How Can We Encourage Medical Students To Choose Primary Care?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I've never told anyone that they should go into family medicine.

If you rotate through my office, I can tell you what I think, show you what I do, etc. Ultimately, it's up to you to decide if you would enjoy being a family physician. Personally, I think it's the best job in the world. It's not for everyone, however.

Sounds like you had some sub-optimal experiences/role models to me, however. You wouldn't have seen any of the problems you mentioned in my practice.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ronin,

The choice of specialty is not all that different from any other major decision in your life. You do your best to know both yourself and your choices, the first of which is probably the most difficult to accomplish. One has to be truly honest and spend some time reflecting upon what motivates them, what excites them, what they hate, etc. They then have to get a feel of what the actual day to day practice of respective fields would be like today -- and understand that everything is prone to change.

Family medicine is a wonderful field; the breadth and latitude that it affords, not to mention the not infrequent significant impact on patients' lives should not be underestimated. I simply was not cut out for it for a variety of reasons....
 
Blue Dog, it is good that you keep your practice better than what I experienced.

MOHS, I'm not cut out for it either. However, I tried the damnest to keep it open as I could as a student.

I was hoping to make the point that you have only one rotation block per student (two if their school requires something in the 4th year,) to impress upon students the love you have for this specialty. There are a lot who are on the fence that you can demonstrate this to by something that you can show on rotation with you that screams, "*This* is why I love FM."

Bad experiences on rotation can kill the specialty as an option, as I have presented. Now, I am not saying candy-coat anything; pros and cons must presented and let the student decide.

However, a lot of students could set aside the pay issue and other cons (there is still an altruistic feeling in a lot of students,) and say, "You know what? I want to do FM. This is what I wanted to do medical school for," if shown a reason. The question is what you can do to show them they are right?

It does feel to me that marketing is not being done right for the specialty. In the end, it is the satisfaction you get from the job that you have to convey despite the issues. What made today a good day to call it a career, and how do you demonstrate it to the students working with you? That, to me, seems to be key in encouragement.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I can tell you that in my state, our AFP works closely with our medical schools (many of our board members are in academic FM) to encourage student interest in FM. We do this in many ways...by funding FMIG meetings, arranging speakers, holding conferences and procedure workshops, trying to recruit and train high-quality preceptors for FM rotations, etc. We also have partnered with our state medical society to increase student involvement and awareness.

Still, it's an uphill battle. Most medical schools do not feel any real pressure to increase the number of students selecting primary care residencies. There really isn't any financial incentive to do so. OTOH, many have a vested interest in a wide variety of prestige- and revenue-generating subspecialty endeavors, so that's what gets emphasized.

Academic FM practices tend to be "safety nets" for some of the, shall we say, "less fulfilling" patient populations, and some of our private practice preceptors probably shouldn't be teaching students...but there just aren't enough high-quality willing providers to go around. Teaching takes time, and time is money. We don't get paid anything to teach or precept...we do it because we enjoy it, and want to do something for the specialty.

A good mentor can have tremendous influence on student interest in a specialty, and so can a bad one.
 
my medical school (state school highly ranked in FM) does a good job recruiting students in part because of a lot of rural precepting, and a strong emphasis on primary care. Of course we also have some absolutely awesome family docs. One of my favorite recently moved from a small town practice in the state to work at the university...and some of his patients still drive 3 hours to see him!
 
some of our private practice preceptors probably shouldn't be teaching students...

This is definitely true. I have to say that so far one of the biggest surprises to me has been how varied the quality of physicians can be. I have encountered some who seem to know so much it makes me feel like a complete *****, as well as those that I have to wonder whether they even care at all anymore about doing good work.

Of course, on the other hand I guess the vast majority I have encountered are towards the top end. But still there are those that seem to stand above the rest and make you want to be like them, and then those that leave you wondering how they got through at all.

Ultimately I think it is these extremes that influence, for better or worse, our decisions about a field.
 
As a student, I agree with Blue. Being a good FM role model is very important. I just finished a month of FM which was ok, but didn't leave me wanting more. Now, I'm on an IM month with a dual boarded doc (FM/IM) and am having a much better FM experience. Not because he's different, but he's a better teacher. He also has a much more successful practice, so is a better example of an FP who's "made it."

You need to return some of the glory to FM. You can do this by doing more of the "cool stuff" yourselves. Do more in-house procedures. All we did at my last place were some joint injections, wart freezing, and maybe a skin bx. New guy does a LOT more, which makes it seem "cooler" to med students. Show us that you can work reasonable hours and still bring in the dough, all while being happy with your life. Show us the long term relationships with your patients and how awesome that can be. Show us how much freedom you can have if you own your own place.
 
In fact, considering Medicare's central role in pricing -- and it's quasi-zero-sum nature -- I would virtually guarantee it.



Talking about slowing down and proofreading...:rolleyes: ROFL
 
iphone, buddy -- after two attempts at typing I just give up

Our very own SDN has a very interesting article on the RUC. It's very biased toward primary care, but informative nonetheless.

I couldn't help but wonder to myself when reading wagy's posts why complexity should matter at all. Complexity itself is not the endpoint, so it doesn't make sense to me to reimburse for complexity. The endpoint is patient QoL, morbidity, and mortality, right?


As to the actual point of this thread, I think a lot of the medical students hit the nail on the head. The best way to recruit med students to FM is to show them FM docs who do their job well, enjoy it, and enjoy life.
 
Our very own SDN has a very interesting article on the RUC. It's very biased toward primary care, but informative nonetheless.

I couldn't help but wonder to myself when reading wagy's posts why complexity should matter at all. Complexity itself is not the endpoint, so it doesn't make sense to me to reimburse for complexity. The endpoint is patient QoL, morbidity, and mortality, right?


As to the actual point of this thread, I think a lot of the medical students hit the nail on the head. The best way to recruit med students to FM is to show them FM docs who do their job well, enjoy it, and enjoy life.

Complexity is very subjective and has no precise and definable unit of measure (much like the often touted QoL). There exists no such thing as a "util" of measure... much to the chagrin of our latest generation of academics. Utility is a very individually determined quality, something that cannot be interpreted, interchanged, calculated, etc. It is not fungible; as such, no objective global reimbursement scheme can be based upon utility.

In practice that is largely the case. If you look at the way RVUs are calculated you will not see a "complexity" component. Some may argue that the malpractice variable in some way takes into account the complexity, but it is a better measure of inherent risk and douchebag leach track record for success in their preying upon an uncertain field/procedure.

The largest determinants of RVU valuations would have to be the work (predominantly time) and practice expense components; unfortunately both of these can be open to some manipulation by the reporting society.

The whole system is flawed.
 
Complexity is very subjective and has no precise and definable unit of measure (much like the often touted QoL). There exists no such thing as a "util" of measure... much to the chagrin of our latest generation of academics. Utility is a very individually determined quality, something that cannot be interpreted, interchanged, calculated, etc. It is not fungible; as such, no objective global reimbursement scheme can be based upon utility.

In practice that is largely the case. If you look at the way RVUs are calculated you will not see a "complexity" component. Some may argue that the malpractice variable in some way takes into account the complexity, but it is a better measure of inherent risk and douchebag leach track record for success in their preying upon an uncertain field/procedure.

The largest determinants of RVU valuations would have to be the work (predominantly time) and practice expense components; unfortunately both of these can be open to some manipulation by the reporting society.

The whole system is flawed.

This is not entirely true. $$/QoL has been used across the pond for years to determine what procedures are reimbursed by the NHS. Obviously, it is a far from perfect system, but one thing for sure is that they are way more cost-effective than we are, and they have better overall outcomes, particulary for the chronic diseases which comprise the biggest portion of health care utilization. QoL has its limitations in its derivation of utility...however it is not true to say that there is no way it can be judged. There are numerous population-based surveys and questionairres used to derive the quality utils in QALY calculations, and while far from perfect, they do provide some quantifiable measure of a person's state of health. It is better than nothing.

And even if you dismiss QALY, you can still determine RVU's based on things like EBM, effectiveness, and even patient satisfaction. If a large scale research study shows that Procedure X does not improve end outcomes (or not as well as Procedure Y), then it should not be reimbursed (or no more than Procedure Y).

The problem with RVU valuation is not necessarily the bias of time/effort/etc against primary care...it is the fact that outcome measures are totally ignored. If Procedure A is shown by good research to be ineffective in reaching the end outcome (QALY, M&M, some definied clinical measure, etc.), it should NOT be reimbursed (or be minimally reimbursed) by Medicare. Period. I don't care if it took you 10 years to train in Procedure A. If it is not evidence-based, or if a simple drug or simpler service can lead to an equally effective outcome, it should be devalued immensely. Private insurance companies have fortunately caught on and started to limit renumeration for procedures lacking EBM, and will continue to do so now that they have to be more aggressive w/ cost control. Unfortunately, Medicare does not. Even w/ the new Comparative Effectivness Research initiative, this center cannot use its research to make rec's on reimbursement...to which I ask...what is the point then of spending billions on the research??? Fortuantely, entities outside the Center can.

Here's some Business 101: When you want to achieve a goal, one of the first things you should do is identify the goal and its outcome measures. Then, make sure that the system you are designing incentivizes providers to work towards that outcome. In our case, the outcome is high-quality, cost effective care for Medicare (and hence the US population). Therefore, the reimbursement scheme should DIRECTLY favor the use of high-quality, cost-effective services. Thus, end outcome measures like EBM studies, comparative effectiveness, and even patient satisfaction and QALY should be used in RVU valuations if we are to remain in a FFS system, and should take precedent of physician factors that should only be used afterwards to make sure that physicians are not losing money on their services provided. As a matter of fact, Medicare should highly renumerate services that lead to better clinical/economic outcomes, even if the cost to provide them is dirt cheap, because they will benefit the system in the long run. This line of reasoning is why many payors are eliminating copays for chronic disease meds and screening and such...much rather pay a lot upfront to prevent than pay up the wazooo down the line for ED visits/imaging/surgery.

Things such as physician time/training/effort/expense are of secondary imprtance. I can spend months and months, pouring my sweat and tears into making a shoe, but will you pay me more for it than you would pay Nike to make an even better shoe in like 5 minutes?? I mean, you should right. It was really costly in terms of time and money for me to make my shoe! Nike did it "easily"...don't pay them as much! Even though my shoe sucks.
 
Last edited:
This is not entirely true. $$/QoL has been used across the pond for years to determine what procedures are reimbursed by the NHS. Obviously, it is a far from perfect system, but one thing for sure is that they are way more cost-effective than we are, and they have better overall outcomes, particulary for the chronic diseases which comprise the biggest portion of health care utilization. QoL has its limitations in its derivation of utility...however it is not true to say that there is no way it can be judged. There are numerous population-based surveys and questionairres used to derive the quality utils in QALY calculations, and while far from perfect, they do provide some quantifiable measure of a person's state of health. It is better than nothing.

And even if you dismiss QALY, you can still determine RVU's based on things like EBM, effectiveness, and even patient satisfaction. If a large scale research study shows that Procedure X does not improve end outcomes (or not as well as Procedure Y), then it should not be reimbursed (or no more than Procedure Y).

The problem with RVU valuation is not necessarily the bias of time/effort/etc against primary care...it is the fact that outcome measures are totally ignored. If Procedure A is shown by good research to be ineffective in reaching the end outcome (QALY, M&M, some definied clinical measure, etc.), it should NOT be reimbursed (or be minimally reimbursed) by Medicare. Period. I don't care if it took you 10 years to train in Procedure A. If it is not evidence-based, or if a simple drug or simpler service can lead to an equally effective outcome, it should be devalued immensely. Private insurance companies have fortunately caught on and started to limit renumeration for procedures lacking EBM, and will continue to do so now that they have to be more aggressive w/ cost control. Unfortunately, Medicare does not. Even w/ the new Comparative Effectivness Research initiative, this center cannot use its research to make rec's on reimbursement...to which I ask...what is the point then of spending billions on the research??? Fortuantely, entities outside the Center can.

Here's some Business 101: When you want to achieve a goal, one of the first things you should do is identify the goal and its outcome measures. Then, make sure that the system you are designing incentivizes providers to work towards that outcome. In our case, the outcome is high-quality, cost effective care for Medicare (and hence the US population). Therefore, the reimbursement scheme should DIRECTLY favor the use of high-quality, cost-effective services. Thus, end outcome measures like EBM studies, comparative effectiveness, and even patient satisfaction and QALY should be used in RVU valuations if we are to remain in a FFS system, and should take precedent of physician factors that should only be used afterwards to make sure that physicians are not losing money on their services provided. As a matter of fact, Medicare should highly renumerate services that lead to better clinical/economic outcomes, even if the cost to provide them is dirt cheap, because they will benefit the system in the long run. This line of reasoning is why many payors are eliminating copays for chronic disease meds and screening and such...much rather pay a lot upfront to prevent than pay up the wazooo down the line for ED visits/imaging/surgery.

Things such as physician time/training/effort/expense are of secondary imprtance. I can spend months and months, pouring my sweat and tears into making a shoe, but will you pay me more for it than you would pay Nike to make an even better shoe in like 5 minutes?? I mean, you should right. It was really costly in terms of time and money for me to make my shoe! Nike did it "easily"...don't pay them as much! Even though my shoe sucks.

I would argue that you are conflating arguments. For the sake of brevity, please highlight/bold which parts specifically you take issue with and we can go from there.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Complexity is very subjective [true] and has no precise and definable unit of measure [true] (much like the often touted QoL). There exists no such thing as a "util" of measure [true]... much to the chagrin of our latest generation of academics. Utility is a very individually determined quality [true], something that cannot be interpreted, interchanged, calculated, etc. [true]It is not fungible[true]; as such, no objective global reimbursement scheme can be based upon utility.[true]

In practice that is largely the case. If you look at the way RVUs are calculated you will not see a "complexity" component. Some may argue that the malpractice variable in some way takes into account the complexity, but it is a better measure of inherent risk and douchebag leach track record for success in their preying upon an uncertain field/procedure.

The largest determinants of RVU valuations would have to be the work (predominantly time) and practice expense components; unfortunately both of these can be open to some manipulation by the reporting society.

The whole system is flawed[true].

OK, I'm going to help you out a little as I am an impatient little ****. I would defend all of the above as true. I would contend that you are conflating the arguments of "coverage" and "reimbursement" as well as the philosophical positions of "what is" and "what you would like to see".

I'll admit, your "Bus 101" lesson made me :) ...although it rings of the thinly veiled surrogate decision making/gentle "nudge"/not-so-subtle-palpable directing hand standard of social engineering that has been popular for the past several decades.
 
Last edited:
i have neurology, radiology, and em as one of the fields that im 98% sure that ill enter into. none of the other specialties seem to have me interested at this moment. fm seems like a nice career but the salary is very discouraging. em residency completion time is the same, or one year more, and pays more. neurology is just one year more and pays about $100k more per year. radiology is just 2 years more and pays... well, you know. anyways, im not some trust fund baby nor did i grew up on a country club; i actually grew up along the poverty line level. im not a greedy person, but if i have multiple options that i really like and cant make a decision that is based on the type of work alone, money and lifestyle are going to make the decision for me. there is a bill in my future that is going to have 6 figures and whose first number would be 2 if the second number was used to round up. im also going to go with the one that allows me to pursue my other interests in life and also provide me with the disposable income that will allow me to do so. jack up the salary of fm and it might join the other 3 specialties that i listed.
 
Last edited:
i have neurology, radiology, and em as one of the fields that im 98% sure that ill enter into. none of the other specialties seem to have me interested at this moment. fm seems like a nice career but the salary is very discouraging. em residency completion time is the same, or one year more, and pays more. neurology is just one year more and pays about $100k more per year. radiology is just 2 years more and pays... well, you know. anyways, im not some trust fund baby nor did i grew up on a country club; i actually grew up along the poverty line level. im not a greedy person, but if i have multiple options that i really like and cant make a decision that is based on the type of work alone, money and lifestyle are going to make the decision for me. there is a bill in my future that is going to have 6 figures and whose first number would be 2 if the second number was used to round up. im also going to go with the one that allows me to pursue my other interests in life and also provide me with the disposable income that will allow me to do so. jack up the salary of fm and it might join the other 3 specialties that i listed.

The only problem with your thinking is that salaries are not guaranteed to remain at current levels. Radiology reimbursements are falling fast, and are only expected to drop further. While I think they'll remain above FM levels (at least for a while), I don't think it'll remain in the top 5 or so where it is now.

I was under the impression that average neuro salary was ~210k or so, based on the salary surveys. That's only 30k or so more than FM. As far as EM goes, salaries are pretty good and the cumulative hours worked is pretty good, but the actual hours can be pretty bad. The long (12+ hr) shifts and nights are not all fun and games.

For me, as a 3rd year on my FM rotation, my issue is mainly the Peds. I've found that I don't really like dealing with sick little kids. Also, my immune system apparently sucks and I've kept a constant cold since starting my last couple of rotations. Also, the couple of IM and FM docs I've rotated with so far, who had outpatient practices, all seem to be running themselves a bit ragged. Not that they aren't happy...but life seems a bit chaotic for them, although they do keep fairly good hours.

At this point, #1 on MY list child psych, because:

1. I loved my rotation
2. I'm comfotable with crazy people, since I've been dealing with them my whole life...
3. The hours are great and the money is ok.
4. Although it's kids, they aren't coughing ick all over me and are usually at least of an age where they can communicate, although WHAT they communicate might be a little crazy :)

All that being said, it's still very early in my rotations, and I reserve the right to change my mind a thousand times. But, FM has been dropping steadily down the list since I've done some "time" in it. I'm not really sure what it would take to rekindle my interest in FM...although it's not off my possible list yet.
 
Med student here. Things that make/made be intimidated about going into FM, despite the fact that I'm planning to do it anyways:

-Unknown pay. Not just low, but all I hear is "low". It took me months and months of querying different sources in person and online to find some real numbers on FM pay. The unknown allows rumor to become fact.

-Unknown future vs NP's and PA's. The nursing lobby is well alive in Texas and it regularly reminds med students that their GP future is unclear. Specialists and GP lobbies cut each others throats. Even right now, planning to go into the field, I am still nervous about this. Educate and give confidence that there will be a needed job to do later on, with decent pay/benefits for doing it.

-Lack of post-residency training. I love exercise physiology and sports medicine is a HUGE draw to me on top of my interested in primary care. So I'm happy either way I end up. Others choose IM because of the multitude of paths if they feel IM primary care is not up their alley.
 
Today my school had a lunch talk titled "Private Practice Resurgence: Primary Care" or something like that. Essentially a talk exploring private practice for a primary care provider.

I was really sad to see it be such an epic fail as an advertisement for primary care. The panel included a fm doc, a peds doc, and a psychiatrist.

The psychiatrist came off as very satisfied with his solo practice. He indicated he experienced some annoyances due to insurance, but he continued to work with insurance companies to allow broader access to his services. He told us that he wouldn't do anything differently, and that he was happy with his pay.

The fm doc and the peds doc both railed against insurance companies and specialty doctors for not valuing them enough. They both repeatedly talked about how much they hated insurance companies and how they loved to screw them over whenever possible. They both talked about a golden day when there were no more insurance companies. They turned almost any question into a point about how other doctors and insurance companies don't value primary care doctors. When asked what they would do differently, one guy jokingly answered he'd become a psychiatrist. It felt like they both had huge chips on their shoulders. I found it very unappealing.
 
Today my school had a lunch talk titled "Private Practice Resurgence: Primary Care" or something like that. Essentially a talk exploring private practice for a primary care provider.

I was really sad to see it be such an epic fail as an advertisement for primary care. The panel included a fm doc, a peds doc, and a psychiatrist.

The psychiatrist came off as very satisfied with his solo practice. He indicated he experienced some annoyances due to insurance, but he continued to work with insurance companies to allow broader access to his services. He told us that he wouldn't do anything differently, and that he was happy with his pay.

The fm doc and the peds doc both railed against insurance companies and specialty doctors for not valuing them enough. They both repeatedly talked about how much they hated insurance companies and how they loved to screw them over whenever possible. They both talked about a golden day when there were no more insurance companies. They turned almost any question into a point about how other doctors and insurance companies don't value primary care doctors. When asked what they would do differently, one guy jokingly answered he'd become a psychiatrist. It felt like they both had huge chips on their shoulders. I found it very unappealing.
What do you expect when the chips are entirely stacked against primary care? They have piss poor reimbursement rates when compared to specialists, and don't have the ease with which psychiatrists can open up cash only practices.
 
What do you expect when the chips are entirely stacked against primary care? They have piss poor reimbursement rates when compared to specialists, and don't have the ease with which psychiatrists can open up cash only practices.

I expect them not to spend 45 minutes bitching and moaning about it and acting like the world is out to get them. They must have at least had an inkling this was the case when choosing their specialty. And if not, psychiatry isn't such a hard specialty to get into that they couldn't do another residency if primary care was so bad.

Further, the psychiatrist wasn't cash-only. He had the same insurance hassles as they did, but he didn't act like everyone was out to get him. For instance, the fact that one certain (monopolistic) insurance company in my area didn't negotiate with the PCPs was used as evidence that insurance companies hate primary care and don't value it. Yet the psychiatrist said the exact same thing (that this certain ins. company refuses to negotiate with him), but he didn't use it as evidence of any personal ill-will. It just was what it was.

Honestly, it was just such a big pity party, it annoyed me. This event was billed as a big advertisement for why primary care was so great, but there were awfully few positives these two doctors had about primary care and a lot more negatives. This may be them being realistic and true to their feelings, but the luncheon certainly didn't sway many toward primary care and certainly swayed some against it.
 
We've all heard cringe-worthy lectures.

Most lecture sponsors encourage feedback. Hopefully, you gave them some.
 
We've all heard cringe-worthy lectures.

Most lecture sponsors encourage feedback. Hopefully, you gave them some.

A good reminder, BD, thanks. It's just a little frustrating. I'm really interested in FM, and really interested in rural FM, but am having trouble finding good role models at my school. I've found a lot of docs who love their job, but not a lot of them are FM. Of the FM docs I've found, a larger percent than I expected seem pretty burned out.

I am casting a wider net and looking for rural FM docs who have no affiliation with any med school, but it's taking some time to find them.
 
Today my school had a lunch talk titled "Private Practice Resurgence: Primary Care" ...

I was really sad to see it be such an epic fail as an advertisement for primary care...

The psychiatrist came off as very satisfied with his solo practice. ...He told us that he wouldn't do anything differently...

The fm doc and the peds doc both railed against insurance companies and specialty doctors for not valuing them enough. They both repeatedly talked about how much they hated insurance companies and how they loved to screw them over whenever possible. ...They turned almost any question into a point about how other doctors and insurance companies don't value primary care doctors. When asked what they would do differently, one guy jokingly answered he'd become a psychiatrist...
That is very, very unfortunate and goes back to numerous of my previous posts. While I am not opposed to any specialty lobbying for itself and improvement, I think it is extremely important to not go overboard, loose track of the positives, and alienate your future colleagues. The talk described can have a longterm detrimental impact. I can already see many of the "best & brightest" in the audience asking the question, "is that the only good you have to say about primary care?!?!"

I had some very good FM mentors in medical school... but also saw too much of this. In essence, it is a "grass roots" message that discourages the medical students. Worse, it is a message at the medical school to the select population with intial interest. The audience was likely composed of the uninformed, undecided, the interested, and/or the ~committed. It is very possible that this interaction, combined with popular press, and public wranglings will discourage a good number in that audience. Many of those in the audience will choose to not pursue further investigation into the field and may be lost potential candidates. This sort of thing makes it extremely hard for recruitment in any field.
 
Today my school had a lunch talk titled "Private Practice Resurgence: Primary Care" or something like that. Essentially a talk exploring private practice for a primary care provider.

*eye roll*

Not surprised it was epic fail. We're in the first round of consolidation in health care. That's well published, well known as more new grads are seeking employed positions with health systems than starting their own private practice at this point in time. At the very least, people are scrambling to organize themselves with hospitals in accountable care organizations (ACOs) because no one knows what it's going to look like based on new payment systems and so everyone would rather step out on front and define what an ACO is for themselves before someone else defines what it is for them. You've got hospitals scrambling to reach out into the community by employing PCP's "upstream" because specialty care and hospital care will be viewed as a cost-center with cost savings to be made and shared in the primary care/preventive care front between PCP's, specialists, and hospitals. Anyways, that's how our hospital executives drew out what their strategy is going forward. I'm not surprised that private practicing physicians are feeling the pressure and talking off topic! Really? Private practice is having a resurgence? Quite the opposite. What out-of-touch academic fool came up with that topic? Expect private practice to stall/contract in the next couple of years and expect PCP docs to "hide out" in employed setting (where salary streams are more stable/predictable) for a while until the political economic environment for health care settles down.

That's one. Two, your talk is an epic fail because the audience is 3-7 years away from being exposed to economic risk. For the time being, med student's only economic exposure is inflation (price of books and beer) and interest rates (student loans). You don't have to worry about salary volatility. So of course, the talk isn't going to resonate.

But! Good for you for going to the talk. I hope you paid attention. Because in 3-7 years when you graduate from residency the current hoopla would have settle down either as a success or failure. *That's* when you can count on the private practice resurgence: when entrepeneurial doctors capitalize on where these huge conglomerate hospital systems fail. Now is not the right time for private practice, but in 3-7 years, I bet you it will be.

Health care like technology, retail, and manufacturing (though not as fickle or volatile) goes through business cycles and generally that's every 5-10 years. Now is an EXCITING time to be a med student interested in primary care because it can't get worse. Now, it's all about looking for opportunity. So, take all the b!tching as an opportunity to think about how you can improve it for yourself.
 
First, I'd like to point out all this "how can we talk medical students into going into primary care" only makes primary care look bad. Orthopedic surgeons don't worry about how to convince medical students to go into their specialty. And there is nothing wrong with primary care - primary care is extremely important for individuals and for society - and this sort of dialogue only serves to artificially cheapen the profession.

I'll say what doesn't work... trying to trick medical students into going into primary care by exposing them only to primary care in their first couple years of medical school, attempting to make medical students feel guilty about wanting to pursue something other than primary care, and attempting to limit medical student access to learning opportunities (early in their education) to different specialties. All these sorts of strategies will do is make medical students resentful and, WRONGLY I must point out, similarly resentful of primary care. A medical school that adopts these strategies inadvertently demonizes primary care. I won't mention by name any particular med schools that do this, but I know of at least one...

The simple fact of the matter is that there is a "primary care crisis" not because too many people are in subspecialties, but because there are simply too few physicians to keep up with demand, and this is felt first at the primary care level -- increase the number of primary care physicians, and a "subspecialist crisis" will surely ensue; moreover, politicians and politican-influenced mass media fool themsleves - and some of us - into thinking that increasing the ranks of primary care physicians will fix many of our healthcare problems, simply because it's cheaper (sad to say... primary care physicians should get paid a lot more for what they do).

More importantly, medical students, like other human beings (we are human beings with our own free wills, by the way... all philosophical debates about free will aside for now), are motivated by what motivates them. Yes, some of us may be motivated by money. But I dare say those people are stupid, or at least foolish. As much work as is put into medical school and residency, put that work into another profession and you'll likely be making more (yes, that holds true even before Obamacare). Personally, I am motivated by my intellectual curiosity on the human body and what can go wrong with it and, just as much, what can be done to fix it. There are certain parts of the body I am more interested in than others (though all are obviously fascinating), and some ways of fixing problems I find more compelling than others. Primary care, as important as it is, and as much respect as I have for primary care physicians (believe me, it is extensive), does not fulfill me in this department.

Frankly, part of what helped me come to this conclusion is that my medical school has provided ample opportunity (in the form of mandatory classes) to be exposed to primary care on a weekly basis, whereas exposure to subspecialty areas must be pursued on one's own. In all this time spent in the primary care course, one thing became abundantly clear: whenever something interesting (what in my personal opinion was interesting) happened, the patient was referred. I wanted more than anything to be on that side of the referral whenever this happened, and more so for some cases (ie, those involving the organ systems I find most interesting) than others.

I didn't do premed in college, so i had to take off some time - a year of my life - post graduation to fulfill those academic requirements. I also spent years post college doing other things, either working or doing volunteer work to ensure that I really wanted to go into medicine. I didn't give up those years of my life to go into primary care; I am not going through the stress, hazing, and occasional tedium of medical school to go into primary care; not because the talking heads tell me "that's where there is the most need," not because my medical school is trying to trick me into it by enhancing access to it on the one hand and limiting access to it on the other. I gave up those years to pursue something I would find emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually gratifying. For me, that simply is not primary care. For some others out there, it is.

I am who I am, and I'm sick of this monologue on how to convince medical students - people - to do something they may not want to do, or to get them to go into something they might regret later. Whether plastic surgery, cardiology, or primary care, we should ultimately be able to chose, and be given the tools during medical school to make a wise decision (that's partly what we're paying for, isn't it?) -- because that is what will make the most content, the most dedicated, and the most enthusiastic physicians, and which will therefore, in turn, ultimately make the best possible healthcare system.

In short, my sense is that there is no legitimate way to convince medical students into going into primary care. Either they are interested in the first place, and this interest should be nurtured, or they're not, and attempts to convince them will either be unsuccessful and breed resentment or, worse, trick them into a life they later regret. Further, increasing the number of primary care physicians will serve squat without an increase in physicians of all specialties. It's time to stop this one dimensional way of looking at healthcare; it is at best non-productive, in reality it is counterproductive, and along the way it hurts medical students -- ie, future doctors.
 
Also, forgot to mention... to respond to the first couple posts in this thread...

Reducing the pay of subspecialists to try to convince people to go into primary care?

This will just mean even fewer bright college students wanting to go to medical school. As it is, many bright students who might have gone into medicine are lost to Wallstreet and other far more lucrative areas simply because medicine -- in any field -- pays relatively little compared to the amount of work, time, and upfront expense put into it. You wanna get rid of doctors, go ahead and pay them less, Obama...

Best way to get more people to go into primary care is to simply create (ie, admit) more medical students (part of this will be starting up new medical schools). This will increase the number of both primary care providers and subspecialists, both of whom are needed.
 
Also, forgot to mention... to respond to the first couple posts in this thread...

Reducing the pay of subspecialists to try to convince people to go into primary care?

This will just mean even fewer bright college students wanting to go to medical school. As it is, many bright students who might have gone into medicine are lost to Wallstreet and other far more lucrative areas simply because medicine -- in any field -- pays relatively little compared to the amount of work, time, and upfront expense put into it. You wanna get rid of doctors, go ahead and pay them less, Obama...

Best way to get more people to go into primary care is to simply create (ie, admit) more medical students (part of this will be starting up new medical schools). This will increase the number of both primary care providers and subspecialists, both of whom are needed.

I think you misunderstood the idea behind the thread. We're not advocating coercing med students into the field. Its all about marketing FM so we can show y'all exactly what the job entails. I remember what my 3rd year Family rotation was like, and that's not at all like what I'm doing now. My patients have more diverse problems (less than half of my office visits involve only chronic disease management). I refer very infrequently, and then usually only to a specialist because my patient needs something I can't do (surgery, nerve conduction studies, cath).

I think it students spend time at a good practice outside of the med school, we'd see more people interesting in FM. I spent 2 weeks with a private office in the suburbs around my medical school location and fell in love then and there. It was well run, interesting patients, decent amounts of procedures, and not all that much chronic disease work compared to the FM office associated with the medical school.
 
...Its all about marketing FM so we can show y'all exactly what the job entails...

I think it students spend time at a good practice outside of the med school, we'd see more people interesting in FM...
I agree with VA H. The thread could be titled, "How can we accurately inform students of career opportunities"... But, I don't think the title is as important as the content.

I think last I checked the drop rate from general surgery was upwards of 20%. I know too many folks that drop from OB/Gyn, GSurgery, etc... enter primary care and are uber fulfilled by this. While I think their education from the dropped specialty is beneficial, in general, such a drop-out rate represents significant waste.

I think it speaks to both the individual residents maturity and self-awareness and a failure at the medical school level to adequately inform medical students. If medical students are not chased away from particular specialties (I think the "talk" described above can, IMHO, be described as a discouragement effort), we may see better initial choices and improved "matches". Ideally, we would have students matching into not just a program but a career to which they are best suited, intellectually, etc... We obviously do not want to try to force square pegs into round holes or round pegs into square holes. That is why demonization and classwarfare approaches will continue to be counterproductive.

Students need honest information to make informed decisions and choices. They then need to understand some basic finances and what kind of compensation they can reasonably expect for their labors. But, this information needs to be given in context. They need to understand the practice (disease/pathology/populations) of the specialty and what is entailed (length of training/hours/call/etc...). Again, I know too many fulfilled primary care physicians that thought they needed 250-300k/yr and initially chose GSurgery... only to discover the hours, etc... were not "worth it" and discovered the hours of primary care were very much worth it and they actually enjoyed their labor.
 
Last edited:
Orthopedic surgeons don't worry about how to convince medical students to go into their specialty.

Really? Well, I can't tell if orthopedic surgeons are really concerned about the lost of the "best and brightest" or if they're simply concerned about a lost in revenue. I'll willing to bet it's a little of both, but it goes without saying that recruiting and money tend to go hand in hand.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/588854

"The shortage of hip and knee surgeons reflects the economic disincentives for performing total joint replacements," Dr. Fehring said. "Reimbursement by Medicare for these procedures has fallen significantly in recent years. As a result, most young bright orthopaedic surgeons are shying away from joint replacements, and are instead going into more lucrative specialties, such as sports medicine and spinal surgeries."

Although solutions may not be easy, they are crucial to maintaining patient access to orthopaedic healthcare, Dr. Robb added. "We need to find more ways to attract bright young surgeons as fellows in hip and knee orthopaedics, as well as creating educational opportunities for orthopaedic surgeons to perform total joint replacements."

I think all of us read from the same playbook.
 
Last edited:
That is why demonization and classwarfare approaches will continue to be counterproductive.

Just to follow up on this point, I thought this article done by the military was interesting.

http://www.stfm.org/fmhub/fm2010/June/Mark388.pdf

The prevalence of professional badmouthing of primary care specialties was 87% by non-primary care residents and 75% by primary care residents. Slightly fewer attending physicians engaged in badmouthing of primary care (78% by non-primary care and 62% by primary care). Nearly 20% of medical students reported that exposure to non-professional criticism impacted their choice of specialty. Primary care, general surgery, and obstetrics-gynecology were the most common victims of professional badmouthing.

The... good news is: Despite the 62%-87% trashtalkers, it just so happens that 80% of the medical students surveyed didn't give a crap about what anything anyone had to say and did whatever the hell they wanted to do anyways. *neck swing*
 
I'll say what doesn't work... trying to trick medical students into going into primary care by exposing them only to primary care in their first couple years of medical school, attempting to make medical students feel guilty about wanting to pursue something other than primary care, and attempting to limit medical student access to learning opportunities (early in their education) to different specialties. All these sorts of strategies will do is make medical students resentful and, WRONGLY I must point out, similarly resentful of primary care. A medical school that adopts these strategies inadvertently demonizes primary care. I won't mention by name any particular med schools that do this, but I know of at least one...

Well, I can't speak for you or others, but I don't think anyone is trying to "trick" you into primary care (although this seems to be a recurring complaint amongst DO students I've come into contact with for whatever reason).

I will say, however, not as an excuse but as an explanation, that medical schools view family physicians (and other primary care doctors) as an economically efficient way of teaching 1st and 2nd year medical students because of the breadth of knowledge they have. It's easier for the curriculum committee to coordinate educational activities with 1 academic primary care doc to teach 5 topics than it is to engage 5 specialists to teach 5 topics.

Along the lines of economic efficiency, some specialists are "money makers" within academic institutions that to remove them from what they do to get medical students exposure would be economically inefficient. Put it this way, a neurosurgeon did not teach me as a 1st/2nd year medical student on how to do a neuro exam.

Also, realize that primary care research, particularly family medicine, just isn't there. So, for many family doctors in academia, teaching & patient care is what they do so don't be surprised if you're over-exposed.

I don't even bother asking if I have a 3rd year medical student rotating with me is interested in family medicine... I used to, but not anymore. First of all, everybody lies like a dog-face thinking it will get them a higher grade (Hell, people lie about wanting to go into FM just so they can get *into* medical school. See this article: http://www.stfm.org/fmhub/fm2010/July/Gerald464.pdf). Second of all, medical students don't know what they're interested in, so it's an irrelevant question to ask. Third and most important of all, it doesn't matter what specialty you want to go into because if you don't learn family medicine while you're on the family medicine clerkship or if you act like you're not interested and don't perform, you're going to fail the rotation and say bye-bye to your AOA standing and ROADS career. So, I don't even bother with that needless chit-chat of trying to convince a 3rd year in going to FM only to be disappointed when they say they're not interested.

Instead, what seems to work is pushing the medical student to learn more and more medicine the way I see it with the cases we see together and challenging them to think and do things that are outside of their comfort zone. I've had a few who've changed their minds about family med simply by being challenged.
 
This will just mean even fewer bright college students wanting to go to medical school. As it is, many bright students who might have gone into medicine are lost to Wallstreet and other far more lucrative areas simply because medicine -- in any field -- pays relatively little compared to the amount of work, time, and upfront expense put into it. You wanna get rid of doctors, go ahead and pay them less, Obama...
Even fewer college students wanting to go into medicine? Are you suggesting that medical school competitiveness has gotten less intense over the years? I assure you that it hasn't. And if anything, it has gotten more competitive given the downturn in the economy.
But more importantly, Wall Street isn't a threat to steal enough students away from medicine to "get rid of doctors" or even dilute the talent pool enough to be noticeable. The number of high paying jobs in business are few, and the vast majority of medical students never had a chance to land one. In fact, the majority couldn't even get an interview.
I personally believe that even if all doctors made $200k - 250k, there would still be more than enough qualified applicants where medical care wouldn't show any statistically significant decreases in quality.
 
I'm not so sure...they let me in after all. I definitely should not be allowed to do the things I do, I'm not that smart.

Seriously, all self-deprecating aside, I actually do think the quality of applicants has declined slightly while the number has gone up. I know scores have also increased, but i think this is a result of students being smarter about the tests and the proliferation of study materials, than the actual intelligence of the students. Regardless, I'd bet money that there would be a decline if salaries dropped to the sub-125k range.
 
...The... good news is: Despite the 62%-87% trashtalkers, it just so happens that 80% of the medical students surveyed didn't give a crap about what anything anyone had to say and did whatever the hell they wanted to do anyways...
That may be true. However, the important thing is to assure they are accurately informed so the choice they make is properly aligned in reality. This can help avoid/decrease significant drop rates from training programs and help improve satisfaction/fulfillment with "chosen" field of specialization.

But, as I have stated on numerous occassions, IMHO, there is a significant crisis in the marketing approach. I dare say the overall image portrayed is negative and discouraging. This is especially damaging if much of that is coming directly from the primary care physicians themselves... as numerous medical students have perceived and you have presented:
The prevalence of professional badmouthing of primary care specialties was ...75% by primary care residents. ...attending physicians engaged in badmouthing of primary care (78% by non-primary care and 62% by primary care). Nearly 20% of medical students reported that exposure to non-professional criticism impacted their choice of specialty.
 
I'm not so sure...they let me in after all. I definitely should not be allowed to do the things I do, I'm not that smart.

Seriously, all self-deprecating aside, I actually do think the quality of applicants has declined slightly while the number has gone up. I know scores have also increased, but i think this is a result of students being smarter about the tests and the proliferation of study materials, than the actual intelligence of the students. Regardless, I'd bet money that there would be a decline if salaries dropped to the sub-125k range.

I don't know how you can state objectively that the quality of medical students have gone down, under the pretense that scores have gone up. I understand that there are better resources nowadays for standardized tests, but as far as I understand, the MCAT is curved. And even if it isn't completely curved, the increase in scores would be a universal phenomenon, as every student would have access to study materials. And given that medical schools admit students based on relative scores and not absolute ones, I don't see how that would affect the quality of matriculants.
But even if what I'm saying is wrong, how are you supporting your claim that applicants quality is decreasing? What criteria are you using? Please don't tell me anecdotal stories based on your assessment of a very limited sample size.

And I don't think reimbursements would be cut to a point where the average doctor makes 125k, which is appropriate for mid-level talent. The point at hand was that should the highly reimbursed specialties receive a pay cut (from 350k+ down to 250k+), it wouldn't affect applicant quality to any statistically significant scale.
 
I'm not so sure...they let me in after all. I definitely should not be allowed to do the things I do, I'm not that smart.

Seriously, all self-deprecating aside, I actually do think the quality of applicants has declined slightly while the number has gone up. I know scores have also increased, but i think this is a result of students being smarter about the tests and the proliferation of study materials, than the actual intelligence of the students. Regardless, I'd bet money that there would be a decline if salaries dropped to the sub-125k range.

:thumbup:
I don't know how you can state objectively that the quality of medical students have gone down, under the pretense that scores have gone up. I understand that there are better resources nowadays for standardized tests, but as far as I understand, the MCAT is curved. And even if it isn't completely curved, the increase in scores would be a universal phenomenon, as every student would have access to study materials. And given that medical schools admit students based on relative scores and not absolute ones, I don't see how that would affect the quality of matriculants.
But even if what I'm saying is wrong, how are you supporting your claim that applicants quality is decreasing? What criteria are you using? Please don't tell me anecdotal stories based on your assessment of a very limited sample size.

And I don't think reimbursements would be cut to a point where the average doctor makes 125k, which is appropriate for mid-level talent. The point at hand was that should the highly reimbursed specialties receive a pay cut (from 350k+ down to 250k+), it wouldn't affect applicant quality to any statistically significant scale.

While you do hint around it in the post above, grade inflation and standardized score creep are two real processes that have been well documented across the entire academic spectrum for decades. Some of this is related to the nature of the tests while some is undoubtedly related to the nature of the curve itself when applied to a larger pool of hopefuls.

Don't be one of those who argue solely on the "empirical quality of the data presented". This argument has been used time and again to the point of absurdity whereby no data is sufficient if the implications suggested are not those desired.... and while there is some truth to the statement "the plural of anecdote is not data", "data" is, by composition, nothing more than the compilation of anecdotal data points.....

If you desire to be an empirical purist as above, you must then be resigned to accept the fact you have absolutely no way to validate your final paragraph; in fact, if only one person says it would influence them (and that one would be me), the opposing position would have a better strength of data than would yourself.

But most importantly -- as I have yet to hear this addressed in a satisfactory way by anyone making such claims -- by what mechanism would you lower these fat cat specialists' incomes while providing a floor? I somehow believe that a significant reason for the incomplete nature of the argument is in no small part related to an incomplete command of the actual practice of physician compensation....
 
:thumbup:


While you do hint around it in the post above, grade inflation and standardized score creep are two real processes that have been well documented across the entire academic spectrum for decades. Some of this is related to the nature of the tests while some is undoubtedly related to the nature of the curve itself when applied to a larger pool of hopefuls.

Don't be one of those who argue solely on the "empirical quality of the data presented". This argument has been used time and again to the point of absurdity whereby no data is sufficient if the implications suggested are not those desired.... and while there is some truth to the statement "the plural of anecdote is not data", "data" is, by composition, nothing more than the compilation of anecdotal data points.....

If you desire to be an empirical purist as above, you must then be resigned to accept the fact you have absolutely no way to validate your final paragraph; in fact, if only one person says it would influence them (and that one would be me), the opposing position would have a better strength of data than would yourself.

But most importantly -- as I have yet to hear this addressed in a satisfactory way by anyone making such claims -- by what mechanism would you lower these fat cat specialists' incomes while providing a floor? I somehow believe that a significant reason for the incomplete nature of the argument is in no small part related to an incomplete command of the actual practice of physician compensation....

I didn't mean to sound like an empirical purist, because that really wasn't my intention. I simply wanted to understand how he came to the conclusion that applicant quality has diminished in the recent past, as it's a statement I disagree with. I've been on the admissions committee at my institution for the past few years, and I haven't noticed any change in applicant quality at all. In fact, if I had to make a comparison, I would say that the number of highly qualified individuals has gone up. This is, of course, just my personal experience and is anecdotal in nature, as there can be innumerable confounding factors contributing to my observations. And anecdotal evidence, especially in the context of internet forums, usually lead to nothing more than exchanges of personal accounts. And while it's true that data is nothing more than a collection of anecdotes, it's not the nature of the data point itself that's important, but the consistency of its collection and the power of the study.
I understand entirely that what I said in the last paragraph cannot be substantiated. It's nothing more than my prediction of an outcome based on hypothetical parameters. There can be no data or evidence. I have made this clear in my other posts on the subject, and should probably have included a disclaimer in my previous post.
 
I don't know how you can state objectively that the quality of medical students have gone down, under the pretense that scores have gone up. I understand that there are better resources nowadays for standardized tests, but as far as I understand, the MCAT is curved. And even if it isn't completely curved, the increase in scores would be a universal phenomenon, as every student would have access to study materials. And given that medical schools admit students based on relative scores and not absolute ones, I don't see how that would affect the quality of matriculants.
But even if what I'm saying is wrong, how are you supporting your claim that applicants quality is decreasing? What criteria are you using? Please don't tell me anecdotal stories based on your assessment of a very limited sample size.

And I don't think reimbursements would be cut to a point where the average doctor makes 125k, which is appropriate for mid-level talent. The point at hand was that should the highly reimbursed specialties receive a pay cut (from 350k+ down to 250k+), it wouldn't affect applicant quality to any statistically significant scale.

I never said I was being objective! :)

Seriously though, although I don't have proof, I know of quite a few people who choose to NOT go to med school due to the arduous path and the declining salaries (with little hope on sight). Obviously, you're not seeing the applicants who don't apply...I can tell you they were all quite a bit brighter than I.

Again, I think objectively, the applicants are fine. I'm sure they all have mcats over 30 and GPAs over 3.8. This doesn't mean they're the best and the brightest. It simply means they knew how to take tests and get grades.

All I know is that I've seen some of the people who have decided against medical school, and we could've used them.
 
I never said I was being objective! :)

Seriously though, although I don't have proof, I know of quite a few people who choose to NOT go to med school due to the arduous path and the declining salaries (with little hope on sight). Obviously, you're not seeing the applicants who don't apply...I can tell you they were all quite a bit brighter than I.

Again, I think objectively, the applicants are fine. I'm sure they all have mcats over 30 and GPAs over 3.8. This doesn't mean they're the best and the brightest. It simply means they knew how to take tests and get grades.

All I know is that I've seen some of the people who have decided against medical school, and we could've used them.

The path hasn't gotten any more arduous in recent years (I'd say its gotten easier, with the new work hour rules and whatnot). So, if the potential for declining salaries was enough to keep them out then I think its for the best. Money is great, but if that's the only reason you want to do medicine you're very likely to be unhappy with the work.
 
This is especially damaging if much of that is coming directly from the primary care physicians themselves... as numerous medical students have perceived and you have presented:

I don't think it's "damaging". No job is without its complaints. Med students deserve to hear pros and cons and make their own decision. Anyone who paints their job as utopia is a liar. If anyone should be complaining about primary care, it should be primary care physicians. When other specialties try to trash talk without any inside knowledge, I'm not surprised people get defensive.

I don't think med students are that dumb to listen to everything everyone says. I trust that they have the common sense to take heed of what is fact, what is opinion, what is speculation, and what is reality.

Primary care's not a cult, although the FMIG at my med school sure acted like one. The more I explored specialty medicine, the more I was affirmed that general medicine was right for me. I imagine the converse is true for others.

Whatever, do well in school and you have the luxury to pick whatever the hell you want to do with your life. What's so hard about that?
 
Last edited:
I didn't mean to sound like an empirical purist, because that really wasn't my intention. I simply wanted to understand how he came to the conclusion that applicant quality has diminished in the recent past, as it's a statement I disagree with. I've been on the admissions committee at my institution for the past few years, and I haven't noticed any change in applicant quality at all. In fact, if I had to make a comparison, I would say that the number of highly qualified individuals has gone up. This is, of course, just my personal experience and is anecdotal in nature, as there can be innumerable confounding factors contributing to my observations. And anecdotal evidence, especially in the context of internet forums, usually lead to nothing more than exchanges of personal accounts. And while it's true that data is nothing more than a collection of anecdotes, it's not the nature of the data point itself that's important, but the consistency of its collection and the power of the study.
I understand entirely that what I said in the last paragraph cannot be substantiated. It's nothing more than my prediction of an outcome based on hypothetical parameters. There can be no data or evidence. I have made this clear in my other posts on the subject, and should probably have included a disclaimer in my previous post.

:)

As you pointed out above -- medical school applications -- both in number and quality -- tend to fluctuate predictably against the greater economic backdrop. In downturns where the alternative options are deemed either less secure or less likely, medicine benefits. When times are good fewer wish to commit to such an expensive commitment (both in terms of time and money). It is also predictable that healthcare reform efforts will dampen the enthusiasm, if not the absolute numbers, once its effects have had the time necessary to work their way through reality and into perception. Even if the academic caliber of the applicants do not appreciably decline, certain characteristics (that I view as favorable) likely will; I believe that those who desire autonomy and independence will be less encouraged to enter into medicine, while those who are more of the mind of the employee will find it more enticing. Who knows, that may be a good thing. I don't think so, but it would not be the first time I was wrong....
 
Im an MS II interested in Family Medicine.

The best way to get someone like me interested in Family Medicine is to see it well practiced, in a fulfilling way. Ironically enough, while my medical school has only exposed me to specialists (while the decline of family medicine is bemoaned in our ethics classes) it was my decision to pursue an externship in family med that really opened my eyes to how great of a specialty it can be.

Medical Students, especially the younger ones, seem very sensitive to prestige and the seeming superiority of the big shot specialist that landed the premium residency. As an older non-trad, I know that when all is said and done, the only respect that matters is self-respect and the support of my family. I had that with my previous career so I really just feel compelled to find something that works for me. Doing family med will give me an opportunity to create a practice that allows me to be a responsible earner, while being there for my family. That's all that matters to me.

As for the specifics of family med, I am just one of those people obsessed with prevention and solving problems before they start. I find it more fulfilling to prevent diabetes than to chop someone's necrotic foot or reroute their vasculature. Sending a bunch of aging ladies to a water aerobics class is more interesting to me than operating on their spines. That's just how my mind works.
 
I am a 4th year medical student and I thought I have a great application but i've been rejected by over half the places I applied to (admittedly all in california). San Diego sent me an email saying they had 560 applicants this year for their dozen or so spots! Clearly there are lots of qualified people out there, but we haven't increased the residency spots to reflect supply/demand. The buzz I've heard from my peers is generally optimistic about family medicine's future in the new health care era and I think applicantion numbers reflect that. But now that people wanna do it... what do we do with them all?? It'll take years to increase residency funding for positions dramatically but I think that's where the biggest bottleneck is now.

See you in two days UCDavis :)
 
The buzz I've heard from my peers is generally optimistic about family medicine's future in the new health care era and I think applicantion numbers reflect that. But now that people wanna do it... what do we do with them all?? It'll take years to increase residency funding for positions dramatically but I think that's where the biggest bottleneck is now.

We're working on it. :)
 
I feel I do have to post this from a recent discussion with another specialty chairman.

Talk around the higher ups have said this is the first year that US applicants going through the match have equalled the number of residency slots. Can anyone put some rumor control on it (i.e. confirm whether this is true?)
 
Talk around the higher ups have said this is the first year that US applicants going through the match have equalled the number of residency slots. Can anyone put some rumor control on it (i.e. confirm whether this is true?)

Seems unlikely.

There were roughly 19,000 US applicants in last year's match, and nearly 23,000 first-year positions offered (plus another 2,700 second-year positions).

That's a pretty big gap to close in a single year.

Source: http://www.nrmp.org/data/2010pressrelease.pdf
 
Im an MS II interested in Family Medicine.

The best way to get someone like me interested in Family Medicine is to see it well practiced, in a fulfilling way. Ironically enough, while my medical school has only exposed me to specialists (while the decline of family medicine is bemoaned in our ethics classes) it was my decision to pursue an externship in family med that really opened my eyes to how great of a specialty it can be.

Medical Students, especially the younger ones, seem very sensitive to prestige and the seeming superiority of the big shot specialist that landed the premium residency.


As an extension on this, I was half-joking with someone today (after a case presentation) about how every time we have a case to go over in class it inevitably starts out with a sentence about how the primary doc screwed something up or made a misdiagnosis, etc.
 
As an extension on this, I was half-joking with someone today (after a case presentation) about how every time we have a case to go over in class it inevitably starts out with a sentence about how the primary doc screwed something up or made a misdiagnosis, etc.

It's almost always easier to be right when you're the second (or third, fourth, etc.) person seeing the patient... :rolleyes:
 
It's almost always easier to be right when you're the second (or third, fourth, etc.) person seeing the patient... :rolleyes:

No joke. Not really exciting to do a case presentation if the case was solved on the first go around.

That said, and BD chime in if you'd like, in the real world, you'll have plenty of cases where family medicine might be the 4th person seeing a patient after they've bounced around the health care system and gets the case right.

Honestly, it's nothing really to brag about. It's called: Doing your job...
 
Top