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
259
Reaction score
0
In the job market, if there is a shortage of one profession, then this is reflected in the excess demand for people who are able to fulfill this job requisition.

However, we keep hearing that there is an acute shortage of PCPs. Instead of having a 70% PCP - 30% specialist mix, we have the exact inverse. However, the residency positions which are available should have changed to accommodate the shortage of PCPs, but they don't seem to.

Could someone please explain how all the residence positions do not seem to reflect the shortage of PCPs out there?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Follow the money. Apparently, that is still the major influential factor.


So is it the fault of the teaching hospitals for always sending out the WRONG job requisitions? If not, then who's fault is it?

So we can't blame the 4th year medical students for choosing the residency programs that they got into. I assumed, also, that it was their profit-motives that created our 70% Specialists - 30% PCPs mix that we have right now.

But if it is *NOT* the profit motives of the individual 4th year student, than what entity decides what position gets created?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
So is it the fault of the teaching hospitals for always sending out the WRONG job requisitions? If not, then who's fault is it?

So we can't blame the 4th year medical students for choosing the residency programs that they got into. I assumed, also, that it was their profit-motives that created our 70% Specialists - 30% PCPs mix that we have right now.

But if it is *NOT* the profit motives of the individual 4th year student, than what entity decides what position gets created?

Yes, we are driven to be specialists because:

1. Patients want high end specialized care. Not general whatever. Cultural perception of GPs including Europe is they do basic stuff, nothing special.

2. Procedures offer some definite outcome (even if not longterm M&M). Easier to grade risk and complexity. Risk of PCP visit is a lot less. So how can a PCP argue higher pay if acuity of care is not there? Not saying it should be where it is now.

AND to add, your favorite party doesn't want to expand funds for more residency slots but wants everybody to have care. It's called hippy economics. We'll all hold hands, the rainbow and sun will shine, and peace will be everywhere. False expectations = Obamacare or federal healthcare.
 
Yes, we are driven to be specialists because:

1. Patients want high end specialized care. Not general whatever. Cultural perception of GPs including Europe is they do basic stuff, nothing special.

2. Procedures offer some definite outcome (even if not longterm M&M). Easier to grade risk and complexity. Risk of PCP visit is a lot less. So how can a PCP argue higher pay if acuity of care is not there? Not saying it should be where it is now.

AND to add, your favorite party doesn't want to expand funds for more residency slots but wants everybody to have care. It's called hippy economics. We'll all hold hands, the rainbow and sun will shine, and peace will be everywhere. False expectations = Obamacare or federal healthcare.

People are driven into specializing, because that's where the money is. And the money is in specializing, because of artificial value assignments by third party payers, which take recommendations from specialist-heavy groups. There's no free market in medicine where you can make an argument such that complexity somehow equals value. Why does complex mean more money? And by how much? How do you know, and upon which market principles are you making that claim?
As far as hippy economics, I don't think either party is really up to the task of facing reality. Just like the Dems, I'm willing to bet that whoever is in the running for the Republican ticket won't be hailing austerity measures to the magnitude that is needed for financial solvency.
 
People are driven into specializing, because that's where the money is. And the money is in specializing, because of artificial value assignments by third party payers, which take recommendations from specialist-heavy groups. There's no free market in medicine where you can make an argument such that complexity somehow equals value. Why does complex mean more money? And by how much? How do you know, and upon which market principles are you making that claim?
As far as hippy economics, I don't think either party is really up to the task of facing reality. Just like the Dems, I'm willing to bet that whoever is in the running for the Republican ticket won't be hailing austerity measures to the magnitude that is needed for financial solvency.

Bronx43,

You're a value-added contributor on this site. I value your opinion. There is definitely a disconnect for me. On one hand, we seem to lay blame on the 4th year MD students for choosing to specialize, however, there are not enough PCP residency positions to get into.

So it seems to me that the "System" (the complex system of teaching hospitals, patients, medical schools, etc. - pretty much everything in the healthcare delivery system) on one hand complains that we have a 30/70 mix when we should have 70/30 mix, but on the other hand:
1. We see that even specialists are over-worked today.
2. There are not enough PCP positions for residents to get into, even though there is a HUGE demand for them. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING THE JOB REQUISITIONS FOR RESIDENTS, AND WHAT INCENTIVE DO THEY HAVE FOR WANTING SPECIALISTS/SURGEONS?
 
Bronx43,

You're a value-added contributor on this site. I value your opinion. There is definitely a disconnect for me. On one hand, we seem to lay blame on the 4th year MD students for choosing to specialize, however, there are not enough PCP residency positions to get into.

So it seems to me that the "System" (the complex system of teaching hospitals, patients, medical schools, etc. - pretty much everything in the healthcare delivery system) on one hand complains that we have a 30/70 mix when we should have 70/30 mix, but on the other hand:
1. We see that even specialists are over-worked today.
2. There are not enough PCP positions for residents to get into, even though there is a HUGE demand for them. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING THE JOB REQUISITIONS FOR RESIDENTS, AND WHAT INCENTIVE DO THEY HAVE FOR WANTING SPECIALISTS/SURGEONS?

Most primary care residencies DO have trouble filling with qualified American grads; that's why they end up with foreign grads (no offense to the foreign grads, but in general, most US residencies would prefer fill with US grads). Your basic premise-- that there are not enough PCP positions for residents to get into-- is incorrect. Looking at the NRMP stats, for 2010 family medicine filled only 91.4% of its slots. Foreign grads filled 38.9% of categorical IM, 18.1% of FM, and 9.4% of peds. As comparison, dermatology, ophtho and vascular had 0% foreign grads.
 
Most primary care residencies DO have trouble filling with qualified American grads; that's why they end up with foreign grads (no offense to the foreign grads, but in general, most US residencies would prefer fill with US grads). Your basic premise-- that there are not enough PCP positions for residents to get into-- is incorrect. Looking at the NRMP stats, for 2010 family medicine filled only 91.4% of its slots. Foreign grads filled 38.9% of categorical IM, 18.1% of FM, and 9.4% of peds. As comparison, dermatology, ophtho and vascular had 0% foreign grads.



Seems there are FAR too many IM spots.
 
On one hand, we seem to lay blame on the 4th year MD students for choosing to specialize, however, there are not enough PCP residency positions to get into.

This statement just isn't true. If everyone that did FP, IM, and possibly even ob/gyn residencies just went and worked in an even geographical distribution there would be plenty of primary care for all. The problem is:

1. People choose to do fellowships and subspecialize. They may do this because they have a special interest in that part of medicine, or because they want to make more money. No one blames 4th year med students for this, because for the most part the final decision to subspecialize isn't made until residency.

2. People choose what type of patients they will see. Certain insurances pay so little it isn't worth it to have them in your practice (unless you are into charity). Same goes for those without insurance/ability to pay. If you have money it usually isn't a problem finding a primary doctor

3. People choose where they want to work. Some places are just not that desirable. Sometimes there are other benefits to going there so people will go anyway (like lower cost of living, higher pay-but this has limits, or cool stuff nearby-nature stuff mostly), but not always. So if you live in a big city you have no trouble finding a doctor, but if you live in a tiny town the nearest doc may be hours away.

Not sure what the fix is, but it isn't like there is some central body "requisitioning" people for positions (nor should there be).
 
Money is only part of the issue.

Those who have rotated through outpatient know how boring primary care can get (Prescription refills, Chronic pain issues, chronic depression). Necessary services, but it takes a special person to love it. Toss in the ego beat-down of NPs claiming equality in skill and knowledge, and no wonder people aren't jumping in the doors of primary care. And the extra paperwork and quality measurement issues....whole separate reason people aren't jumping in the FM boat.

Lack of prestige, procedures, etc... are other facets of a complex issue

We really need more physicians of all kinds, not just PCP, we just happen to need PCP the most.
 
Money is only part of the issue.

Those who have rotated through outpatient know how boring primary care can get (Prescription refills, Chronic pain issues, chronic depression). Necessary services, but it takes a special person to love it. Toss in the ego beat-down of NPs claiming equality in skill and knowledge, and no wonder people aren't jumping in the doors of primary care. And the extra paperwork and quality measurement issues....whole separate reason people aren't jumping in the FM boat.

Lack of prestige, procedures, etc... are other facets of a complex issue

We really need more physicians of all kinds, not just PCP, we just happen to need PCP the most.

Oh, I forgot. Seeing droves of acne "patients" and whatever skin eruptions is uber fascinating - especially at the rapid-fire pace they go at (since they make their money on volume). You can make equally dreary descriptions of many different fields. The truth of the matter is that if primary care made $350k, it would be up there in competitiveness with the best of them. Money obviously isn't everything... nothing is everything. But, it is the biggest contributor.
 
Oh, I forgot. Seeing droves of acne "patients" and whatever skin eruptions is uber fascinating - especially at the rapid-fire pace they go at (since they make their money on volume). You can make equally dreary descriptions of many different fields. The truth of the matter is that if primary care made $350k, it would be up there in competitiveness with the best of them. Money obviously isn't everything... nothing is everything. But, it is the biggest contributor.

"Money is only part of the issue."
"..facets of a complex issue."

Read critically before making pithy comments.
 
"Money is only part of the issue."
"..facets of a complex issue."

Read critically before making pithy comments.

Uh, I'm not exactly agreeing with you. I'm actually downplaying your other "facets of a complex issue" in favor of the overwhelmingly dominant determinant of competitiveness - money. I'm aware of the presence of other factors and their influence on students' choices, but those all pale in comparison.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Money is only part of the issue. ...
Lack of prestige, procedures, etc... are other facets of a complex issue.

Agree that specialty choice isn't all about the money, but let's face it...it's mostly about the money.

After all, "Lack of prestige" and "procedures" are just two different ways of saying "less money."
 
I am no expert on the subject, and I would generally defer to Blue Dog on most issues revolving around health care policy, but from what I understand money is not the "major" driving force out of primary care (Although it is a big one).

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/290/9/1173.full
http://journals.lww.com/academicmed..._students_choose_primary_care_careers.12.aspx

"Work hours" and "lifestyle" are just different ways of looking at differences in compensation vs. workload.

Most people wouldn't mind working hard if they were paid enough to make it worthwhile.

That being said, our whole healthcare "system" is FUBAR. The effect of this dysfunction on primary care is only a symptom.
 
We really need more physicians of all kinds, not just PCP, we just happen to need PCP the most.


I actually posted a poll not too long ago asking if we needed:
1. More PCP and more specialists
2. More PCP and less specialists
3. Less PCP and more specialists
4. Less PCP and less specialists

I was surprised at all the aggressive responses that I got.

I've heard over and over that we have an acute shortage of PCPs. But if there is *NOT* a shortage of specialists, then this implies that they have just the right amount or even FEWER patients. Another words, specialists maybe underworked.

Now, your opinion only reinforces to me that we need more PCPs and specialists, and that we don't produce enough MDs into this country.
 
I've heard over and over that we have an acute shortage of PCPs. But if there is *NOT* a shortage of specialists, then this implies that they have just the right amount or even FEWER patients. Another words, specialists maybe underworked.

Now, your opinion only reinforces to me that we need more PCPs and specialists, and that we don't produce enough MDs into this country.

If this were the case, then you would be hearing complaints on here and elsewhere about qualified residency graduates being unable to find employment (as a point of reference, see: schools, law.)

This is not the case. There's no evidence that there is an oversupply of specialty residencies or residency graduates.

I've responded to your other points in the healthcare improvement forum.
 
Agree that specialty choice isn't all about the money, but let's face it...it's mostly about the money.

After all, "Lack of prestige" and "procedures" are just two different ways of saying "less money."

It's mostly about the money AND the location. Part of the issue concerning physician shortages is simply maldistribution. One could argue that in reality there would be no shortage in of doctors (perhaps even surplus of both specialists and PCPs) if they weren't all concentrated on either coast.
 
Money is only part of the issue.

Those who have rotated through outpatient know how boring primary care can get (Prescription refills, Chronic pain issues, chronic depression). Necessary services, but it takes a special person to love it. Toss in the ego beat-down of NPs claiming equality in skill and knowledge, and no wonder people aren't jumping in the doors of primary care. And the extra paperwork and quality measurement issues....whole separate reason people aren't jumping in the FM boat.

Lack of prestige, procedures, etc... are other facets of a complex issue

We really need more physicians of all kinds, not just PCP, we just happen to need PCP the most.
user_offline.gif

No, it is NOT just about the money. I started out with the idea of doing either primary care (general IM or fp) or cardiology. My ending up in cardiology had very little, if anything, to do with money. If money was the main reason I did things, then I'd be doing interventional cards (not happening, even though it pays lots more than general cards with only 1-2 more years of training). If that was the case then people wouldn't do academic cardiology practice (many still do).

If money was the only reason med students chose specialties, then neurology would be more popular (I think it pays a little better than IM, but is not very popular because a lot of people find it depressing IMHO). Dermatology is popular because of the cushy hours, the fact that people think it would be cool to do biopsies and only have to know *ONE* organ system (rather than have to deal with a lot of drug seekers and noncompliant patients with 10 different medical issues like primary care). Primary care is very daunting for a variety of reasons - many patients are hard to satisfy and think specialists are "better" (not always true, especially in cases of older folks who may value the old style "one doc does all" style), NP's and PA's are encroaching on the traditional primary care "turf" and sometimes selling themselves as being the same as a primary care doc, the insurance companies and gov't are putting more and more and more mandates on what primary docs must do to be considered competent/providing "good" care (they are supposed to make the blood pressure perfect, even if patient may not take his meds, make sure all screenings get done, even if patient doesn't show up, keep patient satisfied even if the insurance comp. expects you won't prescribe unneeded antibiotic for the patient's viral URI but patient wants it, not overtreat or undertreat pain [i.e. not too many narcotic rx. but then if patient still has pain they will blame the doc]). Also, in residency, primary care clinic (IM and FP, and probably peds) tends to get stuck with a disproportionate "social badness" patients who may not show up for or be eligible for specialist care and have to be managed (as well as can be done) in primary care clinic. These are poor people, with more social issues like homelessness, drug use, bad family dynamics, etc.

The reason primary care is filled with foreign medical grads is it's damn hard slog. I respect the hell out of people who choose to do it, but there are reasons why it's unpopular (other than money). Just trying to coax or force more med students into primary care isn't a long term solution - the "job" of primary care has to be made better.

I don't think there is a huge oversupply of specialists...there are probably the right amount of some (my sense is cardiology, GI etc. are about right) but with some maldistribution (Washington DC has too many cardiologists, but the entire state of New mexico has not enough). There are probably not enough of others (it seems like there aren't enough dermatologists in most places).
 
Before anyone else repeats the above post, understand that no one is claiming that money is EVERYTHING. That would be a ******ed position to take - not just in medical specialties. Every observable phenomenon has multiple and sometimes infinite factors, but many have dominant factors are the driving force to the trends we see. In medical specialty selection by medical students, money is the main factor, but it obviously isn't the only factor. You can easily graph USMLE scores and average annual compensation, and observe the positive correlation. No other variable can be graphed with USMLE scores to demonstrate the same level of correlation.
Procedures? No, see dermatology, radiology, and some medical subspecialties such as heme/onc (there isn't any direct data on fellowships and scores, but you'd be hard pressed to deny the correlation).
Hours worked? No, see any surgical specialty.
Prestige? What the hell does this word even mean in this context? Competitive fields are prestigious because they are competitive? Circular reason any?
"Boringness" Again, how would you quantify and measure this "factor?"
 
You can easily graph USMLE scores and average annual compensation, and observe the positive correlation. No other variable can be graphed with USMLE scores to demonstrate the same level of correlation.
Procedures? No, see dermatology, radiology, and some medical subspecialties such as heme/onc (there isn't any direct data on fellowships and scores, but you'd be hard pressed to deny the correlation).
Hours worked? No, see any surgical specialty.
Prestige? What the hell does this word even mean in this context? Competitive fields are prestigious because they are competitive? Circular reason any?
"Boringness" Again, how would you quantify and measure this "factor?"

I bet if you graphed the amount of time dealing with bull**** from gov't and insurance company it would correlate well with USMLE scores.
 
From my perspective:
optho: super boring one structure based mostly on anatomy where you don't use almost 100 % of what you learned in medical school

derm: MOHs all day long where you create huge tissue defects for basal cells looking for clear margins, run around with a spray can spraying actinic keratosis and slicing off lesions. Fun one in a while but all day every day?

Cardiology: stress test, stress test, cath, cath, stent stress test, stress test, EKG. Again maybe once in awhile

obgyn vaginas and babies and poor sleep all the freaking time same crap

renal: labs, labs, labs, hydrate, labs renally dose, labs, dialysis, labs

endocrine: pitiuitary, thyroid, adrenal, insulin, insulin, dka, insulin, correction factor, insulin, thyroid, thyroid ultrasound, radioactive iodine, insulin, insulin

rads: atelectasis vs infiltrate vs effusion vs shadow artifact vs your mothers ass
in a dark room getting sued by people you never met

pathology: big texts sitting looking in a microscope until you create a curvature in your spine

neuro: yeah we consulted you to cover our buts even though we knew you couldn't do anything

family medicine: er, inpatient issues which is really just a continuation of outpatient issues mostly, ob, peds, radiology, sports medicine, is specialty where you use the most of what you learned in medical school
 
The way that GME funding is distributed is one factor - the money gets thrown in one pot. If there are multiple residency programs at that location, then that network wants to make the most money possible from the amount of money they get to fund x number of residents.

In the current climate, who is going to make the most amount of money for the hospital network/academic system? It makes a lot more financial sense to take additional GME funding to expand specialty training and fellowship slots than to increase primary care slots. If, instead, GME funding was distributed appropriately to each residency program within a system and regulated as far as what proportion of primary care vs specialty slots should be funded, then you may see a different situation.

Another big "if" - If the RUC and CMS finally figured out how to value overvalued services and undervalued services (mostly in E/M coding) without letting politics play a role in their recommendations, then community and academic centers would follow the money and, again, shift their residency slots to where the money will be... and maybe medical students would take notice about the decreasing gap between primary care and specialists a la COGME's recommendations in their 20th Report - "Advancing Primary Care".
 
The way that GME funding is distributed is one factor - the money gets thrown in one pot. If there are multiple residency programs at that location, then that network wants to make the most money possible from the amount of money they get to fund x number of residents.

In the current climate, who is going to make the most amount of money for the hospital network/academic system? It makes a lot more financial sense to take additional GME funding to expand specialty training and fellowship slots than to increase primary care slots. If, instead, GME funding was distributed appropriately to each residency program within a system and regulated as far as what proportion of primary care vs specialty slots should be funded, then you may see a different situation.

Another big "if" - If the RUC and CMS finally figured out how to value overvalued services and undervalued services (mostly in E/M coding) without letting politics play a role in their recommendations, then community and academic centers would follow the money and, again, shift their residency slots to where the money will be... and maybe medical students would take notice about the decreasing gap between primary care and specialists a la COGME's recommendations in their 20th Report - "Advancing Primary Care".


Thanks for trying to answer this very complicated question. I tried googling GME, RUC, and CMS, but I couldn't find any info on this. What are these abbreviations for?
 
Thanks for trying to answer this very complicated question. I tried googling GME, RUC, and CMS, but I couldn't find any info on this. What are these abbreviations for?

CMS: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
RUC: Relative Value Scale Update Committee
GME: Graduate Medical Education (ie residency)
 
Top