Will there ever be too many medical schools in the US?

[OCDEMS]

DOs have a skill MDs don't? Dear god, you don't mean OMT, do you? LOL look up some research on that please. There have been many reviews that show it's not effective. Keep smoking that good stuff your admins feed you though. Yeah you're not inferior, just every PD in America would look down on you vs your MD counterpart of the exact same stats. Whatever you have to tell yourself.

No one said I'm a believer (I am aware of the research). Doesn't matter what I think, but it does matter what the public thinks. They seem to be ok with it.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DermViser]

Let's be clear on something.

The ACGME/AOA residency merger was a capitulation on the part of DOs. Nothing less than a surrender. Because DOs had no leverage to bring to the negotiation table, and the reason the whole thing stalled in the first place was because the DO side tried to play tough with the ACGME and the ACGME told them to go suck an egg.

But the DOs came back. Because they had no leverage. And if ACGME slots were closed to them their business model was absolutely screwed. So they caved.

Now DO students are trying to cling to this 28% number to prove that they really totally definitely do have some power. It's a face-saving attempt.

The good news is, all residency programs will be subject to the same (better) standards in the near future. Some of the existing DO programs will either need to shape up, or close shop.

Especially when the ACGME went public about why the ACGME merger failed initially, exposing the AOA establishment, and bringing the wrath of their students.

 

[OCDEMS]

Let's be clear on something.

The ACGME/AOA residency merger was a capitulation on the part of DOs. Nothing less than a surrender. Because DOs had no leverage to bring to the negotiation table, and the reason the whole thing stalled in the first place was because the DO side tried to play tough with the ACGME and the ACGME told them to go suck an egg.

But the DOs came back. Because they had no leverage. And if ACGME slots were closed to them their business model was absolutely screwed. So they caved.

Now DO students are trying to cling to this 28% number to prove that they really totally definitely do have some power. It's a face-saving attempt.

The good news is, all residency programs will be subject to the same (better) standards in the near future. Some of the existing DO programs will either need to shape up, or close shop.

Do you realize how much 28% is for a profession that only comprises ~10% of the physician population? They may have been forced to the negotiation table, but that doesn't mean they didn't negotiate. There were a sizeable number of DOs who wanted to challenge the issue in court and there were serious people who thought it could have won. Protracted and potentially unsuccessful campaign? Maybe, but it would have set up a tremendous David vs Goliath debate in the public sphere. Guess who won that debate every other time? Yep, those supposedly inferior DOs.

 

[PL198]

No one said I'm a believer (I am aware of the research). Doesn't matter what I think, but it does matter what the public thinks. They seem to be ok with it.

lol so you pimp procedures you don't agree with medically? that's ethical. and what the public thinks is that DO is inferior to MD, which it is. which every other person involved in the medical industry thinks as well. good luck though, tell me when hopkins is fawning over DOs

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

Do you realize how much 28% is for a profession

As I said...DO students cling to this 28% number like it is magic...

 

[OCDEMS]

As I said...DO students cling to this 28% number like it is magic...

A lot of snark and nothing substantive. Here's the deal that I think a lot of you guys can't understand. I'm not sure why, but I think it has something to do with a serious lack of real world experience outside of medicine. It's not about what's right. Honestly, I don't disagree with some of the stuff you guys say, although I think the BS you spew about OMT being dangerous is hyperbole and comes from a serious place of insecurity. Placebo? Maybe. Seriously hurting people? Common.

It just doesn't matter. Popular opinion isn't decided based on the things that are important to you guys. The fact that organized medicine hasn't realized this is exactly why the DNP will be the next group of "physicians" for you all to complain about when you're 40 and surfing SDN.

It's sad how you guys sit and wait to pounce on the DOs students. Truly secure people don't do that because, well, it's pathetic. I shouldn't be able to post that and know certain people are going to reply in sub-30 minutes.

Edit: I'd like to remind everyone that, at its core, my original post was one of inclusiveness. You'e my colleagues and, despite @DermViser 's insistence on hunting DO students down like deer, I respect the value he provides in other discussions. It's an internet forum that's designed for exactly these types of debates, however tired and worn out they may be. Good game.

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

A lot of snark and nothing substantive.

A little bit of snark, with about as much substance as your posts.

I'm not sure why, but I think it has something to do with a serious lack of real world experience outside of medicine

Hearsay.

It's not about what's right.

What?

although I think the BS you spew about OMT being dangerous is hyperbole

Find ONE time where I've said this.

My DO anesthesia resident friend did some OMT voodoo on my shoulder. It felt pretty good.

The fact that organized medicine hasn't realized this is exactly why the DNP will be the next group of "physicians" for you all to complain about

Strawman and hearsay.

DNPs (and mid-level encroachment in general) are a huge issue that we are well aware of

when you're 40 and surfing SDN.

Ah the classic trope of one internet message board poster trying to imply that another message board poster is a loser for posting on an internet message board...

It's sad how you guys sit and wait to pounce on the DOs students.

I don't. You actually have no idea how I feel about DOs (hint: it's quite different from @DermViser 's position). But when the sub-segment of DO acolytes on SDN act like superior d-bags and post ridiculous hyperbole about the benefits of DO training and their obviously amazing future in which they will magically surpass MDs...well that kind of annoys me.

 

[OCDEMS]

But when the sub-segment of DO acolytes on SDN act like superior d-bags and post ridiculous hyperbole about the benefits of DO training and their obviously amazing future in which they will magically surpass MDs...well that kind of annoys me.

Dude, DOs don't think they're superior to MDs. At least none I've met and certainly not me. Most DOs see you as colleagues, nothing more and nothing less. You'll always be the majority and, frankly, the old guard on the DO side will always prefer that. The reality is that you will be working in a world where there are more and more DOs who possess more and more influence in organized medicine. That's all my post was about and it clearly hit a nerve. You two wouldn't be posting like fiends if it didn't.

 

[DermViser]

No one said I'm a believer (I am aware of the research). Doesn't matter what I think, but it does matter what the public thinks. They seem to be ok with it.

That's your threshold now? Well the general public is ok with it, so it's fine?

 

[DermViser]

Edit: I'd like to remind everyone that, at its core, my original post was one of inclusiveness. You'e my colleagues and, despite @DermViser 's insistence on hunting DO students down like deer, I respect the value he provides in other discussions. It's an internet forum that's designed for exactly these types of debates, however tired and worn out they may be. Good game.

In what way? Bc I don't believe OMT is actually a scientifically valid treatment of curing disease? Great strawman.

 

[OCDEMS]

That's your threshold now? Well the general public is ok with it, so it's fine?

It's not mine, it's the public's threshold. You and I share similar thoughts on some issues, although I don't always espouse them (I have you to do it for everyone else). I encourage you to go to a manipulation practice and watch these osteopathic physicians work with patients. People love it. Scientific? Meh. But they love it and it has a relatively low risk profile. People walk away feeling better and it makes them feel comfortable with their doctor. It feels old fashioned and a thousand other completely unquantifiable emotions that make people feel fuzzy inside.


At the end of the day, you’re arguing against apple pie. It always wins. Every time.

 

[DermViser]

Dude, DOs don't think they're superior to MDs. At least none I've met and certainly not me. Most DOs see you as colleagues, nothing more and nothing less. You'll always be the majority and, frankly, the old guard on the DO side will always prefer that. The reality is that you will be working in a world where there are more and more DOs who possess more and more influence in organized medicine. That's all my post was about and it clearly hit a nerve. You two wouldn't be posting like fiends if it didn't.

Really? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/e...steopathic-branch-of-medicine-is-booming.html

Dr. Goldberg believes osteopaths have a strong case to make. Too many doctors, he said, rely on expensive medical tests like CT scans and M.R.I.s and fail to probe or even touch the patient’s body. Osteopathic schools, on the other hand, stress physical diagnosis techniques like palpation or percussion — gently tapping the abdominal area, say, to determine if the size and shape of the liver suggest inflammation. An osteopath might more quickly notice that if a pregnant woman’s posture is askew her fetus is imposing a burden on her skeleton.

The D.O. philosophy makes much of patient interaction. “I hate the term holistic, but we look at the patient as a whole — from their biological, psychological, social, occupational and family background,” said Dr. Goldberg, a physiatrist (rehabilitation specialist) by training. “We teach respect for technology and laboratory testing to aid in making a diagnosis, but count on the history and physical examination to confirm it. In that way, we’re old-fashioned.”

 

[DermViser]

It's not mine, it's the public's threshold. You and I share similar thoughts on some issues, although I don't always espouse them (I have you to do it for everyone else). I encourage you to go to a manipulation practice and watch these osteopathic physicians work with patients. People love it. Scientific? Meh. But they love it and it has a relatively low risk profile. People walk away feeling better and it makes them feel comfortable with their doctor. It feels old fashioned and a thousand other completely unquantifiable emotions that make people feel fuzzy inside.

At the end of the day, you’re arguing against apple pie. It always wins. Every time.

And I'm sure the fact that you can bill more for it makes it that much better
http://www.acofp.org/Practice_Management/OMT_Coding_Stategies_to_Boost_Your_Bottom_Line/

 

[OCDEMS]

In what way? Bc I don't believe OMT is actually a scientifically valid treatment of curing disease? Great strawman.

Because you guys like demonstrating that your liberal arts education taught you something about deductive argument, a strawman would be using a false but loosely similar point designed to purposefully avoid answering the other's position. There is no fallacy of relevance: regardless of your stated reason (lack of scientific evidence for OMT), you DO hunt around for anyone who dares present a pro-DO argument. That's a fact, at least from my position.

 

[OCDEMS]

And I'm sure the fact that you can bill more for it makes it that much better
http://www.acofp.org/Practice_Management/OMT_Coding_Stategies_to_Boost_Your_Bottom_Line/

Yep, I bet it does. I've made that very point. BUT if you make that argument then we need to address the host of other treaments in the entire house of medicine that meet the same criteria.

 

[DermViser]

Because you guys like demonstrating that your liberal arts education taught you something about deductive argument, a strawman would be using a false but loosely similar point designed to purposefully avoiding answering the other's position. There is no fallacy of relevance: regardless of your stated reason (lack of scientific evidence for OMT), you DO hunt around for anyone who dares present a pro-DO argument. That's a fact, at least from my position.

You're really going to equate an undergraduate degree of non-science classes that foster deductive reasoning, critical thinking (which they do) with OMT - a treatment you're learning in med school? You don't think OMT should be held up to any scrutiny - when it's being advocated as a treatment for pediatric asthma? http://www.jaoa.org/content/105/1/7.full. Saying that this is ridiculous is "anti-DO"?

 

[username456789]

Placebo? Maybe. Seriously hurting people? Common.

That doesn't sound very promising.

 

[OCDEMS]

You're really going to equate an undergraduate degree of non-science classes that foster deductive reasoning, critical thinking (which they do) with OMT - a treatment you're learning in med school? You don't think OMT should be held up to any scrutiny - when it's being advocated as a treatment for pediatric asthma? http://www.jaoa.org/content/105/1/7.full. Saying that this is ridiculous is "anti-DO"?

No, it's not. Someone needs to question it, but that's not all you do. You're more than happy to hunt a DO student down in virtually every thread and remind them, at every turn, why they're inferior. Some of it is truth to power (hard love), but you're relentlessness borders on fanaticism. You're almost omnipotent. Like a shark who smells blood in the water. Like I said early, it takes impressive dedication. I've actually wondered if you have some type of filter set.

 

[DermViser]

No, it's not. Someone needs to question it, but that's not all you do. You're more than happy to hunt a DO student down in virtually every thread and remind them, at every turn, why they're inferior. Some of it is truth to power (hard love), but you're relentlessness borders on fanaticism. You're almost omnipotent. Like a shark who smells blood in the water. Like I said early, it takes impressive dedication. I've actually wondered if you have some type of filter set.

Great strawman but not even close to true. I have not "hunted down" D.O. students and tell them they are inferior and shouldn't be doctors. I have never said that. Unlike you however, I do think a D.O. student should know the reality of the match, and not believe believe on the Osteopathic threads saying now that the merger has happened D.O. = M.D. and both have an equal chance to getting a specialty/program in the post-merger world or bring up terms like "D.O. discrimination" and likening it to racial/gender discrimination. That is a full, blatant lie.

 

[OCDEMS]

Great strawman but not even close to true. I have not "hunted down" D.O. students and tell them they are inferior and shouldn't be doctors. I have never said that. Unlike you however, I do think a D.O. student should know the reality of the match, and not believe believe on the Osteopathic threads saying now that the merger has happened D.O. = M.D. and both have an equal chance to getting a specialty/program in the post-merger world or bring up terms like "D.O. discrimination" and likening it to racial/gender discrimination. That is a full, blatant lie.

Again, not a strawman. I was directly addressing your position. You just don’t agree with my interpretation of your position, which is fine. That's the basis of an argument.

If you were looking out for DO students, you'd be a bit nicer in your approach. Again, big fan. I've seen your work.

 

[PL198]

Again, not a strawman. I was directly addressing your position. You just don’t agree with my interpretation of your position, which is fine. That's the basis of an argument.

If you were looking out for DO students, you'd be a bit nicer in your approach. Again, big fan. I've seen your work.

The way you debate makes no sense. Like I don't even know what to call it. You're like agreeing with someone and then falsifying their claims and saying you disagree with those. Not sure I've seen that style before.

Again, if MD and DO are equal, tell me, why don't the top programs get DOs? Can you explain that to me?

 

[DermViser]

Again, not a strawman. I was directly addressing your position. You just don’t agree with my interpretation of your position, which is fine. That's the basis of an argument.

If you were looking out for DO students, you'd be a bit nicer in your approach. Again, big fan. I've seen your work.

I think I know my position, better than you do. Thanks. You seem to like dealing with black-and-white, all good or all bad scenarios, bc they're easier strawmen to blow down. Congrats.

 

[jakeislove]

DOs aren't going to increase in number, they will decrease. With the way things are going, no one is going to settle for the second tier physician. There's no reason for the two to join together. It's just the fact, it's an inferior training system that has been tolerated in the past and will be destroyed as things get more competitive.

I've never seen the MD/DO thing be an issue outside of academics or online foolishness.

It's a great way for people to feel superior but I've never seen it be an issue for patients.

Aside from language and communication issues, I've never seen sick people complain about country of degree origin.

I'm from a very small town. No one would be impressed unless you went to Harvard or Hopkins.

 

[username456789]

Aside from language and communication issues, I've never seen sick people complain about country of degree origin.

Oh, it happens.

 

[jakeislove]

Oh, it happens.

It's a small town. Sick people are just happy to have a doctor and not wait too long.

 

[shibby1111]

On average, the baby boomers had fewer children than their parents, and on average, the children of baby boomers have had fewer children than the boomers themselves. Also, your n=1 isn't exactly helpful when the statistical trends are well established.

Oh sorry, didn't realize this was a super technical/statistical discussion. You didn't have to be a d!ck about it. Anyways, the life expectancy of the baby boomers' children is longer than the baby boomers so its possible that their longevity (and their need for medicine during that longevity) will balance out the loss of the baby boomer generation. Just a thought - didn't do a statistical analysis.

 

[username456789]

Oh sorry, didn't realize this was a super technical/statistical discussion. You didn't have to be a d!ck about it. Anyways, the life expectancy of the baby boomers' children is longer than the baby boomers so its possible that their longevity (and their need for medicine during that longevity) will balance out the loss of the baby boomer generation. Just a thought - didn't do a statistical analysis.

This is pretty hilarious.

"How dare you use facts to support your argument!"

 

[tdram]

I think if people are advocating to take away Dr. Oz's license for quackery, every DO that practices OMT should have their license pulled as well, because there is no more evidence for that treatment than there is for Oz's green tea goji berries.

 

[DermViser]

It's a small town. Sick people are just happy to have a doctor and not wait too long.

Most of us live in suburbia or major cities.

 

[jakeislove]

Most of us live in suburbia or major cities.

Huge difference. My town only has around 70K people.

 

[username456789]

Huge difference. My town only has around 70K people.

The point is that your experience is not something you can generalize to most areas.

Also, 70K people is not a "small town." My hometown had ~2k people.

 

[DermViser]

Huge difference. My town only has around 70K people.

My point is that you can bet in suburbia/major cities, we will be looking up where our providers went to school, etc. In rural areas, you have no choice. You'll essentially get people who don't want to be there or are on some NHSC obligation, unless they're from a rural area.

 

[OCDEMS]

I think if people are advocating to take away Dr. Oz's license for quackery, every DO that practices OMT should have their license pulled as well, because there is no more evidence for that treatment than there is for Oz's green tea goji berries.

You do realize that there is some decent evidence that OMT works for people with lower back pain, the #1 cause of disability in the United States? There is a reason why it's supported by the NHS in the U.K. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Osteopathy/Pages/Evidence.aspx

You do realize that Germany also offers additional training and licensure of physicians in osteopathic medicine? http://wp.oialliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/germany_om.pdf

I think the NHS' website does the best job at explaining where there is and isn't evidence to support OMT. Spoiler alert: it's basically back pain. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many DOs who have graduated in the last 20 years who thinks that OMT is anything other than an adjunct to traditional medicine. It's not a panacea, but the idea propagated on here that it has no basis in any fact just isn't correct. This is where I do agree with a lot of the detractors: the field needs to modernize and remove the stuff that is truly fantastical, regardless if it's harmless.

 

[OCDEMS]

The way you debate makes no sense. Like I don't even know what to call it. You're like agreeing with someone and then falsifying their claims and saying you disagree with those. Not sure I've seen that style before.

Again, if MD and DO are equal, tell me, why don't the top programs get DOs? Can you explain that to me?

I'm not on here to make you guys miserable. I have an academic interest in health policy and in particular professional issues in medicine. That is some of what attracts me to these debates. I think osteopathic medicine is an interesting case study, if nothing else.

There are top programs in some specialities that do routinely take DOs. Emergency medicine is one speciality where this occurs, mainly because they're progressive and are truly looking for the "best" applicants. This has continued as the speciality itself has become more competitive. There are other top programs that have flirted with it for some time (interviewing top DOs). I think this is where you see DO students hopeful about the merger. Over the next 10 years I believe you'll see see at least one DO in many of these programs and the reason is mainly one that a lot of people want to pretend is inconsequential but really very much is.

 

[Apprands31]

Wow! Someone's getting his ass handed to him. This thread is brutal, but entertaining.

 

[OCDEMS]

Wow! Someone's getting his ass handed to him. This thread is brutal, but entertaining.

Nothing like watching the animals beat up on the presumptive DO student. Have you ever thought that this is indicative of something poisonous? Probably not. Oh well, enjoy the show. It's like baseball: SDN's national past time. Or the Romans at the Colosseum.

Like I said earlier, I was ready for this the moment I conceived my original post. The contempt that seethes through people's skin is empowering.

 

[DermViser]

Nothing like watching the animals beat up on the presumptive DO student. Have you ever thought that this is indicative of something poisonous? Probably not. Oh well, enjoy the show. It's like baseball: SDN's national past time. Or the Roman's at the Colosseum.

Like I said earlier, I was ready for this the moment I conceived my original post. The contempt that seethes through people's skin is empowering.

You have a huge chip on your shoulder and seem to love playing the victim.

 

[username456789]

Nothing like watching the animals beat up on the presumptive DO student. Have you ever thought that this is indicative of something poisonous? Probably not. Oh well, enjoy the show. It's like baseball: SDN's national past time. Or the Roman's at the Colosseum.

Like I said earlier, I was ready for this the moment I conceived my original post. The contempt that seethes through people's skin is empowering.

You are trying wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too hard, man.

 

[OCDEMS]

You have a huge chip on your shoulder...

Pot, meet kettle.

...and seem to love playing the victim.

Says the majority to the minority.

 

[OCDEMS]

You are trying wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too hard, man.

Yeah, probably.

 

[NontradCA]

Oh what a joke. Academic dickwaving (see all threads on competitiveness of specialty), all while the public and government loses all appreciation for the prestige and legitimacy of the profession (see all threads on ACA, NP/PAs). I laugh at how much thought and time is spent in medical school to hold the profession up on a pedastool, while doing absolutely nothing to appeal to those that matter the most. Oh, we're much too good for that. As long as WE think it, it must be true.

 

[Psai]

Pot, meet kettle.



Says the majority to the minority.

Lmao what are you al sharpton or something

 

[DermViser]

Oh what a joke. Academic dickwaving (see all threads on competitiveness of specialty), all while the public and government loses all appreciation for the prestige and legitimacy of the profession (see all threads on ACA, NP/PAs). I laugh at how much thought and time is spent in medical school to hold the profession up on a pedastool, while doing absolutely nothing to appeal to those that matter the most. Oh, we're much too good for that. As long as WE think it, it must be true.

 

[OCDEMS]

Lmao what are you al sharpton or something

LOL, HA HA! No, but the MD world certainly risk a similar comparison. The allopathic community has been a great steward of higher medicine when it comes to the nursing issue Physicians look like giant brats in nearly every state legislature in which they've ever seriously fought the battle because they have the political accumen of a group of 4 year olds, which is further evidenced by the incredible demonstration of mental power in this thread. DOs have played the same game and won every time, in all 50 states. To the outside world, i.e. everyone else not in medicine, the anti-DO sentiment looks pathetic and stupid and further stigmatizes the evil doctor as elitist, spoiled rich kids who don't deserve their income or respect.

"Nurses are just as capable as doctors to provide the vast majority of routine medical care."

Physicians: "WAAAA!!" Stomp around. Random platitudes about how our education is superior. Further temper tantrum. Anecdotes about lack of evidence. "WAAA!!!"

Geez. The entire point of my original post was that these types of battles (MD vs. DO) are unproductive and divisive at the expense of the profession as a whole. People here don't get it: the ultimate goal of nursing is to establish the DNP as an alternate way into the vast majority of medical practice, period. Meanwhile, a bunch of guys on SDN are poaching DOs who, for all intents and purposes, are their equals professsionally. It's mind boggling.

 

[BurghStudent]

Imagine if there were DOs but there was never such a thing as OMT, in which case there wouldn't really be any need for two separate degrees, there simply would be more urban/academic and more rural/community MD schools.

It all comes down to OMT. Either conduct a crapload of research on it, prove it works, or drop it. Everything is moving to evidence-based, so this might have to happen sooner than you think.

 

[BurghStudent]

LOL, HA HA! No, but the MD world certainly risk a similar comparison. The allopathic community has been a great steward of higher medicine when it comes to the nursing issue Physicians look like giant brats in nearly every state legislature in which they've ever seriously fought the battle because they have the political accumen of a group of 4 year olds, which is further evidenced by the incredible demonstration of mental power in this thread. DOs have played the same game and won every time, in all 50 states. To the outside world, i.e. everyone else not in medicine, the anti-DO sentiment looks pathetic and stupid and further stigmatizes the evil doctor as elitist, spoiled rich kids who don't deserve their income or respect.

"Nurses are just as capable as doctors to provide the vast majority of routine medical care."

Physicians: "WAAAA!!" Stomp around. Random platitudes about how our education is superior. Further temper tantrum. Anecdotes about lack of evidence. "WAAA!!!"

Geez. The entire point of my original post was that these types of battles (MD vs. DO) are unproductive and divisive at the expense of the profession as a whole. People here don't get it: the ultimate goal of nursing is to establish the DNP as an alternate way into the vast majority of medical practice, period. Meanwhile, a bunch of guys on SDN are poaching DOs who, for all intents and purposes, are their equals professsionally. It's mind boggling.

I totally agree with you that physicians don't know how to organize. We need to put our differences aside to tackle battles from outside the physician profession.

 

[OCDEMS]

Imagine if there were DOs but there was never such a thing as OMT, in which case there wouldn't really be any need for two separate degrees, there simply would be more urban/academic and more rural/community MD schools.

It all comes down to OMT. Either conduct a crapload of research on it, prove it works, or drop it. Everything is moving to evidence-based, so this might have to happen sooner than you think.

Honestly, this. The secret that no one will tell you inside the osteopathic community is that DO identity centers around the ritual of OMT instruction. It becomes a very intimate part of the tradition of osteopathic education and, regardless of viability as a practice, emphasizes the art of touch and physical diagnosis. The vast majority of students leave school with a healthy skepticism of the practice in all but a few select instances. Even still, most would not renounce their DO identity because it's such an important part of their 4 years.


It's basically a classic identity crisis that is egged on by these types of arguments. If the hostility had ended 20-30 years ago, most of the ridiculous stuff would have been punted out of the curriculum long ago.

 

[NontradCA]

Haha, whoops

 

[oldbearprofessor]

My point is that you can bet in suburbia/major cities, we will be looking up where our providers went to school, etc.

Out of curiosity, if you or someone you cared about had a sick child and was at a children's hospital, which schools would you/they accept providers from? What if they just needed stitches? What if they were healthy newborns and the DO hospitalist was covering the newborn nursery. What if they went to a DO or Caribbean or other foreign school but had done a US residency? Which residencies would you accept? Assume for a moment that it is possible to ask for a specific doctor within a service, as is "sometimes" possible.

In 30 years plus since I graduated from med school I've only once ever seen or heard of that happening in pediatrics and the family got it all wrong.

 

[Winged Scapula]

Although anecdotal, I have seen this too unfortunately. I know someone who went to an Ivy League and then to a DO school and won't even list the DO school on their Facebook. Yet they have their residency hospital listed so it's not like they "forgot".

Yep one of my business partners does the same. Her business cards, the sign on the door etc. all say "Dr" instead of "DO". This is not an oversight, it's done intentionally.

That being said she's had patients (few, but they do exist) refuse to see her because of the DO so her subterfuge is understandable.