Monday, July 30, 2007
MY USA TODAY COLUMN - US SAVIOR: FOREIGN DOCTORS
It's now online. I hope it brings the point home. Yes, we need to be focused on security. But foreign physicians in the US are vital to the American health care system and should be warmly welcomed.
# posted by Greg Siskind @ 10:18 PM
Thursday, July 26, 2007
SCHUMER OFFERS NURSE GREEN CARD BILL TODAY
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has offered an amendment to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill that would allocate 61,000 green cards unused in prior years to Schedule A nurses and physical therapists. The vast majority of these green cards are likely to go to nurses who will face new hurdles because they lack a non-immigrant visa category and have not been able to take advantage of adjusting status via the July Visa Bulletin. The flood of applications filed pursuant to that bulletin will likely send the EB-3 category back several additional years. Schumer's amendment (S.AMDT.2448) will likely be voted on today.
# posted by Greg Siskind @ 6:25 AM
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE BRINGS MISERY TO UPSTATE NY
Not an article on foreign physicians, but still helpful in providing context on just how serious the situation is. Forget about foreign doctors for a moment. Even if we did more to encourage American-trained foreign doctors to stay, we've got a HUGE problem that we'll be facing for at least a generation. Congress needs to stop fiddling on this one and start to address the physician shortage in a serious way. Foreign physicians are a small, important part of the solution. But we can only view them as helping to make things less awful and we need to seriously ramp up physician training in the US. More medical school slots and more graduate medical education slots are needed and soon. And that's going to take serious dollars.
# posted by Greg Siskind @ 6:55 PM
Monday, July 23, 2007
ASIA TIMES: THE TERROR OF STATE HEALTH CARE
The Asia Times provides commentary on a popular notion being discussed in conservative circles - that state run health care system are more vulnerable to infiltration by terrorists (such as allegedly occurred in the UK) and that the US medical system is less vulnerable because it is private.
# posted by Greg Siskind @ 9:58 PM
Saturday, July 21, 2007
AP: SHORTAGE OF DOCTORS AFFECTING RURAL AREAS
As many of you know, I chair the FMG Taskforce, the coalition of physician immigration law firms that handle the bulk of the nation's physician immigration matters. If you are a doctor and your immigration lawyer handles physician cases regularly, the odds are pretty good that he or she is a member of our group.
We've been working on legislation to address what the AP is describing in their story from this morning. The article is on the mark in describing the problems associated with fewer foreign doctors going to rural areas. Rather than rolling out the welcome mat to foreign doctors to make them interested in staying in the US and working in areas really needing them, Congress and the White House have been doing a lot more to discourage them.
Case in point - the Department of Health and Human Services. In the story, HHS says that the reason it's program approves less than ten doctors a year is because of a lack of interest because of too few doctors seeking positions in rural areas.
That is a absolutely untrue! HHS killed its waiver program for all intents and purposes in 2002 when it changed its rules to only allow communities with "super-shortages" to apply. HHS promised after 9/11 to take over the Department of Agriculture's waiver program in 2002 after a meeting was held at the White House regarding the future of the waiver program. It opened a relatively good program in the summer of 2002 and had a number of applicants. Then it abruptly shut the program down in September 2002 and reopened in December with a number of rule changes that all but shut the program down completely.
I did an analysis that was cited in a Congressional Research Service report that showed that this rule change alone eliminated more than 80% of qualifying rural facilities. They also barred hospitals and private medical practices from applying and that effectively eliminated almost all of the rest. Senator Conrad recently introduced legislation to force HHS to open up its waiver program - to specialists, to private employers, to ALL shortage areas. Pass that legislation and then let HHS tell us there is no interest in the physician population.
I can't tell you exactly why HHS did what it did, but I can only assume the worst - that it wanted to kill the waiver program all together, but knew politically it could not. So they did the next best thing - make it so unattractive that no one would apply. And they have accomplished that. Hopefully, Senator Conrad will succeed in forcing them to do their jobs.
# posted by Greg Siskind @ 7:32 AM
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
SENATORS PRAISE MUSLIM-AMERICAN MDs WHO CONDEMNED TERROR ATTACKS
Durbin, Hagel Announce Passage of Resolution to Praise Muslim-American Physicians Who Condemned the Recent Terrorist Attacks in the United Kingdom
Friday, July 13, 2007
[WASHINGTON, DC] -- U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) today announce the Senate passage of a bipartisan resolution praising Muslim-American physicians who condemned recent terrorist acts in the United Kingdom.
“In London and Glasgow, tragedies were avoided thanks to quick thinking citizens and emergency officials,” said Durbin. “It is disturbing to know that the perpetrators may have been doctors – among our most trusted members of society. I applaud all those from the medical community in our country who have condemned this terrorist activity, especially members of the Muslim-American community. I encourage others around the world to do the same.”
Earlier this month, acts of terrorism were attempted at Glasgow Airport in Scotland and in London. It has been suggested that Muslim physicians may be responsible for the alleged acts of terrorism. Today’s resolution condemns the recent attempted attacks and encourages all Muslim voices in the United States and abroad to continue speaking out against terrorism.
The resolution also commends the Islamic Medical Association of North America for their swift, clear and public denunciation of the attacks. The Association publicly stated that “Such attacks, regardless of whether or not they have been perpetrated by physicians, are against the most basic teachings of our religion, Islam, and are contrary to the very basic principles of our profession, regardless of religion or creed. Suicide is also strictly prohibited in Islam.”
p
# posted by Greg Siskind @ 8:06 PM
Friday, July 6, 2007
PHYSICIANS AND TERRORISM
I've recently blogged at ILW.com about the London doctors and how we should be reacting in the US. A conservative blogger at Right Truth has picked up on some of what I've written and didn't critique me as much as I thought. But there were some issues she raised that I thought needed further comment and I sent the following letter:
Since you quoted from my blog, I'd like to note that you left out the part where I mentioned that we should be increasing the number of medical school graduates in the US. But the problem is a lot more complex than just saying we'll produce more medical school graduates.
First, it pays to quantify the problem. The most recent studies are indicating that the physician shortage in the US is severe and growing. By 2020, we’ll face a shortage of approximately 150,000. Remember, this is against a physician population of about 800,000 so the number is pretty scary.
Why is this happening? First, we have not been expanding our medical education infrastructure. The US has opened almost no new medical schools in the last 25 years. So you have a physician population that has remained fairly level with a population that has increased a good 30 million or in the mean time.
You also have important demographic changes in the population and in the physician supply itself. For the physicians, I know it’s not politically correct to talk about it, but the fact that 50% of all medical school graduates are now women is making a difference. Women tend to avoid specialty areas that have bad call hours so certain specialties (like anesthesiology and radiology) suffer more severe shortages as a result. Over a career, women tend to work fewer hours and also are likely to take leaves of absence for childrearing that reduce the overall number of hours physicians churn out each year. And many women leave the profession all together when they start to have families.
Do I advocate training fewer women doctors? Absolutely not. But we should be accounting for the differences in their career paths when we strategize on dealing with the doctor shortage.
Then there are demographic changes in the US population. We all know that the US population is getting older. And as we age, our needs for medical care increase. So this only amplifies the needs of our growing population. And despite what we’re hearing about the crisis in US health care, the percentage of Americans overall with health care coverage is much higher than it was 30 years ago. So as more and more Americans have access to health care coverage, the demand for physician services increases.
Finally, technology plays a factor. As more and more treatment options are available and new and more powerful technology works its way in to our health care system, Americans are more likely to seek out the services of a physician.
In the US, we obviously need to be growing our domestically educated physician population. But it’s going to take many years to dig ourselves out of the hole that we’re in. It takes about 15 years from the point where we decide to build a new medical school (or even expand a medical school) and when the first doctor is out in private practice. You’ve got to build the school, go through an accreditation process, educate the MDs (4 years) and put them through graduate medical training (another three to seven years). And that assumes we can even convince our legislators to cough up the bucks to build the schools.
Considering the shortage we’re facing, foreign doctors are just a drop in the bucket. We bring in approximately 4,000 – 5,000 doctors a year and that number is already accounted for in the 150,000 shortage figure.
By the way, the foreign physician population in the US has actually been shrinking in the last few years, not increasing as one might expect given the shortages. One reason is because the physician shortages are growing in other countries. Australia in particular has a real problem. Their shortage is so severe that they’ve greatly relaxed the requirements for foreign physicians to enter that country. I’m sure they’ll be revisiting that policy, but the choices they’ll be facing are not very palatable.
One final note – be careful what you wish for. One thing you may not know about foreign doctors in the US is how they are chosen to come here. Every American medical school graduate – from the top student all the way down to the person at the bottom of his or her class – gets selected for residency and fellowship training programs in the US. They may not get their first choice, but they all get slots.
After that, we have approximately 6,000 to 8,000 slots to fill in our residency and training programs. About a third of those go to American medical students who went abroad for medical school. The rest are your foreign nationals who have graduated from foreign medical schools. In order to get one of the coveted training slots in the US, you better have finished in the top 5% or so of your medical school and your medical school better be considered one of the more reputable ones internationally.
There’s a reason why the faculties at our top academic medical centers are disproportionately foreign. Many of these doctors are the brightest in the world and they’ve come to the US because we have the best health care system in the world. We do the top research and our hospitals have the budgets to do the most cutting edge, high quality work. CBS’ 60 Minutes recently reported on hospitals in India and Thailand that are like five star resorts and which cater to foreign patients. When they interviewed the American administrator of the Thai hospital, he was bragging that his doctors trained at places like Johns Hopkins and Mayo in the US. Training in the US for a foreign doctor is like getting admitted to Harvard.
American patients benefit every day from this meritocracy and the number of lives these doctors saves every day will far exceed any tradeoff we would get if we suddenly got spooked by an irrational fear of the terrorist doctor. The solution here is not to bar foreign doctors. We already vigorously screen the ones coming here, but if we need to do more, then we certainly should. But, to use a crude medical expression, we should not cut off our nose to spite our face.
# posted by Greg Siskind @ 9:58 AM
XML newsfeed
archives
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
July 2010
August 2010
November 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
August 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
September 2013
January 2014
March 2014
April 2014
July 2014
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE BRINGS MISERY TO UPSTATE NY
Not an article on foreign physicians, but still helpful in providing context on just how serious the situation is. Forget about foreign doctors for a moment. Even if we did more to encourage American-trained foreign doctors to stay, we've got a HUGE problem that we'll be facing for at least a generation. Congress needs to stop fiddling on this one and start to address the physician shortage in a serious way. Foreign physicians are a small, important part of the solution. But we can only view them as helping to make things less awful and we need to seriously ramp up physician training in the US. More medical school slots and more graduate medical education slots are needed and soon. And that's going to take serious dollars.
# posted by Greg Siskind @ 6:55 PM
Monday, July 23, 2007
ASIA TIMES: THE TERROR OF STATE HEALTH CARE
The Asia Times provides commentary on a popular notion being discussed in conservative circles - that state run health care system are more vulnerable to infiltration by terrorists (such as allegedly occurred in the UK) and that the US medical system is less vulnerable because it is private.
# posted by Greg Siskind @ 9:58 PM
Saturday, July 21, 2007
AP: SHORTAGE OF DOCTORS AFFECTING RURAL AREAS
As many of you know, I chair the FMG Taskforce, the coalition of physician immigration law firms that handle the bulk of the nation's physician immigration matters. If you are a doctor and your immigration lawyer handles physician cases regularly, the odds are pretty good that he or she is a member of our group.
We've been working on legislation to address what the AP is describing in their story from this morning. The article is on the mark in describing the problems associated with fewer foreign doctors going to rural areas. Rather than rolling out the welcome mat to foreign doctors to make them interested in staying in the US and working in areas really needing them, Congress and the White House have been doing a lot more to discourage them.
Case in point - the Department of Health and Human Services. In the story, HHS says that the reason it's program approves less than ten doctors a year is because of a lack of interest because of too few doctors seeking positions in rural areas.
That is a absolutely untrue! HHS killed its waiver program for all intents and purposes in 2002 when it changed its rules to only allow communities with "super-shortages" to apply. HHS promised after 9/11 to take over the Department of Agriculture's waiver program in 2002 after a meeting was held at the White House regarding the future of the waiver program. It opened a relatively good program in the summer of 2002 and had a number of applicants. Then it abruptly shut the program down in September 2002 and reopened in December with a number of rule changes that all but shut the program down completely.
I did an analysis that was cited in a Congressional Research Service report that showed that this rule change alone eliminated more than 80% of qualifying rural facilities. They also barred hospitals and private medical practices from applying and that effectively eliminated almost all of the rest. Senator Conrad recently introduced legislation to force HHS to open up its waiver program - to specialists, to private employers, to ALL shortage areas. Pass that legislation and then let HHS tell us there is no interest in the physician population.
I can't tell you exactly why HHS did what it did, but I can only assume the worst - that it wanted to kill the waiver program all together, but knew politically it could not. So they did the next best thing - make it so unattractive that no one would apply. And they have accomplished that. Hopefully, Senator Conrad will succeed in forcing them to do their jobs.
# posted by Greg Siskind @ 7:32 AM
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
SENATORS PRAISE MUSLIM-AMERICAN MDs WHO CONDEMNED TERROR ATTACKS
Durbin, Hagel Announce Passage of Resolution to Praise Muslim-American Physicians Who Condemned the Recent Terrorist Attacks in the United Kingdom
Friday, July 13, 2007
[WASHINGTON, DC] -- U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) today announce the Senate passage of a bipartisan resolution praising Muslim-American physicians who condemned recent terrorist acts in the United Kingdom.
“In London and Glasgow, tragedies were avoided thanks to quick thinking citizens and emergency officials,” said Durbin. “It is disturbing to know that the perpetrators may have been doctors – among our most trusted members of society. I applaud all those from the medical community in our country who have condemned this terrorist activity, especially members of the Muslim-American community. I encourage others around the world to do the same.”
Earlier this month, acts of terrorism were attempted at Glasgow Airport in Scotland and in London. It has been suggested that Muslim physicians may be responsible for the alleged acts of terrorism. Today’s resolution condemns the recent attempted attacks and encourages all Muslim voices in the United States and abroad to continue speaking out against terrorism.
The resolution also commends the Islamic Medical Association of North America for their swift, clear and public denunciation of the attacks. The Association publicly stated that “Such attacks, regardless of whether or not they have been perpetrated by physicians, are against the most basic teachings of our religion, Islam, and are contrary to the very basic principles of our profession, regardless of religion or creed. Suicide is also strictly prohibited in Islam.”
p
# posted by Greg Siskind @ 8:06 PM
Friday, July 6, 2007
PHYSICIANS AND TERRORISM
I've recently blogged at ILW.com about the London doctors and how we should be reacting in the US. A conservative blogger at Right Truth has picked up on some of what I've written and didn't critique me as much as I thought. But there were some issues she raised that I thought needed further comment and I sent the following letter:
Since you quoted from my blog, I'd like to note that you left out the part where I mentioned that we should be increasing the number of medical school graduates in the US. But the problem is a lot more complex than just saying we'll produce more medical school graduates.
First, it pays to quantify the problem. The most recent studies are indicating that the physician shortage in the US is severe and growing. By 2020, we’ll face a shortage of approximately 150,000. Remember, this is against a physician population of about 800,000 so the number is pretty scary.
Why is this happening? First, we have not been expanding our medical education infrastructure. The US has opened almost no new medical schools in the last 25 years. So you have a physician population that has remained fairly level with a population that has increased a good 30 million or in the mean time.
You also have important demographic changes in the population and in the physician supply itself. For the physicians, I know it’s not politically correct to talk about it, but the fact that 50% of all medical school graduates are now women is making a difference. Women tend to avoid specialty areas that have bad call hours so certain specialties (like anesthesiology and radiology) suffer more severe shortages as a result. Over a career, women tend to work fewer hours and also are likely to take leaves of absence for childrearing that reduce the overall number of hours physicians churn out each year. And many women leave the profession all together when they start to have families.
Do I advocate training fewer women doctors? Absolutely not. But we should be accounting for the differences in their career paths when we strategize on dealing with the doctor shortage.
Then there are demographic changes in the US population. We all know that the US population is getting older. And as we age, our needs for medical care increase. So this only amplifies the needs of our growing population. And despite what we’re hearing about the crisis in US health care, the percentage of Americans overall with health care coverage is much higher than it was 30 years ago. So as more and more Americans have access to health care coverage, the demand for physician services increases.
Finally, technology plays a factor. As more and more treatment options are available and new and more powerful technology works its way in to our health care system, Americans are more likely to seek out the services of a physician.
In the US, we obviously need to be growing our domestically educated physician population. But it’s going to take many years to dig ourselves out of the hole that we’re in. It takes about 15 years from the point where we decide to build a new medical school (or even expand a medical school) and when the first doctor is out in private practice. You’ve got to build the school, go through an accreditation process, educate the MDs (4 years) and put them through graduate medical training (another three to seven years). And that assumes we can even convince our legislators to cough up the bucks to build the schools.
Considering the shortage we’re facing, foreign doctors are just a drop in the bucket. We bring in approximately 4,000 – 5,000 doctors a year and that number is already accounted for in the 150,000 shortage figure.
By the way, the foreign physician population in the US has actually been shrinking in the last few years, not increasing as one might expect given the shortages. One reason is because the physician shortages are growing in other countries. Australia in particular has a real problem. Their shortage is so severe that they’ve greatly relaxed the requirements for foreign physicians to enter that country. I’m sure they’ll be revisiting that policy, but the choices they’ll be facing are not very palatable.
One final note – be careful what you wish for. One thing you may not know about foreign doctors in the US is how they are chosen to come here. Every American medical school graduate – from the top student all the way down to the person at the bottom of his or her class – gets selected for residency and fellowship training programs in the US. They may not get their first choice, but they all get slots.
After that, we have approximately 6,000 to 8,000 slots to fill in our residency and training programs. About a third of those go to American medical students who went abroad for medical school. The rest are your foreign nationals who have graduated from foreign medical schools. In order to get one of the coveted training slots in the US, you better have finished in the top 5% or so of your medical school and your medical school better be considered one of the more reputable ones internationally.
There’s a reason why the faculties at our top academic medical centers are disproportionately foreign. Many of these doctors are the brightest in the world and they’ve come to the US because we have the best health care system in the world. We do the top research and our hospitals have the budgets to do the most cutting edge, high quality work. CBS’ 60 Minutes recently reported on hospitals in India and Thailand that are like five star resorts and which cater to foreign patients. When they interviewed the American administrator of the Thai hospital, he was bragging that his doctors trained at places like Johns Hopkins and Mayo in the US. Training in the US for a foreign doctor is like getting admitted to Harvard.
American patients benefit every day from this meritocracy and the number of lives these doctors saves every day will far exceed any tradeoff we would get if we suddenly got spooked by an irrational fear of the terrorist doctor. The solution here is not to bar foreign doctors. We already vigorously screen the ones coming here, but if we need to do more, then we certainly should. But, to use a crude medical expression, we should not cut off our nose to spite our face.
# posted by Greg Siskind @ 9:58 AM
XML newsfeed
archives
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
July 2010
August 2010
November 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
August 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
September 2013
January 2014
March 2014
April 2014
July 2014
Saturday, July 21, 2007
AP: SHORTAGE OF DOCTORS AFFECTING RURAL AREAS
As many of you know, I chair the FMG Taskforce, the coalition of physician immigration law firms that handle the bulk of the nation's physician immigration matters. If you are a doctor and your immigration lawyer handles physician cases regularly, the odds are pretty good that he or she is a member of our group.
We've been working on legislation to address what the AP is describing in their story from this morning. The article is on the mark in describing the problems associated with fewer foreign doctors going to rural areas. Rather than rolling out the welcome mat to foreign doctors to make them interested in staying in the US and working in areas really needing them, Congress and the White House have been doing a lot more to discourage them.
Case in point - the Department of Health and Human Services. In the story, HHS says that the reason it's program approves less than ten doctors a year is because of a lack of interest because of too few doctors seeking positions in rural areas.
That is a absolutely untrue! HHS killed its waiver program for all intents and purposes in 2002 when it changed its rules to only allow communities with "super-shortages" to apply. HHS promised after 9/11 to take over the Department of Agriculture's waiver program in 2002 after a meeting was held at the White House regarding the future of the waiver program. It opened a relatively good program in the summer of 2002 and had a number of applicants. Then it abruptly shut the program down in September 2002 and reopened in December with a number of rule changes that all but shut the program down completely.
I did an analysis that was cited in a Congressional Research Service report that showed that this rule change alone eliminated more than 80% of qualifying rural facilities. They also barred hospitals and private medical practices from applying and that effectively eliminated almost all of the rest. Senator Conrad recently introduced legislation to force HHS to open up its waiver program - to specialists, to private employers, to ALL shortage areas. Pass that legislation and then let HHS tell us there is no interest in the physician population.
I can't tell you exactly why HHS did what it did, but I can only assume the worst - that it wanted to kill the waiver program all together, but knew politically it could not. So they did the next best thing - make it so unattractive that no one would apply. And they have accomplished that. Hopefully, Senator Conrad will succeed in forcing them to do their jobs.
# posted by Greg Siskind @ 7:32 AM
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
SENATORS PRAISE MUSLIM-AMERICAN MDs WHO CONDEMNED TERROR ATTACKS
Durbin, Hagel Announce Passage of Resolution to Praise Muslim-American Physicians Who Condemned the Recent Terrorist Attacks in the United Kingdom
Friday, July 13, 2007
[WASHINGTON, DC] -- U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) today announce the Senate passage of a bipartisan resolution praising Muslim-American physicians who condemned recent terrorist acts in the United Kingdom.
“In London and Glasgow, tragedies were avoided thanks to quick thinking citizens and emergency officials,” said Durbin. “It is disturbing to know that the perpetrators may have been doctors – among our most trusted members of society. I applaud all those from the medical community in our country who have condemned this terrorist activity, especially members of the Muslim-American community. I encourage others around the world to do the same.”
Earlier this month, acts of terrorism were attempted at Glasgow Airport in Scotland and in London. It has been suggested that Muslim physicians may be responsible for the alleged acts of terrorism. Today’s resolution condemns the recent attempted attacks and encourages all Muslim voices in the United States and abroad to continue speaking out against terrorism.
The resolution also commends the Islamic Medical Association of North America for their swift, clear and public denunciation of the attacks. The Association publicly stated that “Such attacks, regardless of whether or not they have been perpetrated by physicians, are against the most basic teachings of our religion, Islam, and are contrary to the very basic principles of our profession, regardless of religion or creed. Suicide is also strictly prohibited in Islam.”
p
# posted by Greg Siskind @ 8:06 PM
Friday, July 6, 2007
PHYSICIANS AND TERRORISM
I've recently blogged at ILW.com about the London doctors and how we should be reacting in the US. A conservative blogger at Right Truth has picked up on some of what I've written and didn't critique me as much as I thought. But there were some issues she raised that I thought needed further comment and I sent the following letter:
Since you quoted from my blog, I'd like to note that you left out the part where I mentioned that we should be increasing the number of medical school graduates in the US. But the problem is a lot more complex than just saying we'll produce more medical school graduates.
First, it pays to quantify the problem. The most recent studies are indicating that the physician shortage in the US is severe and growing. By 2020, we’ll face a shortage of approximately 150,000. Remember, this is against a physician population of about 800,000 so the number is pretty scary.
Why is this happening? First, we have not been expanding our medical education infrastructure. The US has opened almost no new medical schools in the last 25 years. So you have a physician population that has remained fairly level with a population that has increased a good 30 million or in the mean time.
You also have important demographic changes in the population and in the physician supply itself. For the physicians, I know it’s not politically correct to talk about it, but the fact that 50% of all medical school graduates are now women is making a difference. Women tend to avoid specialty areas that have bad call hours so certain specialties (like anesthesiology and radiology) suffer more severe shortages as a result. Over a career, women tend to work fewer hours and also are likely to take leaves of absence for childrearing that reduce the overall number of hours physicians churn out each year. And many women leave the profession all together when they start to have families.
Do I advocate training fewer women doctors? Absolutely not. But we should be accounting for the differences in their career paths when we strategize on dealing with the doctor shortage.
Then there are demographic changes in the US population. We all know that the US population is getting older. And as we age, our needs for medical care increase. So this only amplifies the needs of our growing population. And despite what we’re hearing about the crisis in US health care, the percentage of Americans overall with health care coverage is much higher than it was 30 years ago. So as more and more Americans have access to health care coverage, the demand for physician services increases.
Finally, technology plays a factor. As more and more treatment options are available and new and more powerful technology works its way in to our health care system, Americans are more likely to seek out the services of a physician.
In the US, we obviously need to be growing our domestically educated physician population. But it’s going to take many years to dig ourselves out of the hole that we’re in. It takes about 15 years from the point where we decide to build a new medical school (or even expand a medical school) and when the first doctor is out in private practice. You’ve got to build the school, go through an accreditation process, educate the MDs (4 years) and put them through graduate medical training (another three to seven years). And that assumes we can even convince our legislators to cough up the bucks to build the schools.
Considering the shortage we’re facing, foreign doctors are just a drop in the bucket. We bring in approximately 4,000 – 5,000 doctors a year and that number is already accounted for in the 150,000 shortage figure.
By the way, the foreign physician population in the US has actually been shrinking in the last few years, not increasing as one might expect given the shortages. One reason is because the physician shortages are growing in other countries. Australia in particular has a real problem. Their shortage is so severe that they’ve greatly relaxed the requirements for foreign physicians to enter that country. I’m sure they’ll be revisiting that policy, but the choices they’ll be facing are not very palatable.
One final note – be careful what you wish for. One thing you may not know about foreign doctors in the US is how they are chosen to come here. Every American medical school graduate – from the top student all the way down to the person at the bottom of his or her class – gets selected for residency and fellowship training programs in the US. They may not get their first choice, but they all get slots.
After that, we have approximately 6,000 to 8,000 slots to fill in our residency and training programs. About a third of those go to American medical students who went abroad for medical school. The rest are your foreign nationals who have graduated from foreign medical schools. In order to get one of the coveted training slots in the US, you better have finished in the top 5% or so of your medical school and your medical school better be considered one of the more reputable ones internationally.
There’s a reason why the faculties at our top academic medical centers are disproportionately foreign. Many of these doctors are the brightest in the world and they’ve come to the US because we have the best health care system in the world. We do the top research and our hospitals have the budgets to do the most cutting edge, high quality work. CBS’ 60 Minutes recently reported on hospitals in India and Thailand that are like five star resorts and which cater to foreign patients. When they interviewed the American administrator of the Thai hospital, he was bragging that his doctors trained at places like Johns Hopkins and Mayo in the US. Training in the US for a foreign doctor is like getting admitted to Harvard.
American patients benefit every day from this meritocracy and the number of lives these doctors saves every day will far exceed any tradeoff we would get if we suddenly got spooked by an irrational fear of the terrorist doctor. The solution here is not to bar foreign doctors. We already vigorously screen the ones coming here, but if we need to do more, then we certainly should. But, to use a crude medical expression, we should not cut off our nose to spite our face.
# posted by Greg Siskind @ 9:58 AM
XML newsfeed
archives
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
July 2010
August 2010
November 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
August 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
September 2013
January 2014
March 2014
April 2014
July 2014
As many of you know, I chair the FMG Taskforce, the coalition of physician immigration law firms that handle the bulk of the nation's physician immigration matters. If you are a doctor and your immigration lawyer handles physician cases regularly, the odds are pretty good that he or she is a member of our group.
We've been working on legislation to address what the AP is describing in their story from this morning. The article is on the mark in describing the problems associated with fewer foreign doctors going to rural areas. Rather than rolling out the welcome mat to foreign doctors to make them interested in staying in the US and working in areas really needing them, Congress and the White House have been doing a lot more to discourage them.
Case in point - the Department of Health and Human Services. In the story, HHS says that the reason it's program approves less than ten doctors a year is because of a lack of interest because of too few doctors seeking positions in rural areas.
That is a absolutely untrue! HHS killed its waiver program for all intents and purposes in 2002 when it changed its rules to only allow communities with "super-shortages" to apply. HHS promised after 9/11 to take over the Department of Agriculture's waiver program in 2002 after a meeting was held at the White House regarding the future of the waiver program. It opened a relatively good program in the summer of 2002 and had a number of applicants. Then it abruptly shut the program down in September 2002 and reopened in December with a number of rule changes that all but shut the program down completely.
I did an analysis that was cited in a Congressional Research Service report that showed that this rule change alone eliminated more than 80% of qualifying rural facilities. They also barred hospitals and private medical practices from applying and that effectively eliminated almost all of the rest. Senator Conrad recently introduced legislation to force HHS to open up its waiver program - to specialists, to private employers, to ALL shortage areas. Pass that legislation and then let HHS tell us there is no interest in the physician population.
I can't tell you exactly why HHS did what it did, but I can only assume the worst - that it wanted to kill the waiver program all together, but knew politically it could not. So they did the next best thing - make it so unattractive that no one would apply. And they have accomplished that. Hopefully, Senator Conrad will succeed in forcing them to do their jobs.
Friday, July 13, 2007
[WASHINGTON, DC] -- U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) today announce the Senate passage of a bipartisan resolution praising Muslim-American physicians who condemned recent terrorist acts in the United Kingdom.
“In London and Glasgow, tragedies were avoided thanks to quick thinking citizens and emergency officials,” said Durbin. “It is disturbing to know that the perpetrators may have been doctors – among our most trusted members of society. I applaud all those from the medical community in our country who have condemned this terrorist activity, especially members of the Muslim-American community. I encourage others around the world to do the same.”
Earlier this month, acts of terrorism were attempted at Glasgow Airport in Scotland and in London. It has been suggested that Muslim physicians may be responsible for the alleged acts of terrorism. Today’s resolution condemns the recent attempted attacks and encourages all Muslim voices in the United States and abroad to continue speaking out against terrorism.
The resolution also commends the Islamic Medical Association of North America for their swift, clear and public denunciation of the attacks. The Association publicly stated that “Such attacks, regardless of whether or not they have been perpetrated by physicians, are against the most basic teachings of our religion, Islam, and are contrary to the very basic principles of our profession, regardless of religion or creed. Suicide is also strictly prohibited in Islam.”
p
Friday, July 6, 2007
PHYSICIANS AND TERRORISM
I've recently blogged at ILW.com about the London doctors and how we should be reacting in the US. A conservative blogger at Right Truth has picked up on some of what I've written and didn't critique me as much as I thought. But there were some issues she raised that I thought needed further comment and I sent the following letter:
Since you quoted from my blog, I'd like to note that you left out the part where I mentioned that we should be increasing the number of medical school graduates in the US. But the problem is a lot more complex than just saying we'll produce more medical school graduates.
First, it pays to quantify the problem. The most recent studies are indicating that the physician shortage in the US is severe and growing. By 2020, we’ll face a shortage of approximately 150,000. Remember, this is against a physician population of about 800,000 so the number is pretty scary.
Why is this happening? First, we have not been expanding our medical education infrastructure. The US has opened almost no new medical schools in the last 25 years. So you have a physician population that has remained fairly level with a population that has increased a good 30 million or in the mean time.
You also have important demographic changes in the population and in the physician supply itself. For the physicians, I know it’s not politically correct to talk about it, but the fact that 50% of all medical school graduates are now women is making a difference. Women tend to avoid specialty areas that have bad call hours so certain specialties (like anesthesiology and radiology) suffer more severe shortages as a result. Over a career, women tend to work fewer hours and also are likely to take leaves of absence for childrearing that reduce the overall number of hours physicians churn out each year. And many women leave the profession all together when they start to have families.
Do I advocate training fewer women doctors? Absolutely not. But we should be accounting for the differences in their career paths when we strategize on dealing with the doctor shortage.
Then there are demographic changes in the US population. We all know that the US population is getting older. And as we age, our needs for medical care increase. So this only amplifies the needs of our growing population. And despite what we’re hearing about the crisis in US health care, the percentage of Americans overall with health care coverage is much higher than it was 30 years ago. So as more and more Americans have access to health care coverage, the demand for physician services increases.
Finally, technology plays a factor. As more and more treatment options are available and new and more powerful technology works its way in to our health care system, Americans are more likely to seek out the services of a physician.
In the US, we obviously need to be growing our domestically educated physician population. But it’s going to take many years to dig ourselves out of the hole that we’re in. It takes about 15 years from the point where we decide to build a new medical school (or even expand a medical school) and when the first doctor is out in private practice. You’ve got to build the school, go through an accreditation process, educate the MDs (4 years) and put them through graduate medical training (another three to seven years). And that assumes we can even convince our legislators to cough up the bucks to build the schools.
Considering the shortage we’re facing, foreign doctors are just a drop in the bucket. We bring in approximately 4,000 – 5,000 doctors a year and that number is already accounted for in the 150,000 shortage figure.
By the way, the foreign physician population in the US has actually been shrinking in the last few years, not increasing as one might expect given the shortages. One reason is because the physician shortages are growing in other countries. Australia in particular has a real problem. Their shortage is so severe that they’ve greatly relaxed the requirements for foreign physicians to enter that country. I’m sure they’ll be revisiting that policy, but the choices they’ll be facing are not very palatable.
One final note – be careful what you wish for. One thing you may not know about foreign doctors in the US is how they are chosen to come here. Every American medical school graduate – from the top student all the way down to the person at the bottom of his or her class – gets selected for residency and fellowship training programs in the US. They may not get their first choice, but they all get slots.
After that, we have approximately 6,000 to 8,000 slots to fill in our residency and training programs. About a third of those go to American medical students who went abroad for medical school. The rest are your foreign nationals who have graduated from foreign medical schools. In order to get one of the coveted training slots in the US, you better have finished in the top 5% or so of your medical school and your medical school better be considered one of the more reputable ones internationally.
There’s a reason why the faculties at our top academic medical centers are disproportionately foreign. Many of these doctors are the brightest in the world and they’ve come to the US because we have the best health care system in the world. We do the top research and our hospitals have the budgets to do the most cutting edge, high quality work. CBS’ 60 Minutes recently reported on hospitals in India and Thailand that are like five star resorts and which cater to foreign patients. When they interviewed the American administrator of the Thai hospital, he was bragging that his doctors trained at places like Johns Hopkins and Mayo in the US. Training in the US for a foreign doctor is like getting admitted to Harvard.
American patients benefit every day from this meritocracy and the number of lives these doctors saves every day will far exceed any tradeoff we would get if we suddenly got spooked by an irrational fear of the terrorist doctor. The solution here is not to bar foreign doctors. We already vigorously screen the ones coming here, but if we need to do more, then we certainly should. But, to use a crude medical expression, we should not cut off our nose to spite our face.
# posted by Greg Siskind @ 9:58 AM
XML newsfeed
archives
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
July 2010
August 2010
November 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
August 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
September 2013
January 2014
March 2014
April 2014
July 2014
Since you quoted from my blog, I'd like to note that you left out the part where I mentioned that we should be increasing the number of medical school graduates in the US. But the problem is a lot more complex than just saying we'll produce more medical school graduates.
First, it pays to quantify the problem. The most recent studies are indicating that the physician shortage in the US is severe and growing. By 2020, we’ll face a shortage of approximately 150,000. Remember, this is against a physician population of about 800,000 so the number is pretty scary.
Why is this happening? First, we have not been expanding our medical education infrastructure. The US has opened almost no new medical schools in the last 25 years. So you have a physician population that has remained fairly level with a population that has increased a good 30 million or in the mean time.
You also have important demographic changes in the population and in the physician supply itself. For the physicians, I know it’s not politically correct to talk about it, but the fact that 50% of all medical school graduates are now women is making a difference. Women tend to avoid specialty areas that have bad call hours so certain specialties (like anesthesiology and radiology) suffer more severe shortages as a result. Over a career, women tend to work fewer hours and also are likely to take leaves of absence for childrearing that reduce the overall number of hours physicians churn out each year. And many women leave the profession all together when they start to have families.
Do I advocate training fewer women doctors? Absolutely not. But we should be accounting for the differences in their career paths when we strategize on dealing with the doctor shortage.
Then there are demographic changes in the US population. We all know that the US population is getting older. And as we age, our needs for medical care increase. So this only amplifies the needs of our growing population. And despite what we’re hearing about the crisis in US health care, the percentage of Americans overall with health care coverage is much higher than it was 30 years ago. So as more and more Americans have access to health care coverage, the demand for physician services increases.
Finally, technology plays a factor. As more and more treatment options are available and new and more powerful technology works its way in to our health care system, Americans are more likely to seek out the services of a physician.
In the US, we obviously need to be growing our domestically educated physician population. But it’s going to take many years to dig ourselves out of the hole that we’re in. It takes about 15 years from the point where we decide to build a new medical school (or even expand a medical school) and when the first doctor is out in private practice. You’ve got to build the school, go through an accreditation process, educate the MDs (4 years) and put them through graduate medical training (another three to seven years). And that assumes we can even convince our legislators to cough up the bucks to build the schools.
Considering the shortage we’re facing, foreign doctors are just a drop in the bucket. We bring in approximately 4,000 – 5,000 doctors a year and that number is already accounted for in the 150,000 shortage figure.
By the way, the foreign physician population in the US has actually been shrinking in the last few years, not increasing as one might expect given the shortages. One reason is because the physician shortages are growing in other countries. Australia in particular has a real problem. Their shortage is so severe that they’ve greatly relaxed the requirements for foreign physicians to enter that country. I’m sure they’ll be revisiting that policy, but the choices they’ll be facing are not very palatable.
One final note – be careful what you wish for. One thing you may not know about foreign doctors in the US is how they are chosen to come here. Every American medical school graduate – from the top student all the way down to the person at the bottom of his or her class – gets selected for residency and fellowship training programs in the US. They may not get their first choice, but they all get slots.
After that, we have approximately 6,000 to 8,000 slots to fill in our residency and training programs. About a third of those go to American medical students who went abroad for medical school. The rest are your foreign nationals who have graduated from foreign medical schools. In order to get one of the coveted training slots in the US, you better have finished in the top 5% or so of your medical school and your medical school better be considered one of the more reputable ones internationally.
There’s a reason why the faculties at our top academic medical centers are disproportionately foreign. Many of these doctors are the brightest in the world and they’ve come to the US because we have the best health care system in the world. We do the top research and our hospitals have the budgets to do the most cutting edge, high quality work. CBS’ 60 Minutes recently reported on hospitals in India and Thailand that are like five star resorts and which cater to foreign patients. When they interviewed the American administrator of the Thai hospital, he was bragging that his doctors trained at places like Johns Hopkins and Mayo in the US. Training in the US for a foreign doctor is like getting admitted to Harvard.
American patients benefit every day from this meritocracy and the number of lives these doctors saves every day will far exceed any tradeoff we would get if we suddenly got spooked by an irrational fear of the terrorist doctor. The solution here is not to bar foreign doctors. We already vigorously screen the ones coming here, but if we need to do more, then we certainly should. But, to use a crude medical expression, we should not cut off our nose to spite our face.
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
July 2010
August 2010
November 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
August 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
September 2013
January 2014
March 2014
April 2014
July 2014