Nurses making more than residents?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
My 401k + backdoor Roth situation + what I pay for health insurance alone is nearly 55k

I guess "good" insurance is a need not a want.

Damnit. *falsifies income, applies for cheap insurance via the exchange, storms off in a huff*
You get benefits as a resident. And you can't afford to max out your 401k/Roth until you're an attending, that's just a given. It's a temporary situation though- we're not saying 55k is ideal forever. And we're also talking about largely dual income households- 55k isn't enough on its own if you have a family and massive debt. As a temporary, short-term situation, however, it's not that bad is all I'm saying.

Members don't see this ad.
 
My mother keeps telling me that I need to be more mindful of other people's backgrounds and needs and wants and opinions, so ill stop complaining.
 
The residency programs didn't give us that debt, nor did they take away our interest subsidies. Regardless, PAYE can make the payments manageable.

I know it sounds completely unfathomable to you, but there's plenty of nurses, police officers, teachers, etc, that manage to have children, a life, other interests, hobbies, and retirement contributions on 55k a year, particularly if they've got a partner that is earning similar to them. Yeah, it sucks that you can't really start doing the things you'd like to do until residency is over, but that's life. Yeah, the debt sucks. Sure, things could be better. But this is what we signed up for, and honestly, it could be a lot worse.

Because I'm saying it's all relative. Relative to most everyone else, we don't have it all that bad.

We also are smarter, learn more, invest more time and have more responsibility than everyone else. Still not seeing why anyone else is relevant.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
We also are smarter, learn more, invest more time and have more responsibility than everyone else. Still not seeing why anyone else is relevant.
And we've got it better than all of them. Soooo... Yeah, still relevant, because we're still winning, and relative to everything, I'd still say we come out ahead.
 
Hello, it's me
I was wondering if after all these years you'd like to meet
To go over everything... in the TERMS OF SERVICE.

Let's stop degrading each other. That's not necessary in discussion/debate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 13 users
Hello, it's me
I was wondering if after all these years you'd like to meet
To go over everything... in the TERMS OF SERVICE.

Let's stop degrading each other. That's not necessary in discussion/debate.
Maybe I've just become jaded by the SPF forum, but I thought this was all really civil.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Maybe I've just become jaded by the SPF forum, but I thought this was all really civil.
The time stamp of my post does not reflect on the most current postings of the threads. It should be viewed in a general sense and not taken as directed as a causal post to what was most recently posted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Hello, it's me
I was wondering if after all these years you'd like to meet
To go over everything... in the TERMS OF SERVICE.
I just sang this with your new lyrics with music video playing in background. Totally worth it. Come up with more!
 
Also, please name other areas in which people make more than us for postgraduate training? Dentists, for example, have to pay for most of their competitive residencies. They
aren't getting a salary, they've got tuition. Many other fields offer minimal compensation or none at all. Physicians used to only be given room and board and were expected to work 120 hours per week for free.

The only thing I really wish we got was subsidized loan interest during training. Other than that, the pay and benefits are relatively competitive with many other fields that undergo postgraduate training.
Why do you keep comparing medicine to dentistry? They're not us, and we're not them. Residency is 100% optional for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
And we've got it better than all of them. Soooo... Yeah, still relevant, because we're still winning, and relative to everything, I'd still say we come out ahead.
Orthodontics residency is a privilege, not a right coming from dental school. The amount of money you make will be tremendous being an orthodontist, hence the tuition. Using that as an example doesn't really prove your point.
 
Why do you keep comparing medicine to dentistry? They're not us, and we're not them. Residency is 100% optional for them.
Closest thing I've got is the other 4-year professional programs for comparison. We could do physicians from other countries, which also tend to have poorly paid residencies and internships, just as the United States does- that would be a much more direct comparison.

The big problem we have that they don't is debt, but that debt is not the fault of the residency programs, just as your debt is not the fault of any employer/postgraduate training institution in any other field. If anything, we should be trying to tackle medical student debt, not medical resident pay.
 
Orthodontics residency is a privilege, not a right coming from dental school. The amount of money you make will be tremendous being an orthodontist, hence the tuition. Using that as an example doesn't really prove your point.
The same could be said of many specialist fellowships- they increase your income and are not necessary to practice. Why shouldn't fellowships charge tuition?

(I don't actually believe they should, obviously. But, keep in mind, there have been ideas tossed around in the past that would propose erasing medical debt by charging specialists and those undergoing fellowships tuition. I much prefer our current system that is far more flexible.)
 
The same could be said of many specialist fellowships- they increase your income and are not necessary to practice. Why shouldn't fellowships charge tuition?

Because at that point, as a medical fellow, I believe you are providing benefits to the hospital that equal or even exceed your salary -especially as many fellows are licensed in X specialty or sub-specialty. The difference with dentistry is that I believe the government does not subsidize these programs, hence why the resident/fellow has to pay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
Because at that point, as a medical fellow, I believe you are providing benefits to the hospital that equal or even exceed your salary -especially as many fellows are licensed in X specialty or sub-specialty. The difference with dentistry is that I believe the government does not subsidize these programs, hence why the resident/fellow has to pay.
Why should a service that makes money for the hospital be subsidized at all? The government could easily argue "oh, if you're making all this extra money, instead of paying them more, we'll just subsidize you less and you can keep paying them the same amount."
 
Nurses are incredibly underpaid and underappreciated for the crap they put up with, at least in the ER.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Why should a service that makes money for the hospital be subsidized at all? The government could easily argue "oh, if you're making all this extra money, instead of paying them more, we'll just subsidize you less and you can keep paying them the same amount."
You mean as far as the government subsidizing fellowships? I can honestly say I'm not an expert on how much the government subsidizes those programs, but I do know it is much less than residency programs, probably because a fellow is less of a drain than a resident. And I think the point you make is what a lot of people are saying right now- the argument that indirect GME payments to hospitals are too high- be they for residents or fellows.

EDIT: I did some research, and it appears as though fellowships don't collect dGME or idGME money unless the fellow is doing something outside of their field/certification, because at that point, they are considered an attending. This only goes for ACGME approved fellowships; non-approved fellowships can not collect dGME or idGME costs. Correct me if I have any of that wrong.
 
Last edited:
You mean as far as the government subsidizing fellowships? I can honestly say I'm not an expert on how much the government subsidizes those programs, but I do know it is much less than residency programs, probably because a fellow is less of a drain than a resident. And I think the point you make is what a lot of people are saying right now- the argument that indirect GME payments to hospitals are too high- be they for residents or fellows.
The only reason programs make any money off of residents is subsidies, basically. So, realistically, rather than a wage increase what should happen from a policy perspective is a subsidy cut. I don't want that, nor do any of us, but demanding higher wages is something I really feel will not serve us well from a policy perspective due to the subsidies the government gives us. They've been calling for cuts for years- imagine what they'd do if resident pay suddenly climbed up. The politicians would get all up-in-arms and say that, if they can afford to pay us more, obviously they can subsidize less, and we'd be right back to square one but with less funding than we started with.
 
The only reason programs make any money off of residents is subsidies, basically. So, realistically, rather than a wage increase what should happen from a policy perspective is a subsidy cut. I don't want that, nor do any of us, but demanding higher wages is something I really feel will not serve us well from a policy perspective due to the subsidies the government gives us. They've been calling for cuts for years- imagine what they'd do if resident pay suddenly climbed up. The politicians would get all up-in-arms and say that, if they can afford to pay us more, obviously they can subsidize less, and we'd be right back to square one but with less funding than we started with.
I totally agree with you that a subsidy cut is what is in order rather than a wage increase, should subsidies actually be too high, which many people say they are. I don't really think higher wages are in order; sorry if it looked like I was arguing that. I was simply trying to make the point that fellows shouldn't have to pay tuition and MAY be underpaid in some cirucumstances- bearing in mind there is a lot of difference between a resident and a fellow.

However, I would also argue that hospitals can and do make money off of residency programs other than subsides, or so I have been told/read. Since the government reimburses hospitals for direct costs/salary to the tune of 45-55k per year and indirect costs to the tune of 75k-150k per year, no hospital actually loses money on a program. In fact, most of them end up making money, because they can saddle residents with the work of other staff and thusly avoid having to hire scribes, nurses, PAs, NPs, other attendings, etc. So in that sense, more residents=less staff=more money in the hospital's pocket. This kind of gets down more to hours than pay though, as I think there should be tighter regulation on what hospitals can require residents to do on the government's dollar.

I also hear that after PGY-2 at most programs, residents can contribute more than they take away in salary as far as what they are allowed to do and how much guidance they actually need from attendings; then again, this gets down to whether the federal/state government is throwing too much money at GME.

Note: I'm just a lowly med student trying to understand the system before I get there, so by all means, correct me if I have any misconceptions.
 
The big problem we have that they don't is debt, but that debt is not the fault of the residency programs, just as your debt is not the fault of any employer/postgraduate training institution in any other field. If anything, we should be trying to tackle medical student debt, not medical resident pay.
The debt accrued is a direct result of the medical education system as it is now starting from high school. Rand Paul didn't even get an undergrad degree before going to med school at Duke. You can't do that now.
The same could be said of many specialist fellowships- they increase your income and are not necessary to practice. Why shouldn't fellowships charge tuition?

(I don't actually believe they should, obviously. But, keep in mind, there have been ideas tossed around in the past that would propose erasing medical debt by charging specialists and those undergoing fellowships tuition. I much prefer our current system that is far more flexible.)
The major difference being that in dentistry you can start practicing the day after you graduate without any postgraduate training required. Getting OMFS, Orthodontics, Prosthodontics residencies are only extra icing, many of them only 1-2 years. Dental school's job from day 1 is to prepare you to be a general dentist after 4 years at the very least. Medical school at the end of 4 years gives you an expensive piece of paper on graduation only, in the eyes of state license boards. You're locked into postgraduate training if you want to practice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The debt accrued is a direct result of the medical education system as it is now starting from high school. Rand Paul didn't even get an undergrad degree before going to med school at Duke. You can't do that now.

The major difference being that in dentistry you can start practicing the day after you graduate without any postgraduate training required. Getting OMFS, Orthodontics, Prosthodontics residencies are only extra icing, many of them only 1-2 years. Dental school's job from day 1 is to prepare you to be a general dentist after 4 years at the very least. Medical school at the end of 4 years gives you an expensive piece of paper on graduation only, in the eyes of state license boards. You're locked into postgraduate training if you want to practice.
But many of our complaints aren't rooted in postgraduate training issues- they're rooted in the way we both execute and finance undergraduate medical education. Blaming residencies for not paying enough when the training we're getting isn't up to par and the system by which we finance our education is ****ed is no way to approach the problem, let alone actually fix it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
What are you getting at with respect to physician mortgages?
I'm a cynic when it comes to mortgages. And this idea seems bad because I honestly think it's going to only add more issues. Especially when med students know very little about buying a house.
I hope it works. But it looks like another "bait and switch" similar to the housing market crash of 2008.
I get that residents want help in terms of housing. But this plan just worries me. It looks like a way to further burden residents when they become doctors.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk
 
The major difference being that in dentistry you can start practicing the day after you graduate without any postgraduate training required. Getting OMFS, Orthodontics, Prosthodontics residencies are only extra icing, many of them only 1-2 years. Dental school's job from day 1 is to prepare you to be a general dentist after 4 years at the very least. Medical school at the end of 4 years gives you an expensive piece of paper on graduation only, in the eyes of state license boards. You're locked into postgraduate training if you want to practice.

That is something I have a major issue with. How is it that dentists are competent after dental school but we believe that all medical students require X amount of years in residency. I honestly believe that although some residencies make sense, others are just a hindrance.

But many of our complaints aren't rooted in postgraduate training issues- they're rooted in the way we both execute and finance undergraduate medical education. Blaming residencies for not paying enough when the training we're getting isn't up to par and the system by which we finance our education is ****ed is no way to approach the problem, let alone actually fix it.

It's rooted in the notion that everyone should do 4 years of med school when fourth year is a waste of time and is better spent moving on. But I dunno. I'm not in a position to make suggestions... because I'm not an admin.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk
 
This is kind of in response the entire discussion on the previous page (I had an epic multi-quote going but decided against it), but every so often someone comes on the allo board or pre-allo boards suggesting some sort of reform because of their opinions that those in medical education are getting "screwed". Abolish the match, end the salary collusion in GME, other "market-based" solutions to perceived problems...

My response every time is "careful what you wish for."

Those in med school tend to overestimate the value of the MD degree, when the reality is it's pretty close to useless on its own. An MD without postgraduate training is less valuable to employers than a PhD in the feminist theory of musical theater in the 20th century (at least the latter could make interesting conversation about their degree). And not just because "You can't get licensed to practice without a residency". Quite simply you don't actually know enough to practice without postgraduate training. An MD only indicates that you've obtained a body of knowledge, not that you have the ability to practically use it.

We've heard complaints from @Docbeme @ElCapone @cbrons that residents should be paid more? But the question then becomes "why?" Hospitals and universities have absolutely no incentive to offer you more than what you're getting. If you truly want a "market-based" employment and recruitment system, don't be surprised when you're caught in a race to the bottom. As a residency applicant, the program holds ALL of the cards. "Paying residents what they're worth" is NOT something that works in the residents' favor.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
That is something I have a major issue with. How is it that dentists are competent after dental school but we believe that all medical students require X amount of years in residency. I honestly believe that although some residencies make sense, others are just a hindrance.



It's rooted in the notion that everyone should do 4 years of med school when fourth year is a waste of time and is better spent moving on. But I dunno. I'm not in a position to make suggestions... because I'm not an admin.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

Because they're just working with teeth and its hard to kill someone pulling teeth.
 
That is something I have a major issue with. How is it that dentists are competent after dental school but we believe that all medical students require X amount of years in residency. I honestly believe that although some residencies make sense, others are just a hindrance.

put bluntly, it's a different field. To think that you could instantly walk out of an LCME med school capable of being a capable GP is quite simply bullsh-t.
It's rooted in the notion that everyone should do 4 years of med school when fourth year is a waste of time and is better spent moving on. But I dunno. I'm not in a position to make suggestions... because I'm not an admin.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

Cutting 4th year is easier said than done. It's not really possible to chop much time off of the interview and match process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
put bluntly, it's a different field. To think that you could instantly walk out of an LCME med school capable of being a capable GP is quite simply bullsh-t.


Cutting 4th year is easier said than done. It's not really possible to chop much time off of the interview and match process.

I know. I'm not trying to be naive. Or saying I'm completely right. I just think there needs to be some focus on alternatives. I don't have a solution that's fool proof (as you guys mentioned). Just that although this isn't a major issue. It should be some concern. Don't just leave these peeps high and dry.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
As far as eliminating fourth year is concerned, the point is accurately made that this would require residency apps to go out in the fall of M3, which defeats the purpose of core rotations/clerkships. But what if you still cut out M4 and had grads train for one year in a paid intern/transitional year type setting after graduating at the end of M3, while applying to residency programs? Any thoughts on this? Because, for me, I don't even care as much about expediting my entry into the residency/career as I do about not taking on the additional debt and being classed as a "student" for an extra year.
 
As far as eliminating fourth year is concerned, the point is accurately made that this would require residency apps to go out in the fall of M3, which defeats the purpose of core rotations/clerkships. But what if you still cut out M4 and had grads train for one year in a paid intern/transitional year type setting after graduating at the end of M3, while applying to residency programs? Any thoughts on this? Because, for me, I don't even care as much about expediting my entry into the residency/career as I do about not taking on the additional debt and being classed as a "student" for an extra year.

who would run the transitional program? Who would fund it? How would students be selected?

My cynical view is that basically you're proposing that institutions pay you for your 4th year.
 
who would run the transitional program? Who would fund it? How would students be selected?

My cynical view is that basically you're proposing that institutions pay you for your 4th year.
I thought about saying government funding like GME, but that's a huge cost I'm not sure Uncle Sam would or should front. This might look like a cop-out response, but, as evidenced by my above comments, I think hospitals are getting too much money out of GME, so an obvious answer is to "redistribute" some of that money. Then again, we're talking about quite a lot of funding. It basically comes down to the question of what you think is more important- leaving more money in the hands of hospitals, or reducing physician student loan debt.

I'm just throwing things out there at this point, because I think it's engaging to brainstorm how the system could be reformed for the better.
 
I agree with some thoughts in this thread, and disagree with others.

There's no reason why overall training can't be shorter. There are plenty of BS/MD programs that are 6 or 7 years long. All medical schools could shift to that model, or could allow people to apply after only 2 years of undergrad. This would make it cheaper, if widely accepted.

Medical school could be three years long. All the basic sciences in year 1, clinical rotations year 2, and then electives / match in year 3.

Medical school tuition has skyrocketed. Why? There's nothing any more expensive about running a medical school (although NIH funding has decreased, so perhaps schools are trying to replace it). Much of the problem is that people are willing to pay it. Which, in some ways, isn't really a problem. It's capitalism. If I make widgets, I should be able to charge as much for those widgets as the market is willing to bear. At present, Medical School appear to be worth at least $50-60K to enough people. Part of this is due to government backed loans (although I expect private banks would fund medical school loans, given the likelihood of repayment).

The match is not the cause of low resident salaries. Many of the fellowships were not in a match, and salaries remained the same. GME also does not have a blanket exemption from anti-trust -- just the match. So why are resident salaries where they are?

1. You really have no choice but to take one of the jobs. You need to complete a residency to practice. You can't switch year-to-year between residencies because training spots are tightly regulated. If you won't take the spot I'm offering, someone else will. So there's no upward pressure on salaries between employers, since we can't really steal each other's employees.

2. In general, salary is not what drives you to choose where you will be going. If I offer 10% more to my residents, that's unlikely to make you choose me. Residents choose which program they are going to based upon lots of other factors.

What could be done about it?

A. Getting rid of the match won't help. Some who suggest it feel this would allow them to "negotiate" with programs, and perhaps "play offers against each other". That's not going to happen because of the above, and because most resident salaries are set by the GME office and I have no control over them.

B. Total training time (and debt) could be decreased by 2 years as above.

C. We could switch to Specialty Medical Schools. If I had the aPD School of Internal Medicine, we could teach you what you need to know without wasting time in the OR, pediatrics, etc. You would be less "well rounded" but it would be more efficient, and we could probably include enough practical training (i.e. residency) into the process so that after 4-5 years you'd be fully trained (and perhaps paid during your last years, or "tuition free"). But, discover that you're unhappy in that field and your just out of luck. This would require all sorts of changes in medical licensing, etc. This would be very similar to how dental school is now. You would need separate medical schools for IM, Peds, OB, surgery, etc. Or, you'd have one medical school with lots of tracks, you'd need to declare up front.

D. A simpler option than C is to do the same thing, but only for Primary Care. Combine medical school and outpatient only PC training into a 4 or 5 year pathway. This would allow people to train in PC, "residency" would be included in this so you'd be free to practice at the end. Again, this requires students to know exactly what they want on application to medical school -- or might be selected for them (i.e. perhaps you'd only get into the PC track and not the general track).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
I thought about saying government funding like GME, but that's a huge cost I'm not sure Uncle Sam would or should front. This might look like a cop-out response, but, as evidenced by my above comments, I think hospitals are getting too much money out of GME, so an obvious answer is to "redistribute" some of that money. Then again, we're talking about quite a lot of funding. It basically comes down to the question of what you think is more important- leaving more money in the hands of hospitals, or reducing physician student loan debt.

I'm just throwing things out there at this point, because I think it's engaging to brainstorm how the system could be reformed for the better.

Your post appeared while I was typing my wall of text.

Why should my tax dollars go to pay off your debt, exactly? If you do that, medical schools will only increase tuition further, saying "don't worry, a bunch will get paid off down the line".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
. As a residency applicant, the program holds ALL of the cards. "Paying residents what they're worth" is NOT something that works in the residents' favor.
WHAT?!!!!!!!!!?
what are you smoking dude, cuz i want some!!
 
Your post appeared while I was typing my wall of text.

Why should my tax dollars go to pay off your debt, exactly? If you do that, medical schools will only increase tuition further, saying "don't worry, a bunch will get paid off down the line".

One could just as easily argue, " why should tax dollars pay for residencies?" But like I said, I think hospitals are getting too much from GME, and some of that money could be shuuffled around. Valid point about med schools increasing tuition at that point thoigh.

Btw, I apprecaited your "wall of text" and found it insightful. With regard to your point about med schools raising tution higher than it needs to be already, where is the extra money going then? Because I hear rahter frequently about med schools having financial problems and the perpetual "med schools lose money on students."
 
One could just as easily argue, " why should tax dollars pay for residencies?" But like I said, I think hospitals are getting too much from GME, and some of that money could be shuuffled around. Valid point about med schools increasing tuition at that point thoigh.

Btw, I apprecaited your "wall of text" and found it insightful. With regard to your point about med schools raising tution higher than it needs to be already, where is the extra money going then? Because I hear rahter frequently about med schools having financial problems and the perpetual "med schools lose money on students."

I'm not convinced that tax dollars should fund residency programs either. But perhaps that's for a different thread.

As far as where medical school tuition goes, I don't really know. Giving lectures in the basic science years can't be all that expensive. Anatomy / cadaver labs are probably pretty expensive. And medical schools don't pay for clinical rotations (at least, they don't pay me...). But there probably are all sorts of costs of which I'm unaware.
 
WHAT?!!!!!!!!!?
what are you smoking dude, cuz i want some!!

well then let me ask... if you really wanted to open resident compensation up to let programs have unlimited flexibility in setting their compensation, do you honestly believe salaries would go up? Top tier places could depress wages and residents would still be groveling at their doorsteps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I'm not convinced that tax dollars should fund residency programs either. But perhaps that's for a different thread.

As far as where medical school tuition goes, I don't really know. Giving lectures in the basic science years can't be all that expensive. Anatomy / cadaver labs are probably pretty expensive. And medical schools don't pay for clinical rotations (at least, they don't pay me...). But there probably are all sorts of costs of which I'm unaware.

They don't pay hospitals for clinical rotations?!?! So where does that money go? I can't imagine it costs 45k per student per year on the school's part to have someone sit in an office and schedule rotations...
 
I'm not convinced that tax dollars should fund residency programs either. But perhaps that's for a different thread.

As far as where medical school tuition goes, I don't really know. Giving lectures in the basic science years can't be all that expensive. Anatomy / cadaver labs are probably pretty expensive. And medical schools don't pay for clinical rotations (at least, they don't pay me...). But there probably are all sorts of costs of which I'm unaware.

I've always assumed the insurance involved in clinical years for students is insane... but I have no way of verifying that (anyone who knows more than me should certainly chime in)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'm not convinced that tax dollars should fund residency programs either. But perhaps that's for a different thread.

As far as where medical school tuition goes, I don't really know. Giving lectures in the basic science years can't be all that expensive. Anatomy / cadaver labs are probably pretty expensive. And medical schools don't pay for clinical rotations (at least, they don't pay me...). But there probably are all sorts of costs of which I'm unaware.

I think this is part of the issue: there is no real transparency. On its face I can believe that there is a cost to running residency programs and a medical school. Obviously the support staff, facilities, programming, etc. etc. require some sort of investment. But how much does that actually cost? Who knows.

There was an NEJM article within the last few years that discussed the economics of resident training which suggested that residents were woefully underpaid. On it's face, I also believe that. I struggle to think why it costs a hospital ~$50k/year to train a resident (based on a payment of $100-110k/year per resident from Medicare - I forget what the actual disbursement is). Residents effectively act as midlevels in a clinical setting, particularly those further on in their training, yet hospitals have no problem shelling out $70-80k or more in salaries for those positions. Even at that salary, that still leaves quite a windfall for hospitals to take on the task of training residents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
well then let me ask... if you really wanted to open resident compensation up to let programs have unlimited flexibility in setting their compensation, do you honestly believe salaries would go up? Top tier places could depress wages and residents would still be groveling at their doorsteps.

I.e., see the cost of "top" medical schools and how they have absolutely no problem having people line up out the door to attend their school.
 
I take responsibility for resurrecting this thread from the dead. There are way too many responses since my last post to respond to them individually, but I noticed certain trends.

First, the number of posters accepting the status quo of working very long hours for minimal pay I find disturbing and a harbinger of the trends that are already taking place in medicine. If you are willing to work for considerably less than what some jurisdictions are legislating as a minimum wage for working at MacDonalds, you don't value what you do highly enough. Four years of college and four years of med school and you will work for $12/hour, give or take? I can only shake my head with wonder as hospital corporations continue to make money on the backs of the very people that have the power to say "no". It starts in residency and will continue throughout many of our careers. With this attitude, it is easy to understand why doctors are lead like sheep to the slaughter. Think about the four years of college, the years of grad school some of us attended, the four years of medical school and years of residency; include the amount your education cost and then figure out your return on investment. It isn't pretty, particularly if you go into primary care and some of the lower paying specialties.

Second, the benchmark I used was NP's and PA's. An NP typically goes to four years of college and a year of grad school. For a PA, add one more year of grad school. In a typical hospital setting, they work half the hours and get twice the compensation. Remember, a resident with a bit of training under his/her belt will be supervising PA's and NP's. So someone please explain why their compensation is so much higher and their duty hours are so much less. From my perspective, it is completely illogical. Thank congress for the antitrust exemption that allows teaching hospitals to dispense involuntary servitude on their residents.

Third, there was some discussion about other professions that pay well upon completion of school, either college or graduate/professional school. Certain engineers in areas of demand make considerably more than residents, and that is after four years of college. If you went to law school, particularly the better programs and are fortunate enough to end up at a large firm, you will start out as a new associate with six figure income. Your hours will be long, but your compensation will at least in part make up for the time spent. Ditto for many MBA's. And the people you work with typically don't puke on your shoes.

Fourth, if you live in major metropolitan areas, the typical cost of housing/rent is not cheap nor is childcare which costs close to$1,000 per month per child. And heaven help you if you live in San Francisco, Boston, and other high rent districts.

Fifth, we aren't worth much as residents because we don't generate much unsupervised income. If a fourth year surgical resident running an ICU matches that criteria, there is little I can say other than you are wrong. Ditto for fellows and how they are compensated.

Bottom line is this - although I'm not sure what we can do about it, we need to wake up and start putting an appropriate value on what we do. I chose the NP/PA example because it is a very easy benchmark.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I.e., see the cost of "top" medical schools and how they have absolutely no problem having people line up out the door to attend their school.

And exactly how does that correlate to fair compensation for residents?
 
If you are willing to work for considerably less than what some jurisdictions are legislating as a minimum wage for working at MacDonalds, you don't value what you do highly enough. Four years of college and four years of med school and you will work for $12/hour, give or take?

Here's a secret: residency isn't "what we do." Residency is a temporary training period that allows us to do what we do- practice independently as fully-trained physicians. And trust me, the pay for that is many many times more than $12/hour. Those of us who "accept the status quo" aren't sheep, we have basic comprehension of the fact that a resident is not the same as a new lawyer or engineer- both of whom have completed their training pathways and started their careers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
And exactly how does that correlate to fair compensation for residents?

It was more illustrating @WingedOx's point that for many people, the pay is inconsequential if it means going to a Harvard/John's Hopkins/WashU/whatever affiliated program. In that part of the "market" I would argue that pay likely isn't even a significant factor in decision-making in terms of a rank list.
 
I'm married to a nurse so I hope so
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I.e., see the cost of "top" medical schools and how they have absolutely no problem having people line up out the door to attend their school.

or on a more direct correlation... want to work at Mass General? Chances are you're going to take a pay cut.
 
Here's a secret: residency isn't "what we do." Residency is a temporary training period that allows us to do what we do- practice independently as fully-trained physicians. And trust me, the pay for that is many many times more than $12/hour. Those of us who "accept the status quo" aren't sheep, we have basic comprehension of the fact that a resident is not the same as a new lawyer or engineer- both of whom have completed their training pathways and started their careers.

As someone whose undergraduate degree was in engineering, I can assure you that young engineers have not completed their training; it is just beginning and will take careful supervision/review over time. Ditto for lawyers. Your attitude about residency being a temporary training period reflects an attitude that I find patronizing and exemplifies what I find wrong with much of the "old guard." The surgical area I intend to go into will take me nine years of residency/fellowship. You call that temporary, and suggest I should suck it up because good days are up ahead. I have a hard time accepting your approach because it deflects from the issue I bring to the forefront, i.e., the value of a resident over the course of training compared to an NP or PA. I believe people should be paid what they are worth and not be compromised by collusive teaching hospitals and a congress that passed a bill that destroys a level playing field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Here's a secret: residency isn't "what we do." Residency is a temporary training period that allows us to do what we do- practice independently as fully-trained physicians. And trust me, the pay for that is many many times more than $12/hour. Those of us who "accept the status quo" aren't sheep, we have basic comprehension of the fact that a resident is not the same as a new lawyer or engineer- both of whom have completed their training pathways and started their careers.
While you have a point, especially for fields like EM and IM, that doesn't excuse the hospitals of abusing GME funding or resident workloads.

Treating professionals poorly is not made okay by the fact it's only a "temporary condition."
 
It was more illustrating @WingedOx's point that for many people, the pay is inconsequential if it means going to a Harvard/John's Hopkins/WashU/whatever affiliated program. In that part of the "market" I would argue that pay likely isn't even a significant factor in decision-making in terms of a rank list.

It is for my prelims
 
Top