Email the acgme regarding new changes!

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Nothing will be official until this summer, regardless of the rumors coming out of what sounds like a board of deans meeting.

Hell the merger itself is still very much up in the air while there is meeting after meeting on the subject. I was told don't expect to hear anything official until July or August.
Members don't see this ad.
 
Just a quick note, I wasn't trying to start any rumors here. I only say what I can back up with some kind of evidence (note: the massive stats thread). I also believe as students we should be kept in the loop more, as we are a group that will be GREATLY affected by this. Wish I had more info for you guys, hopefully I'll find something out in D.C. next week.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Unification?

[insert Firefly, Alliance v Independents, and Battle of Serenity Valley references here]
 
Any news after rubbing elbows with the cronies at the corrupt capitol?
 
Dharma said:
Any news after rubbing elbows with the cronies at the corrupt capitol?
Click to expand...

Haha. I wasn't at DO day on the hill. GFs 1 year anniversary, so can't run off to DC this month. I did ask someone who went if he heared any news on timeline changes.

Specifically I told him ahead of time to listen for such news. He said all he heard was its on time to happen on schedule. He is admittedly not super connected, but he can confirm causal conversation says its had no changes in schedule.

My friends in the acgme end haven't gotten back to me. Given what I know about them, it makes me think the issue is complicated as they will avoid saying something incorrect and will choose silence over guessing.
 
DocEspana said:
Haha. I wasn't at DO day on the hill. GFs 1 year anniversary, so can't run off to DC this month. I did ask someone who went if he heared any news on timeline changes.

Specifically I told him ahead of time to listen for such news. He said all he heard was its on time to happen on schedule. He is admittedly not super connected, but he can confirm causal conversation says its had no changes in schedule.

My friends in the acgme end haven't gotten back to me. Given what I know about them, it makes me think the issue is complicated as they will avoid saying something incorrect and will choose silence over guessing.
Click to expand...

GF >>>>>> DC... Good call!

Thanks for sharing what you know though boss.
 
this would be a huge set back if its postponed. :mad:
 
Dr Yiot said:
this would be a huge set back if its postponed. :mad:
Click to expand...

Still better than AOA residency grads, IIRC, being totally barred from entering an ACGME residency, which was the other earlier outcome before the combined match idea was brought up (at least puclicly anyway).
 
Dmr6186 said:
Still better than AOA residency grads, IIRC, being totally barred from entering an ACGME residency, which was the other earlier outcome before the combined match idea was brought up (at least puclicly anyway).
Click to expand...

Not trying to nit-pick, but I think you mean fellowship.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
JeetKuneDo said:
Not trying to nit-pick, but I think you mean fellowship.
Click to expand...

Actually, it would have locked out anyone who completed a traditional rotating internship from entering an ACGME residency unless they repeated their internship year.
 
Dmr6186 said:
Still better than AOA residency grads, IIRC, being totally barred from entering an ACGME residency, which was the other earlier outcome before the combined match idea was brought up (at least puclicly anyway).
Click to expand...

Just fellowships, that is one would have needed to complete an ACGME residency to be considered eligible for an ACGME fellowship. Same would have applied to PGY1 transition year/traditional rotation year and access to programs who take PGY2's. But yes, it is better than that happening.

I guess as long as one is not aiming for the more competitive specialities, it doesn't make too much of a difference if they postpone the merger. In that case, just plan on going ACGME.
 
I posted this comment in a different thread, I guess it belongs here.

I did just watch mister Crosby's speech. It is really not telling of much, but a few of his comments suggest a time line has not been changed... Though the time line is not set in stone as we were once led to believe. Specifically he commented on it being 2 to 5 years away from implementation. This fits with the timelines suggesting 2015 and 2018 are major dates for different portions of the merge. But his exact wording does appear to leave it open for significant delays at multiple points in the process.
 
Dharma said:
recent announcement (that will leave you still wondering what's up):

http://www.do-online.org/TheDO/?p=131371
Click to expand...

After listening his speech, I happened to continue to think that the making of a single, unified GME program has been on its route as was previously planned and announced. The discussions to resolve the differences between the current AOA and ACGME programs, he says, would start soon, like in April. The results, he says, would be presented to AOA and ACGME in early June, and the whole unification process is gonna be concluded in 3 to 5 years (2015-2018). Those were the original dates spelled earlier. Only his insisting on that "AOA will be continuing to protect our distinctiveness" was something that caught my attention, with which I think he wanted to assure the DOs that they won't be overlooked as a minority group by ACGME, instead would be kept as equal with MDs.

So, I wasn't left wondering what's up after his speech. On the contrary, I felt quite well about how the process is going. I hope I'll feel the same as time flies by...:xf:
 
DrBumblebee said:
After listening his speech, I happened to continue to think that the making of a single, unified GME program has been on its route as was previously planned and announced. The discussions to resolve the differences between the current AOA and ACGME programs, he says, would start soon, like in April. The results, he says, would be presented to AOA and ACGME in early June, and the whole unification process is gonna be concluded in 3 to 5 years (2015-2018). Those were the original dates spelled earlier. Only his insisting on that "AOA will be continuing to protect our distinctiveness" was something that caught my attention, with which I think he wanted to assure the DOs that they won't be overlooked as a minority group by ACGME, instead would be kept as equal with MDs.

So, I wasn't left wondering what's up after his speech. On the contrary, I felt quite well about how the process is going. I hope I'll feel the same as time flies by...:xf:
Click to expand...

Originally they said 2016. So, the video indicates a change of plan of some sort and a bit more uncertainty than was previously implied when the pending merger was first announced a few months back. This could have an impact on 2015/2016 grads who thought a few months back that they wouldn't have to worry about two matches (i.e. the complications that come along with such).

But yeah, it seems as if the preservation of distinctiveness is at the top of the agenda. My opinion is that it's not a matter of preventing discrimination against DO's but rather one of self-preservation, stemming from a fear of eventually absorption (and subsequent control) by the larger entity in the long run. Just my opinion of course. But I've spoken with a few DOs who have expressed similar concerns regarding loss of distinction and a long term conversion to allopathic medicine with OMM remaining only as extra therapeutic skill sets that some may choose to learn. (Then again, this is already the reality for most DO's out there). Again, just speculation... but who knows. The world has seen crazier things happen.

It's a waiting game at this point. I'm expecting the merger to go into effect later rather than sooner (to avoid disappointment), at least going by the subtle hints of a delay (as compared to the original projection) expressed by Crosby.
 
Last edited:
DocEspana said:
I posted this comment in a different thread, I guess it belongs here.

I did just watch mister Crosby's speech. It is really not telling of much, but a few of his comments suggest a time line has not been changed... Though the time line is not set in stone as we were once led to believe. Specifically he commented on it being 2 to 5 years away from implementation. This fits with the timelines suggesting 2015 and 2018 are major dates for different portions of the merge. But his exact wording does appear to leave it open for significant delays at multiple points in the process.
Click to expand...

Exactly. They probably should've taken a more conservative approach in those early announcements. Sort of takes a bit away from the value of their words.
 
Dharma said:
Exactly. They probably should've taken a more conservative approach in those early announcements. Sort of takes a bit away from the value of their words.
Click to expand...

I hate to say "I told you so" but....
no, that's a bold-faced lie. I love saying it :naughty:
Not you, specifically Dharma. But this thread in general.
 
Dharma said:
Originally they said 2016. So, the video indicates a change of plan of some sort and a bit more uncertainty than was previously implied when the pending merger was first announced a few months back. This could have an impact on 2015/2016 grads who thought a few months back that they wouldn't have to worry about two matches (i.e. the complications that come along with such).

But yeah, it seems as if the preservation of distinctiveness is at the top of the agenda. My opinion is that it's not a matter of preventing discrimination against DO's but rather one of self-preservation, stemming from a fear of eventually absorption (and subsequent control) by the larger entity in the long run. Just my opinion of course. But I've spoken with a few DOs who have expressed similar concerns regarding loss of distinction and a long term conversion to allopathic medicine with OMM remaining only as extra therapeutic skill sets that some may choose to learn. (Then again, this is already the reality for most DO's out there). Again, just speculation... but who knows. The world has seen crazier things happen.

It's a waiting game at this point. I'm expecting the merger to go into effect later rather than sooner (to avoid disappointment), at least going by the subtle hints of a delay (as compared to the original projection) expressed by Crosby.
Click to expand...

The argument for loss of distinction is a real touchy subject within the AOA. I bet the fact that the vast majority of DO students will not use OMT after graduation is a tough pill for the AOA to swallow, considering that's one of the main points of contention with respect to maintaining the distinctiveness of the DO degree. They are essentially advocating for the preservation of something that everyone learns out of necessity and which will subsequently be neglected by most in GME and beyond.

I wonder what the AOA would do if allopathic schools start teaching effective OMT. If a treatment is proven effective why not teach it everywhere?
 
NeuroLAX said:
The argument for loss of distinction is a real touchy subject within the AOA. I bet the fact that the vast majority of DO students will not use OMT after graduation is a tough pill for the AOA to swallow, considering that's one of the main points of contention with respect to maintaining the distinctiveness of the DO degree. They are essentially advocating for the preservation of something that everyone learns out of necessity and which will subsequently be neglected by most in GME and beyond.

I wonder what the AOA would do if allopathic schools start teaching effective OMT. If a treatment is proven effective why not teach it everywhere?
Click to expand...

Spot on. If it's good medicine, it's good medicine. I think there are a few schools offering electives and an MD can most definitely learn it and bill for it as well (as far as I know at least)

An aside: Distill (not de-Still :naughty:) the curriculum down to the effective techniques (i.e. remove the wishy-washy hocus-pocus stuff. If someone likes cranial then offer electives or something). Think of all the time we spend doing basically the same stuff over and over and over and over again in lab. I get it that practicing is the best way to improve... but let's be honest, we mostly practice JUST enough so that we can do well on practicals and that's it (certainly not enough to claim proficiency in a way that would significantly distinguish us from any other med student not scared of touching his patient).

I struggle to see the distinction besides the fact that we practice a hands-on MSK component a bit more than our allo friends. And while I respect the historical struggle and what-not, that should not stand in the way of evolution. 1874, banners in the breeze, 65 dolla in Cali... whatever... remember... but get over it already!
 
Hmm him giving a date range rather than a specific number of years sounds like a prelude to an extension to the timeline. A good PR person would say to ease the public into the change.

Anyway this is disappointing I was hoping for some good drama and sounds like I'll have to wait until April.
 
Dharma said:
Spot on. If it's good medicine, it's good medicine. I think there are a few schools offering electives and an MD can most definitely learn it and bill for it as well (as far as I know at least)

An aside: Distill (not de-Still :naughty:) the curriculum down to the effective techniques (i.e. remove the wishy-washy hocus-pocus stuff. If someone likes cranial then offer electives or something). Think of all the time we spend doing basically the same stuff over and over and over and over again in lab. I get it that practicing is the best way to improve... but let's be honest, we mostly practice JUST enough so that we can do well on practicals and that's it (certainly not enough to claim proficiency in a way that would significantly distinguish us from any other med student not scared of touching his patient).

I struggle to see the distinction besides the fact that we practice a hands-on MSK component a bit more than our allo friends. And while I respect the historical struggle and what-not, that should not stand in the way of evolution. 1874, banners in the breeze, 65 dolla in Cali... whatever... remember... but get over it already!
Click to expand...

I'm definitely for more research. Research is great: validation/invalidation, advancement of understanding, and dissemination of clinical significance. Do you have a journal club at your school? It gives good insight into the application of what we are taught.

As for practicing in the lab, it is what it is. We only have so much time, and the OMM faculty aren't expecting all of us to go into OMM/NMM. Like other aspects of med school the onus is on us to practice and look things up (i.e. research) if we don't understand or want a different/more thorough explanation. Proficiency certainly comes with more repetition and clinical application, but I think the overall objective of lab is to at least get you to be comfortable, efficient, and effective. The fact that we have lab each week does distinguish us to a degree, in that other med students don't have any practice. They can catch up, though. I don't have any issues with that.
 
Last edited:
Textbookversion said:
Hmm him giving a date range rather than a specific number of years sounds like a prelude to an extension to the timeline. A good PR person would say to ease the public into the change.

Anyway this is disappointing I was hoping for some good drama and sounds like I'll have to wait until April.
Click to expand...

but the date range lines up perfectly with the previously stated time line that begins in 2015 and ends in 2018. I am not sure where Dharma is getting 2016 from. I'm the one who broke the time line to you guys (suck it hockeyDr), and until people started saying 2016 this week, I've never seen anything but 2015 and 2018.

Plus I think everyone is misunderstanding my comment. That speech appears to make it very clear that they are indeed still exactly on their time line. I'm in no way worried that they are behind or that they have hit any problems yet. But I never expected them to actually have a traveling tour of every major organization even tangentially involved. You get one group who is too afraid of change and they can hold the whole thing up. And I have heard that there are at least 2 groups who are highly suspicious for a potential to hold it up when it comes to them for review. I was expecting just the major groups, who had already more or less signed off on it through verbal concensus, to be the only ones to get final say over what the final deal looks like. If the AACOMAS, ACGME, and AOA Board of Directors were only people looking over it, this would probably pass 123 as they were the group that initially came to the agreement over it, just without written language to look over at that time. It is the inclusion of every major and minor specialty Society that leaves the door wide open for slow down.
 
DocEspana said:
but the date range lines up perfectly with the previously stated time line that begins in 2015 and ends in 2018. I am not sure where Dharma is getting 2016 from. I'm the one who broke the time line to you guys (suck it hockeyDr), and until people started saying 2016 this week, I've never seen anything but 2015 and 2018.

Plus I think everyone is misunderstanding my comment. That speech appears to make it very clear that they are indeed still exactly on their time line. I'm in no way worried that they are behind or that they have hit any problems yet. But I never expected them to actually have a traveling tour of every major organization even tangentially involved. You get one group who is too afraid of change and they can hold the whole thing up. And I have heard that there are at least 2 groups who are highly suspicious for a potential to hold it up when it comes to them for review. I was expecting just the major groups, who had already more or less signed off on it through verbal concensus, to be the only ones to get final say over what the final deal looks like. If the AACOMAS, ACGME, and AOA Board of Directors were only people looking over it, this would probably pass 123 as they were the group that initially came to the agreement over it, just without written language to look over at that time. It is the inclusion of every major and minor specialty Society that leaves the door wide open for slow down.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying. As usual good info.

(2016 was my egocentricism talking. My bad. I knew it was 2015 mentioned earlier. That said, I didn't know they meant anytime from 2015-2018 originally).
 
DocEspana said:
but the date range lines up perfectly with the previously stated time line that begins in 2015 and ends in 2018. I am not sure where Dharma is getting 2016 from. I'm the one who broke the time line to you guys (suck it hockeyDr), and until people started saying 2016 this week, I've never seen anything but 2015 and 2018.

Plus I think everyone is misunderstanding my comment. That speech appears to make it very clear that they are indeed still exactly on their time line. I'm in no way worried that they are behind or that they have hit any problems yet. But I never expected them to actually have a traveling tour of every major organization even tangentially involved. You get one group who is too afraid of change and they can hold the whole thing up. And I have heard that there are at least 2 groups who are highly suspicious for a potential to hold it up when it comes to them for review. I was expecting just the major groups, who had already more or less signed off on it through verbal concensus, to be the only ones to get final say over what the final deal looks like. If the AACOMAS, ACGME, and AOA Board of Directors were only people looking over it, this would probably pass 123 as they were the group that initially came to the agreement over it, just without written language to look over at that time. It is the inclusion of every major and minor specialty Society that leaves the door wide open for slow down.
Click to expand...

If you listen at around 1:06-1:18, he says "The rest of the MOU is trying to develop a process by which this unified system could evolve and actually go into effect in, say, 3-5 years in the future." I guess some on here have taken that as meaning 3-5 years from present, as opposed to 3-5 years from when they started talking.
 
NeuroLAX said:
I'm definitely for more research. Research is great: validation/invalidation, advancement of understanding, and dissemination of clinical significance. Do you have a journal club at your school? It gives good insight into the application of what we are taught.

As for practicing in the lab, it is what it is. We only have so much time, and the OMM faculty aren't expecting all of us to go into OMM/NMM. Like other aspects of med school the onus is on us to practice and look things up (i.e. research) if we don't understand or want a different/more thorough explanation. Proficiency certainly comes with more repetition and clinical application, but I think the overall objective of lab is to at least get you to be comfortable, efficient, and effective. The fact that we have lab each week does distinguish us to a degree, in that other med students don't have any practice. They can catch up, though. I don't have any issues with that.
Click to expand...

Research. Yes. If they want validity that's where it's at. And it can't just be JAOA.
 
NeuroLAX said:
If you listen at around 1:06-1:18, he says "The rest of the MOU is trying to develop a process by which this unified system could evolve and actually go into effect in, say, 3-5 years in the future." I guess some on here have taken that as meaning 3-5 years from present, as opposed to 3-5 years from when they started talking.
Click to expand...

additionally, there are 2 ways to read into 3 to 5 years. you could view it as stating that the to discrete time goals of 2015 and 2018 are still intact as discrete time goals 3 and 5 years from the start of the process. You could also read into it as solely referring to the combined match, which would be the first step, as being 3-5 years away.

I choose to think the latter is a legitimate interpretation, but the former is a better fit since there apparently have some written documentation which needs approval... something that suggests a 2015 start date is realistic. And since no hold ups have been identified, I was anticipating such a time line, and the comments lend credence to it. Though I can see the validity of interpreting it either way.
 
DocEspana said:
additionally, there are 2 ways to read into 3 to 5 years. you could view it as stating that the to discrete time goals of 2015 and 2018 are still intact as discrete time goals 3 and 5 years from the start of the process. You could also read into it as solely referring to the combined match, which would be the first step, as being 3-5 years away.

I choose to think the latter is a legitimate interpretation, but the former is a better fit since there apparently have some written documentation which needs approval... something that suggests a 2015 start date is realistic. And since no hold ups have been identified, I was anticipating such a time line, and the comments lend credence to it. Though I can see the validity of interpreting it either way.
Click to expand...

As an incoming MS1 I think I'll just plan participating in one match or the other. That way I can only be positively surprised if I can go through a combined match.
 
NurWollen said:
As an incoming MS1 I think I'll just plan participating in one match or the other. That way I can only be positively surprised if I can go through a combined match.
Click to expand...

The smart thing to do would be to apply through both matches and see what interviews you get and then narrow it down.
 
sylvanthus said:
The smart thing to do would be to apply through both matches and see what interviews you get and then narrow it down.
Click to expand...

Can you apply to both, but then chose not to rank any AOA (withdrawal from their match)?
 
cool. wasn't sure about that. thanks guys.
 
NurWollen said:
As an incoming MS1 I think I'll just plan participating in one match or the other. That way I can only be positively surprised if I can go through a combined match.
Click to expand...

you won't have a choice, there'll be one match for you
 
Bones DO said:
you won't have a choice, there'll be one match for you
Click to expand...

What I meant was I'll plan on having to choose between the matches, since the combined match is still pretty tentative (at least according to this thread). That way, if the combined match doesn't happen until after I graduate, I won't be disappointed.
 
great post...

Fergison2 said:
Unfortunately DO's continue to shoot themselves in the feet on attempts at progress in this area. The reasons for this are primarily due to the boys club structure of the AOA leadership. Its not democratic representation of the DO populations wishes. The AOA is dictated by crusty OMMers and their brain washed spoon fed proteges that lapped up the Kool-Aid.

We are seeing real issues here in terms of DO students being shut out of residencies and ACGME/LCME doing more and more to restrict our access to training and opportunities.

A degree that a designation change is not the ultimate solution but believe that it is a step in the right direction. A step toward more broad recognition of our training and what we actually do vs being represented by a small part of our training.

I have heard a program director state that he wanted to not have as high a number of DO's in the next residency class as to not send a signal of being a weak program.

We are sold the line of "strengthening the DO brand". People, we're not merchandise, we're doctors.

This is not about confidence in ourselves or our training. This is about a designation that recognizes what our training really is. And for those of you impassioned first and second year students being trained in OMM. I know it seems like its really going to be something you use a lot of and that is really significant. I've been hard on OMM, I'll admit for acute musculoskeletal strains I think it has a place in soft tissue work but it's effects and capacities are far overstated and as practicing doctors this one small area of out training should not define our degree designation outright.
I for one have always been in favor of the title MDO as it adds the medical designation but retains the osteopathic portion. I think it is a more accurately representative title.
Click to expand...
 
Soo... ball is in the osteopathic court again isn't it? Pretty sure the ACGME voted on the MOU and now it's on the AOA's platter again now.

Any drama llama news? This issue is moving too slow. Boring.
 
I don't understand why the AOA would be against it when this was the ACGME's compromise they offered after proposing to bar access to MD fellowships. I would have figured this was their only option (otherwise no fellowships) and pretty much compulsory in that regard, but supposedly there has been a lot of resistance in the osteopathic community.

ACGME by far has the upper hand and with the whole threat of no MD fellowships in the air, I just don't see how the AOA has been able to slow its progress towards merging. What is their goal? No merger but still have the fellowships? They can't expect to have their cake and eat it too.
 
user3 said:
I don't understand why the AOA would be against it when this was the ACGME's compromise they offered after proposing to bar access to MD fellowships. I would have figured this was their only option (otherwise no fellowships) and pretty much compulsory in that regard, but supposedly there has been a lot of resistance in the osteopathic community.

ACGME by far has the upper hand and with the whole threat of no MD fellowships in the air, I just don't see how the AOA has been able to slow its progress towards merging. What is their goal? No merger but still have the fellowships? They can't expect to have their cake and eat it too.
Click to expand...

Well, at the NOSC there were about 4 resolutions about the merger and every one of them was something to the tune of "protecting our osteopathic distinctiveness." Makes me worry whether internal AOA politics could end up delaying the merger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

P
When and who do I email about summer/late spring research after M1 year?
Replies
2
Views
554
GoSpursGo
GoSpursGo
G
Advice Needed Regarding Anatomy Remediation OMS1
Replies
13
Views
2K
deleted1079620
D
OddBroccoli
Considering HPSP and need some advice regarding loans.
Replies
8
Views
1K
mbdriver
M
L
How has NSU KPCOM changed in the eyes of the community?
Replies
1
Views
943
Goro
Goro
G
How will the COMLEX change in the future?
Replies
1
Views
835
EDThoracotomy
EDThoracotomy
Top