\n\n“despite the great need for more doctors, there are still huge gaps between the number of aspiring physicians and the space available to train them, a dynamic that keeps perfectly well-qualified medical school applicants and graduates out of the pipeline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In 2021, for instance, there were a record-setting 42,508 active applicants for residency programs \u2014 3,741 more than in 2020 \u2014 but only 35,194 first-year positions, according to the National Resident Matching Program<\/a>. Although the number of residency spots has been creeping upward in recent years, the growth has not been fast enough to close the gap.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the root of the mismatch between physician supply and demand are decades-old limits on medical school enrollment and outdated rules governing the federal funding for most residency programs. While Congress has taken some baby steps toward increasing that funding, it has yet to make the kinds of bold changes necessary to create a sustainable and pandemic-resilient physician workforce.” …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “The US medical system falls behind those of our peer countries in so many ways. We have higher administrative costs and worse outcomes<\/a> than other high-income countries \u2014 and we also have fewer physicians available per person.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIf you take a look at EU countries that have sophisticated medical systems,\u201d explained Janis Orlowski, chief health care officer at the AAMC, \u201cthey have between 30 and 40 physicians per 10,000 people. In the United States, we have about 26 to 27.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s not an apples-to-apples comparison, in part because physicians use their time differently in different systems. But it\u2019s clear the shortage is a burden, and it\u2019s likely to get worse as the US population grows larger and older.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “In a December 2021 survey<\/a> conducted by the American Medical Association, one in five physicians said they would likely leave their current practice within two years, and about a third said they\u2019d likely reduce their work hours in the next year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The larger workforce trend has been dubbed the \u201cGreat Resignation<\/a>,\u201d and the reasons doctors are quitting echo the factors contributing to shortfalls among other health professionals<\/a>, including nurses, medical assistants, physical therapists, and pharmacists. Burnout, fear of exposure, pandemic-related mood changes, and workload were all associated with intent to leave the profession.” …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “It\u2019s easy to imagine a simple solution for this problem: Incentivizing doctors from other countries to immigrate to the US. But this is not as quick a fix as it seems. Most states require doctors to complete residency training in the US<\/a>, which takes at least three years. That applies even for doctors who practiced independently at expert levels in other countries<\/a>; the chief of surgery at the fanciest hospital in India would still have to repeat residency in order to practice in the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n About 13,000 of the residency match applicants this year were graduates of international medical schools, 8,000 of whom were not US citizens. But no matter how many additional doctors want to jump through the hoops necessary to practice in the US, long waits for visas and restrictive terms<\/a> limiting where and for how long they can practice in the US make it unlikely many more will be added to the health care workforce in the near term.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “One major bottleneck in the physician pipeline is medical school admissions, which are only graduating about 27,000 students each year. \u201cThat started in the 1980s with the freakout over a physician surplus,\u201d said Robert Orr, a social policy analyst at the Niskanen Center in Washington, DC. At the time, miscalculations about population growth and changes in medical care delivery contributed to a moratorium on medical school enrollment<\/a> that lasted until 2005.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although medical schools have since continued to grow<\/a>, expanding too quickly could result in a surplus of medical graduates with nowhere to do their residencies. That\u2019s because of the other major bottleneck in the pipeline \u2014 the low number of residency positions. This year\u2019s 36,000 first-year residency slots are inadequate to meet the US need for physicians and inadequate to provide training positions for all the applicants seeking them \u2014 and like the dearth of medical school seats, it is a consequence of restrictions created long ago with arguably good intentions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Since the Medicare and Medicaid Act was first passed in 1965<\/a>, medical residents have been paid for mostly by the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The goal was to ensure Medicare beneficiaries had access to the best health care, which was thought to be found in teaching hospitals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 1983, Medicare made changes to the way it reimbursed hospitals for residency programs. At that time, it created formulas that calculated the dollar amount of residency training funds it supplied to each hospital as a percentage of that hospital\u2019s care expenditures and its volume of Medicare patients \u2014 sort of like a restaurant tip, said Orr.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Those formulas have never been updated \u2014 and because they tie funding to the cost of care, they have resulted in better funding for hospitals providing high-cost care in high-cost (usually urban) areas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Over the years, this inequitable distribution of residency program funding<\/a> has meant that hospitals prioritizing primary care services in rural areas get less funding and fewer residents than those that perform lots of expensive procedures in cities. That leads to fewer primary care specialists, and because physicians often practice near where they train, fewer rural physicians.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This fee structure also incentivizes hospitals to raise the cost of the care they deliver, and results in lower funding for residency programs at hospitals that treat younger populations less likely to be covered by Medicare.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Worse yet, to reduce Medicare expenditures, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 capped the number of resident slots<\/a> that could be funded by Medicare each year. It also capped the number of residents each hospital could have at their 1996 levels, which meant hospitals couldn\u2019t get additional residents even if the population they served ballooned in size. Obamacare undid this restriction<\/a> in 2010, and since then, the number of residency spots has grown modestly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2020, Congress passed a federal budget bill<\/a> that provided for 1,000 new Medicare-funded residency slots<\/a> to be added over the next five years. But that\u2019s nowhere near enough to close the current gaps.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Money donated by private insurers funds some residency positions at \u201cthe hospitals with the prestige and market power to extract it,\u201d said Orr, but \u201cit\u2019s not a super-equitable way of trying to get residents out to different hospitals where maybe the population isn\u2019t as well served.\u201d”<\/p>\n\n\n\n …<\/p>\n\n\n\n “There are also some solutions that sidestep the residency bottleneck entirely. One of the more promising fixes to the physician shortage is to allow other highly trained providers, like nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and pharmacists, to practice independently of doctors. The American Medical Association has vigorously<\/a> fought this change for more than 30 years<\/a>, and physicians who oppose the move often cite patient safety concerns, although they are not substantiated by safety<\/a> studies<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Much of the real motivation to prevent these providers from practicing independently may be about money and professional sovereignty<\/a>; private practice doctors in particular are financially disincentivized from expanding the scope of other practitioners.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n