Save The Merger

[Dr. Zombie]

^ This x 1000.

I didn't want to believe all the hype about DO discrimination, but as an M4, I'm seeing it more and more. Good grades, very strong USMLE scores, still can't negate those two letters D.O. at some programs. I think this should be priority number one for the AOA leadership.

What specialty/programs names are you trying to aim for, that you are seeing discrimination against your person "more and more." ?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[meliora27]

What specialty/programs names are you trying to aim for, that you are seeing discrimination against your person "more and more." ?

Off the top of my head...

NYU - Explicitly says they don't take DO's
Vanderbilt - Explicitly says they don't take DO's
Montefiore - Explicitly says they don't take DO's
Tulane - Explicitly says they don't take DO's
Northwestern - Never taken a DO

I'm sure there are more but those were the first ones that came to mind. These are internal medicine progs btw. I know there are DO's in other specialties at these places.

 

[costales]

Tulane - Explicitly says they don't take DO's.

Did you see their medicine page http://www.tulanemedicine.com/residents/resident-list1.html

 

[Dr. Zombie]

Did you see their medicine page http://www.tulanemedicine.com/residents/resident-list1.html

I only see one random dude in the IM-Peds from TCOM.

 

[meliora27]

Tulane takes DO's for their Med-Peds but not for their categorical IM program

1. Applicants to Tulane must be graduates from AAMC-accredited US medical schools who will have successfully completed their medical school curriculum with distinction by June of 2012.

Source: http://www.tulanemedicine.com/contact.html

Obviously AAMC does not accredit medical schools but I think it's clear what they mean...

 

[costales]

There are two TCOM (also listed as UNT) grads in their combined IM & Psych program, and there is one NYCOM dude in prelim.

 

[meliora27]

Tulane takes DO's for their Med-Peds but not for their categorical IM program

1. Applicants to Tulane must be graduates from AAMC-accredited US medical schools who will have successfully completed their medical school curriculum with distinction by June of 2012.

Source: http://www.tulanemedicine.com/contact.html

Obviously AAMC does not accredit medical schools but I think it's clear what they mean...

Tulane does not take DO's in their CATEGORICAL IM PROGRAM

 

[Dr. Zombie]

Obviously AAMC does not accredit medical schools but I think it's clear what they mean...

Hence, I am very supportive for a future proposal to have DO medical schools merge with MD medical schools under one accreditation. I think THATS when we should be able to see significant progress. DOs schools keep their distinctive elements while being under a universal accreditation system.

I mean seriously, I don't exactly see that all their PGY1-3's coming from ground-breaking MD schools here...so LCME-accredited DO schools would be making strides.

 

[user3]

Hence, I am very supportive for a future proposal to have DO medical schools merge with MD medical schools under one accreditation. I think THATS when we should be able to see significant progress. DOs schools keep their distinctive elements while being under a universal accreditation system.

I mean seriously, I don't exactly see that all their PGY1-3's coming from ground-breaking MD schools here...so LCME-accredited DO schools would be making strides.

even if this was seriously considered, since most DO schools are tuition-driven, how would they be able to meet the "diverse funding" guidelines of LCME accreditation?

 

[JGimpel]

Edward Via Virginia doesn't accept out of state students...unless you give them a kidney. It's right there under the out of state tuition cost on their site. Apparently the Edward Via money ran out a while ago and they need students to keep them "at the lifestyle they're accustomed to" now. I wouldn't interview anyone from a school that is so for-profit if you paid me. Well, they could probably pay me a lot, so...

Yeah, probably not going to happen anytime soon. We still get all the benefits that being a VT student would get us, and because our campus is within visual distance of VT, actually probably get more out of the VT partnership than VTC students do (in some ways).

 

[Dr. Zombie]

even if this was seriously considered, since most DO schools are tuition-driven, how would they be able to meet the "diverse funding" guidelines of LCME accreditation?

I personally do not understand the financial aspects of how medical schools are run, but I would imagine if they give DO schools a 5-year grace period as they've done with AOA residencies, I'm sure they can come up with something.

Realistically, there ARE osteopathic medical schools that are doing a disservice to students (and please no one make a Liberty joke, because the school hasn't even graduated a class yet) by:

1. Unacceptable pre-clinical attrition rate.
2. Almost to non-existent research opportunities
3. Poor clinical rotation quality

If the lowest of the lowest tiered MD schools are able to continually survive accreditation renewal by LCME, why couldn't DO schools be able to do the same, knowhatImean? DO school investors ain't broke.

 

[JGimpel]

^ This x 1000.

I didn't want to believe all the hype about DO discrimination, but as an M4, I'm seeing it more and more. Good grades, very strong USMLE scores, still can't negate those two letters D.O. at some programs. I think this should be priority number one for the AOA leadership.

ALL Osteopathic programs discriminate 100% against MDs from anywhere being admitted to their GME. I respect that they're upfront about that even if the reasoning is flawed. Usually it's that the DO training is infinitely/mystically better and the MD students couldn't possibly ramp up with some outside classes and an OMM proficiency exam taken on a regular basis. I think it's a lot more approachable.

What counts as OPP training when in an AOA residency? You get a seminar once every few months where you grab some sort of sack lunch and wipe the cobwebs off the OMM tables in the room at your hospital (if it has one at all) while an OMM reviewer takes an 8:30 to 4 review session and pares it down to the first OMM technique being applied to your partner around 9:30 and getting out an hour after lunch with a few breaks to discuss the merger before you eat and you're all solid OPP practitioners again. Lots of jokes and laughter, a few joints are popped and you take your Advil and bottled water and the rest of the afternoon off. Sound about right?

I respect the MD GME that are upfront about not considering DOs at all. Both let money be saved for other apps where one would have a chance. I respect the programs saying that (unofficially or officially) they will not consider a DO for their one or two very expensive fellowship training spots. I respect the ACGME for pushing the issue of quid pro quo on the above topics and can't wait for all DOs in leadership positions that are above 55 to leave them for people that actually care about advancing the profession to take over and get some work done. These games are why MD GME has chosen to officially or unofficially can DO apps as fast as they can cash your check and I don't blame them.

I'm for the ACGME closing down substandard AOA residencies and also would request they do the same for the glut of poorly thought out FP programs that the AOA never intended to fill but make it look like they're increasing residencies to match the rampant DO school expansion.

I'm a proud DO in a primary care field and I approved this message.

 

[Dr. Zombie]

can't wait for all DOs in leadership positions that are above 55 to leave them for people that actually care about advancing the profession to take over and get some work done.

 

[NurWollen]

ALL Osteopathic programs discriminate 100% against MDs from anywhere being admitted to their GME. I respect that they're upfront about that even if the reasoning is flawed. Usually it's that the DO training is infinitely/mystically better and the MD students couldn't possibly ramp up with some outside classes and an OMM proficiency exam taken on a regular basis. I think it's a lot more approachable.

What counts as OPP training when in an AOA residency? You get a seminar once every few months where you grab some sort of sack lunch and wipe the cobwebs off the OMM tables in the room at your hospital (if it has one at all) while an OMM reviewer takes an 8:30 to 4 review session and pares it down to the first OMM technique being applied to your partner around 9:30 and getting out an hour after lunch with a few breaks to discuss the merger before you eat and you're all solid OPP practitioners again. Lots of jokes and laughter, a few joints are popped and you take your Advil and bottled water and the rest of the afternoon off. Sound about right?

I respect the MD GME that are upfront about not considering DOs at all. Both let money be saved for other apps where one would have a chance. I respect the programs saying that (unofficially or officially) they will not consider a DO for their one or two very expensive fellowship training spots. I respect the ACGME for pushing the issue of quid pro quo on the above topics and can't wait for all DOs in leadership positions that are above 55 to leave them for people that actually care about advancing the profession to take over and get some work done. These games are why MD GME has chosen to officially or unofficially can DO apps as fast as they can cash your check and I don't blame them.

I'm for the ACGME closing down substandard AOA residencies and also would request they do the same for the glut of poorly thought out FP programs that the AOA never intended to fill but make it look like they're increasing residencies to match the rampant DO school expansion.

I'm a proud DO in a primary care field and I approved this message.

Well, that's one good reason to pursue an AOA residency.

 

[DocVapor]

Edward Via Virginia doesn't accept out of state students...unless you give them a kidney. It's right there under the out of state tuition cost on their site. Apparently the Edward Via money ran out a while ago and they need students to keep them "at the lifestyle they're accustomed to" now. I wouldn't interview anyone from a school that is so for-profit if you paid me. Well, they could probably pay me a lot, so...

I am not following anything you said here. Was this meant to be in reply to me? There is no "Out-of-state" tuition at VCOM that I have heard of. http://www.vcom.edu/financial/cost.html is the link to the tuition, fees, and cost of attendance. Did you have another source for this? As far as what has happened to the Edward Via money and how much of their operating costs come from tuition, I don't know.

 

[JGimpel]

I am not following anything you said here. Was this meant to be in reply to me? There is no "Out-of-state" tuition at VCOM that I have heard of. http://www.vcom.edu/financial/cost.html is the link to the tuition, fees, and cost of attendance. Did you have another source for this? As far as what has happened to the Edward Via money and how much of their operating costs come from tuition, I don't know.

I was pretty sure that VCOM had a similar cost structure, but I may have confused VCOM with WEST Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine. EVMS, an MD school in Virginia as well. It makes it seem like they really don't want anyone but their own population going to many of their school. I posted a link from AACOM with historical data for the in and OOS tuitions below along with a few schools that have outrageous differences between In/Out of state too:

http://www.aacom.org/data/tuitionfees/Pages/default.aspx
https://www.evms.edu/education/doctoral_programs/doctor_of_medicine/tuition_fees/

WVSOM is S19,950/$49,950
EVMS is $29,396/$56,382 of In-state and OOS, respectively.
MSUCOM is $40,114/$82,069!!!

Your body can run pretty well with one kidney, but I'd avoid handing it over to a med school if you don't have to.

Since U.S. News and World Report is the established primary source of information about medical training, a list of Virgina Schools and their cost differentials is below. Wow.

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankings...rch?program=top-medical-schools&name=virginia

 

[Gatorman177]

I was pretty sure that VCOM had a similar cost structure, but I may have confused VCOM with WEST Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine. EVMS, an MD school in Virginia as well. It makes it seem like they really don't want anyone but their own population going to many of their school. I posted a link from AACOM with historical data for the in and OOS tuitions below along with a few schools that have outrageous differences between In/Out of state too:

http://www.aacom.org/data/tuitionfees/Pages/default.aspx
https://www.evms.edu/education/doctoral_programs/doctor_of_medicine/tuition_fees/

WVSOM is S19,950/$49,950
EVMS is $29,396/$56,382 of In-state and OOS, respectively.
MSUCOM is $40,114/$82,069!!!

Your body can run pretty well with one kidney, but I'd avoid handing it over to a med school if you don't have to.

Since U.S. News and World Report is the established primary source of information about medical training, a list of Virgina Schools and their cost differentials is below. Wow.

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankings...rch?program=top-medical-schools&name=virginia

I'm an incoming first year at vcom Virginia. I am a Florida resident and did my undergrad in Florida. Tuition is the same for in state and out of state. You must have been confused.

 

[Gatorman177]

Also, our tuition is around 40 a year, which is below the national average for private medical schools

 

[DocVapor]

I was pretty sure that VCOM had a similar cost structure, but I may have confused VCOM with WEST Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine. EVMS, an MD school in Virginia as well. It makes it seem like they really don't want anyone but their own population going to many of their school. I posted a link from AACOM with historical data for the in and OOS tuitions below along with a few schools that have outrageous differences between In/Out of state too:

http://www.aacom.org/data/tuitionfees/Pages/default.aspx
https://www.evms.edu/education/doctoral_programs/doctor_of_medicine/tuition_fees/

WVSOM is S19,950/$49,950
EVMS is $29,396/$56,382 of In-state and OOS, respectively.
MSUCOM is $40,114/$82,069!!!

Your body can run pretty well with one kidney, but I'd avoid handing it over to a med school if you don't have to.

Since U.S. News and World Report is the established primary source of information about medical training, a list of Virgina Schools and their cost differentials is below. Wow.

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankings...rch?program=top-medical-schools&name=virginia

Ahhh. Yeah I understand why you might have confused the school. It seems like VCOM has gone by many different acronyms (EVVCOM, VCOM-VA/SC, EVCOM, etc). It's been hard enough for those of us going here to keep up with it. And I definitely agree about handing over a kidney for med school - private school tuitions are bad enough, but those out-of-state tuitions you quoted are out of this world.

 

[chizledfrmstone]

Effect of the Single Accreditation System

http://www.jaoa.org/content/114/7/524.full

 

[NurWollen]

Effect of the Single Accreditation System

http://www.jaoa.org/content/114/7/524.full

I read it. Very good, very informative. I hope LECOM students read it before they follow their admin's orders to sign the petition.

 

[chizledfrmstone]

I read it. Very good, very informative. I hope LECOM students read it before they follow their admin's orders to sign the petition.

Forgot to post this too. It is similar.

Impact of the Single Accreditation Agreement on GME Governance and the Physician Workforce

http://www.jaoa.org/content/114/7/518.full

In its 2010 report to Congress, the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee (MedPAC) recommended a performance-based GME funding structure with payments contingent on desired educational outcomes.13 In response, the ACGME began developing and promoting the Next Accreditation System (NAS), an outcomes-based approach aimed at ensuring the competency of graduates from ACGME-accredited residency programs.14 In 2011, the ACGME took a further step toward GME standardization when it announced modifications to its common program requirements related to residency and fellowship eligibility—access to ACGME training would be limited to only those residents who had trained in an NAS program (or the Canadian equivalent, CanMEDS).15 Therefore, all graduates of AOA-accredited residencies would be unable to apply to ACGME fellowships or transfer into ACGME residency programs.

 

[Dr. Zombie]

Effect of the Single Accreditation System

http://www.jaoa.org/content/114/7/524.full

I liked the ending where he says "We cannot electively exclude ourselves from active representation on the board of the largest organization of GME in the world yet expect this same organization to continue to accept our medical school graduates."

 

[chizledfrmstone]

I liked the ending where he says "We cannot electively exclude ourselves from active representation on the board of the largest organization of GME in the world yet expect this same organization to continue to accept our medical school graduates."

I was originally going to quote that part.

 

[meliora27]

Effect of the Single Accreditation System

http://www.jaoa.org/content/114/7/524.full

Interesting article. I'm glad that the author shed light on the issue of DO discrimination even at the level of medical students applying for elective rotations. Publishing this is a good first step, but to publish it in the JAOA I feel does not advance the cause. Perhaps this point to could elaborated on and published in a journal of medical education where the readers aren't just DO's for the most part.

 

[NurWollen]

Interesting article. I'm glad that the author shed light on the issue of DO discrimination even at the level of medical students applying for elective rotations. Publishing this is a good first step, but to publish it in the JAOA I feel does not advance the cause. Perhaps this point to could elaborated on and published in a journal of medical education where the readers aren't just DO's for the most part.

The article was written in support of the merger. The only people opposing the merger are a subset of DOs. This was the perfect medium for advancing the cause.

 

[NurWollen]

I liked the ending where he says "We cannot electively exclude ourselves from active representation on the board of the largest organization of GME in the world yet expect this same organization to continue to accept our medical school graduates."

He really hit the nail on the head. And yet the anti merger people would rather risk being shut outof ACGME residencies, and replacing those spots for our graduates with residencies based in doctors' offices.

 

[Dr. Zombie]

He really hit the nail on the head. And yet the anti merger people would rather risk being shut outof ACGME residencies, and replacing those spots for our graduates with residencies based in doctors' offices.

For the sake of "distinctiveness." We'll be distinct alright, but not for the good reasons.

 

[NeuroLAX]

For the sake of "distinctiveness." We'll be distinct alright, but not for the good reasons.

Ugh, that word... my CRI hurts.

 

[GUH]

...the anti merger people would rather risk being shut outof ACGME residencies...

Again, there is no evidence of this at all. It's purely speculative fear-mongering.
If you're going to support the merger, there are legitimate reasons to give. This is not one of them.

 

[hallowmann]

Again, there is no evidence of this at all. It's purely speculative fear-mongering.
If you're going to support the merger, there are legitimate reasons to give. This is not one of them.

Agreed, there are good reasons and being shut out of residency isn't likely one of them. The last thing the ACGME would want is to cut out 2000 applicants that fill a bunch of their positions (and are sought after by PDs to do so). They'd have to replace missing DOs with IMGs, and I doubt most programs would really like that. As it stands, MD schools would have to expand by another 30% (in addition to the 20-some% they've expanded by in the last 10 yrs) in order to fill all ACGME positions with US MDs.

That being, one thing the ACGME was clearly trying to do was make it so DOs sought out their programs over AOA ones by blocking fellowships to AOA trained DOs. That's one good reason to support the merger. The other is the fact that as it stands the vast majority of GME in this country, and even the majority of GME that train DOs, are accredited by the ACGME. I'd much rather DOs have a seat at the table (28% of the seats), when it comes to those GMEs than not.

 

[costales]

Agreed, there are good reasons and being shut out of residency isn't likely one of them. The last thing the ACGME would want is to cut out 2000 applicants that fill a bunch of their positions (and are sought after by PDs to do so). They'd have to replace missing DOs with IMGs, and I doubt most programs would really like that.

Plus they'd have to deal with some very loud politicians, especially from the populous states with state-supported DO schools. I believe this is what the AOA alluded to earlier in one of their talking points.

 

[NurWollen]

Again, there is no evidence of this at all. It's purely speculative fear-mongering.
If you're going to support the merger, there are legitimate reasons to give. This is not one of them.

Did you read the JAOA article chizld posted? It seems it was already happening! When the ACGME announced the new residency and fellowship requirements, there was an almost immediate trend towards ACGME programs increasing discrimination against DOs. Restricting them from doing elective rotations, etc. Is there a reason we should doubt Dr. Connett's assertions?

 

[chizledfrmstone]

Again, there is no evidence of this at all. It's purely speculative fear-mongering.
If you're going to support the merger, there are legitimate reasons to give. This is not one of them.

Agreed, there are good reasons and being shut out of residency isn't likely one of them. The last thing the ACGME would want is to cut out 2000 applicants that fill a bunch of their positions (and are sought after by PDs to do so). They'd have to replace missing DOs with IMGs, and I doubt most programs would really like that. As it stands, MD schools would have to expand by another 30% (in addition to the 20-some% they've expanded by in the last 10 yrs) in order to fill all ACGME positions with US MDs.

That being, one thing the ACGME was clearly trying to do was make it so DOs sought out their programs over AOA ones by blocking fellowships to AOA trained DOs. That's one good reason to support the merger. The other is the fact that as it stands the vast majority of GME in this country, and even the majority of GME that train DOs, are accredited by the ACGME. I'd much rather DOs have a seat at the table (28% of the seats), when it comes to those GMEs than not.

Plus they'd have to deal with some very loud politicians, especially from the populous states with state-supported DO schools. I believe this is what the AOA alluded to earlier in one of their talking points.

How much of the article did you guys read?

DO Exclusion From ACGME Programs
In October 2011, the ACGME announced the planned implementation of Common Program Requirements under the Next Accreditation System, in which DOs would be prohibited from entering ACGME-accredited training programs. Shortly thereafter, many ACGME training programs prohibited AOA-trained residents from accessing ACGME fellowships. Although some may have believed that this change would affect a small percentage of osteopathic medical school graduates, in my experience, the change impacted all ACGME training programs nationwide. For example, to my knowledge, ACGME programs in the Western United States began labeling any DO attending physician with AOA-accredited residency training to be “unqualified” to participate in training of ACGME residents, even if the ACGME resident had a DO degree. In addition, the University of California, Davis; the University of California, Irvine; and the University of California, San Diego deemed osteopathic medical students “ineligible” for their programs for audition rotations and stated such on their websites. To my knowledge, WesternU/COMP and the Osteopathic Physicians & Surgeons of California also received reports that other institutions were denying osteopathic medical students access to ACGME programs for audition rotations.

The efforts by the AOA and AACOM to negotiate with the ACGME regarding the initial proposed MOU halted the rule change—in other words, AOA-trained and AOA board–certified DOs could again be preceptors in ACGME programs. Unfortunately, osteopathic medical student discrimination continued at numerous ACGME training programs in the Western United States, prominately stating on their websites “DOs need not apply,” thus limiting the access of third- and fourth-year medical school clerkships and audition rotations in the University of California system for osteopathic medical students. Touro University College of Osteopathic Medicine tried to gain access for their students for more than 2 years at University of California, Davis without success.

Changing Tides
The Osteopathic Physicians & Surgeons of California, using a multipronged approach, was able to reverse this policy, resulting in the cessation of discrimination against osteopathic medical students in the state of California beginning May 2014. A major factor in reversing the discrimination of osteopathic medical students was the approval of the MOU by the AOA, AACOM, and the ACGME. The MOU has enabled collaborative discussions between the University of California, Irvine and WesternU/COMP for continued collaboration and development of residency training programs.

The other article I linked has this on Next Accreditation System (NAS).

This GME model appears to be ending, as stakeholders increasingly demand accountability for their investment. In its 2010 report to Congress, the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee (MedPAC) recommended a performance-based GME funding structure with payments contingent on desired educational outcomes.13 In response, the ACGME began developing and promoting the Next Accreditation System (NAS), an outcomes-based approach aimed at ensuring the competency of graduates from ACGME-accredited residency programs.14 In 2011, the ACGME took a further step toward GME standardization when it announced modifications to its common program requirements related to residency and fellowship eligibility—access to ACGME training would be limited to only those residents who had trained in an NAS program (or the Canadian equivalent, CanMEDS).15 Therefore, all graduates of AOA-accredited residencies would be unable to apply to ACGME fellowships or transfer into ACGME residency programs.

 

[costales]

I was referring to residencies, not fellowships.

 

[chizledfrmstone]

I was referring to residencies, not fellowships.

I was under the impression that DOs would eventually lose the ability to apply for ACGME residencies because of this outcomes-based system.

The 3 organizations drafting this agreement support it for different reasons. The AOA favors a single accreditation system primarily because it preserves access to postgraduate training opportunities for DOs in an outcomes-based accreditation system.20

 

[GUH]

Did you read the JAOA article chizld posted? It seems it was already happening! When the ACGME announced the new residency and fellowship requirements, there was an almost immediate trend towards ACGME programs increasing discrimination against DOs. Restricting them from doing elective rotations, etc. Is there a reason we should doubt Dr. Connett's assertions?

While Dr. Connett and OPSC have done a lot of awesome work and the piece does well in exposing some of the discrimination against DOs, the article presents no evidence that the Common Program Requirements had any causal relationship with the discriminatory policies discussed in the article. Furthermore, the jury is still out on whether the UC schools involved will actually stop discriminating against DOs. As a matter of fact, contrary to the article's assertions, some UC programs still advertise an explicit ban on allowing DO students to rotate, or charge three times as much per unit.

 

[meliora27]

Furthermore, the jury is still out on whether the UC schools involved will actually stop discriminating against DOs. As a matter of fact, contrary to the article's assertions, some UC programs still advertise an explicit ban on allowing DO students to rotate, or charge three times as much per unit.

I think that this should be pressed further. Putting this out there and shedding light would perhaps force a dialogue and perhaps help to end the impasse.

Perhaps the AOA or some other organization could contact the specific departments and try to get them to go on the record as to why they continue to have discriminatory policies or impose economic barriers to access to training.

 

[hallowmann]

I was referring to residencies, not fellowships.

This...

I was under the impression that DOs would eventually lose the ability to apply for ACGME residencies because of this outcomes-based system.

What gave you that impression? The outcomes-based system has nothing to do with medical school, only GME. If you attend an ACGME residency, you'd be attending training in an outcomes-based system in the ACGME's new NAS (sorry for those of you with tech backgrounds).

It would not be in the ACGME's best interest to block off all residencies from DOs (or any other medical graduates, be they MBBSs, MBChBs, MBBCh, foreign MDs etc.) because they don't have enough US MDs to take their place, and on top of that it would not be legal.

Also to clarify the line that you quoted, by post-graduate training programs, they mean fellowships after an AOA residency or PGY-2 residencies after an AOA TRI (DOs who complete a TRI would still be able to attend ACGME residencies, but they'd have to start at PGY-1).

 

[chizledfrmstone]

 

[chizledfrmstone]

It just doesn't make sense to me how I can have someone's chocolate cake and not share my own pie without repercussions later on.

 

[hallowmann]

It just doesn't make sense to me how I can have someone's chocolate cake and not share my own pie without repercussions later on.

Never said I didn't agree.

what about the rumored 2 step match? With no merger, all US MD students would match somewhere initially (with this type of match). Then, DO's and FMG's would be left to fight over the rest. Would this not severely hurt the ACGME DO match rate? If DO students are included with US MD students in such a match, I think it would help a great deal, as we would be completely insulated from competition with IMG's/FMG's.

I think @meliora27 is spot on.

As far as I can tell, that has been little more than a rumor. What would be the point of implementing something like that when it essentially already exists in the minds of PDs in the form of applicant ranking? The ACGME wants to fill their programs (1st priority) with applicants that will make their programs look good (2nd priority). Blocking out all FMGs and DOs means blocking out some high achieving people.

 

[Dr. Zombie]

Never said I didn't agree.



As far as I can tell, that has been little more than a rumor. What would be the point of implementing something like that when it essentially already exists in the minds of PDs in the form of applicant ranking? The ACGME wants to fill their programs (1st priority) with applicants that will make their programs look good (2nd priority). Blocking out all FMGs and DOs means blocking out some high achieving people.

Blocking out DOs from ACGME programs does not hurt their prestige.

 

[hallowmann]

Blocking out DOs from ACGME programs does not hurt their prestige.

Haha, ouch. There are in fact some DOs that achieve far more than some MDs, academically, grant-wise, etc. But yeah as far as pedigree, we're lacking a bit in that..

 

[Dr. Zombie]

Haha, ouch. There are in fact some DOs that achieve far more than some MDs, academically, grant-wise, etc. But yeah as far as pedigree, we're lacking a bit in that..

Some programs put efficiency over prestige and thankfully those are the programs that take DOs.

 

[meliora27]

We hear lots of talk about so-called osteopathic distinctivness. I think that this letter in the JAOA hits it spot on.

The Anachronistic Fight for Osteopathic Distinctiveness
http://www.jaoa.org/content/110/5/299.full

 

[GUH]

We hear lots of talk about so-called osteopathic distinctivness. I think that this letter in the JAOA hits it spot on.
The Anachronistic Fight for Osteopathic Distinctiveness
http://www.jaoa.org/content/110/5/299.full

Awarding the MD instead of the DO will not happen in the near future. It has been discussed and shot down repeatedly for the same reasons for a half century. Let alone all the SDN drama this proposition has caused.
I would be personally less opposed to awarding the MD + DO but this seems unlikely to happen since many would argue that a four-year program does not warrant awarding two separate degrees. Perhaps this is best discussed in a new thread, if at all.

what about the rumored 2 step match?...

Rumor without any supporting evidence as far as I'm aware.

 

[Mass Effect]

even if this was seriously considered, since most DO schools are tuition-driven, how would they be able to meet the "diverse funding" guidelines of LCME accreditation?

Where are you getting that most DO schools are tuition-driven?

 

[Mass Effect]

For those of us who aren't pre-meds and don't have the time to go through all those pages, how about you just summarize your point and we'll use the links as your source?

 

[user3]

So you took a post from several years ago that was essentially someone's opinion, easily disproved on this very forum, and restated it. Next time, you might want to do your own research as most of what was posted in that post is absolutely false.

well for most DO schools, does the vast majority of operating budget not come from student tuition? If not, then where else? State/government funds (other than the public schools)? Research grants? endowments?