I have matched into advanced position but I have not found a PGY1 position todate. I have started to inquire if there is anything like self funded PGY1 . Any thoughts?
I have matched into advanced position but I have not found a PGY1 position todate. I have started to inquire if there is anything like self funded PGY1 . Any thoughts?
I have been in touch with them as well. Calling programs every day. No luck so far.Have you been working with your Advanced program to help you find a position? They should have vested interest in you getting a position.
I have matched into advanced position but I have not found a PGY1 position todate. I have started to inquire if there is anything like self funded PGY1 . Any thoughts?
Ummm...everybody sees the issue here. Did you not read the thread?Does no one here see the issue here? Spending an additional 50K for the ABILITY to work? Doesn't ring any exploitation alarms out there??? I know some people are desperate for spots, but cmon, this would be a horrendous plan.
Yeah...but they're desperate. They get a bit of a pass.Sorry, meant the people actually proposing this as a solution!
And ACGME specifically prohibits self-funded residency spots for this (and many other) reason(s).
Took me a while to find it but I knew I had read it somewhere: Paying residents is absolutely an ACGME mandate, just not at the program level... It's an institutional requirement.As far as I can tell, there is no rule against this. The common program requirements are here: http://www.acgme.org/Portals/0/PFAssets/ProgramRequirements/CPRs_07012016.pdf I see nothing about salary or funding there, just that the program has to have the "resources" to educate residents, which is vague.
I am 100% against this. However, which of the following scenarios are OK, if any:
1. A foreign government decides to fund a residency slot in the US. Only their students can match into this slot. After completing training, the resident is rquired to return to their home country and practice for some amount of time.
2. A community in the US has trouble attracting PCP's. They decide to fund a residency slot in that community, with a contract with that person such that after completing training, they must work (and be paid) in the community for some period of time. The contract spells out consequences for not fulfilling, perhaps repaying triple the cost.
3. A program has additional slots they would like to fill but have no funding. Some investors decide to fund the slot fully. The person that matches into this slot agrees to repay the investors later in their career -- either some fixed amount (principle and interest, basically a loan), or some percentage of their salary (a risk for the investors).
4. A program has additional slots they would like to fill but have no funding. The institution, itself, decides to "fund" the slots, but requires those that match to these slots to pay back the costs of their training -- either a fixed payment plan (i.e. loan), or a variable plan (percentage of future salary). Basically the same as #3, but funded by the program. The program says that future income from this program will go towards funding GME.
This is really tough. #1 already happens. The others seem not that different. #1 and #2 are different in that the resident never financially "pays back" the training costs -- the payors simply see this as recruiting costs for future labor. Somehow this seems better to me than #3 and #4 where the resident is expected to financially pay back.
As far as I can tell, there is no rule against this. The common program requirements are here: http://www.acgme.org/Portals/0/PFAssets/ProgramRequirements/CPRs_07012016.pdf I see nothing about salary or funding there, just that the program has to have the "resources" to educate residents, which is vague.
I am 100% against this. However, which of the following scenarios are OK, if any:
1. A foreign government decides to fund a residency slot in the US. Only their students can match into this slot. After completing training, the resident is rquired to return to their home country and practice for some amount of time.
2. A community in the US has trouble attracting PCP's. They decide to fund a residency slot in that community, with a contract with that person such that after completing training, they must work (and be paid) in the community for some period of time. The contract spells out consequences for not fulfilling, perhaps repaying triple the cost.
3. A program has additional slots they would like to fill but have no funding. Some investors decide to fund the slot fully. The person that matches into this slot agrees to repay the investors later in their career -- either some fixed amount (principle and interest, basically a loan), or some percentage of their salary (a risk for the investors).
4. A program has additional slots they would like to fill but have no funding. The institution, itself, decides to "fund" the slots, but requires those that match to these slots to pay back the costs of their training -- either a fixed payment plan (i.e. loan), or a variable plan (percentage of future salary). Basically the same as #3, but funded by the program. The program says that future income from this program will go towards funding GME.
This is really tough. #1 already happens. The others seem not that different. #1 and #2 are different in that the resident never financially "pays back" the training costs -- the payors simply see this as recruiting costs for future labor. Somehow this seems better to me than #3 and #4 where the resident is expected to financially pay back.