<p>^^underpaid and overworked sounds pretty much like any entry level job in any field…you have to prove yourself before you move up.</p>
<p>ddhwan, regarding residency funding and limitations:</p>
<p>Google “AMA urges congress: retain funding for residency programs, increase training positions to address doctor shortage”</p>
<p>Quoting from the AMA release: " The number of GME (graduate medical education, or residency) slots has been frozen by the federal government since 1997. As a result, U.S. medical school graduates will exceed the number of available slots as soon as 2015."</p>
<p>“Medical schools are expanding enrollment and making changes to prepare students … but that is just part of the continuum of medical education essential to produce physicians. … Limiting the slots available to train physicians as they leave medical school creates a bottleneck in the system and prevents the physician workforce from growing to meet the needs of our nation’s patients.”</p>
<p>'only those who have met the academic standards and depending on the HS attended have the chance to even be in the college admissions process. '</p>
<p>Yes, the appropriate academic standards must be met for all degree courses, with A levels the most usual for school leavers entering medicine. However comprehensive (ie non selective) high schools are the norm in most parts of the country, and have been for several decades (mostly since the 1970’s) and all schools must offer GCSEs, taken usually at age 15-16. Youngsters attending 11-16 schools then transfer to 6th form/tertiary or further education colleges to take academic, eg A levels, applied or vocational courses, though the latter may be part time components of apprenticeships. Currently they may also work. The HS attended should make no difference to the chance of able students applying for uni admission although social factors may, as elsewhere.
Polytechnics were intended as advanced applied subject institutions, but broadened to include other studies and so eventually became universities in name as well.</p>
<p>Eastcosascrazy I understand what you say but in practice it will not happen for long. You assume money is what is holding the number of spots down. My husband for instance did internal medicine. Then he wanted to do ophthalmology. They did not pay his second residency. A residency programs are actually good business for a country in need of doctors like the US is, or soon will be(specially general practice ). Do not get me wrong. I do not condone the over expansion of medical schools, even though I think that some extra good residency programs can actual be beneficial. I am just saying that the medical education in the US is changing faster than we think and the changes are not coming from the big universities. They are coming from smaller state schools and from hospitals.</p>
<p>Ddahwn, I’m not disagreeing with you about the need to increase physicians. Residencies are major money losing programs. It costs a tremndous amount of money to fund the 3-8 years of residency for each physician. Salaries are the least of the costs that we are duscussing.</p>
<p>Residencies are funded through the federal government, and, at this particular time, are vulnerable to losing some funding, not gaining additional funding for more residencies.</p>
<p>Who do you think is going to pay for the training of more physicians? Not the hospitals where they train. Residents are not revenue producers for the hospitals.</p>
<p>^There is a controversy right now about expanding the role of physician assistants and nurses to include some responsibilities of doctors, so there is definitely an unmet need. Sometimes this effect is regional, like in a case of a very rural area with only one doctor.</p>
<p>The federal government pays approximately $9 billion per year for GME physician training.</p>
<p>Each resident is paid $40-50,000 per year, but it costs approximately $150,000 per year to train each resident. </p>
<p>In 1997, as a part of an effort to balance the federal budget residency training slots were capped.</p>
<p>New medical schools have opened, but that simply means that foreign med school graduates and osteopath school graduates have a harder time getting chosen for residency spots.</p>
<p>You are right about OD in general, because of that the ones being trained now have amazing scores, vast research experience and even some specialized clinical experience. In Miami there are some new residencies,specially in ophthalmology, that are open only for ODs at this time.</p>
<p>Ophthalmologists are MDs, not ODs. ODs are optometrists. I am not aware of ophthalomology residencies that are to ODs. In the past you’ve had to be an MD. </p>
<p>Eastcoast is right. Residency training is expensive, and the number of slots is set by the government. Any new slots “opening now” are the result of years of petitioning by those institutions.</p>
<p>There are MD ophthalmologists and DO ophthalmologists (you are right got the letters backwards). They have the same basic training and are trained in same surgical skills. Now tell me why costs are higher if every year residents come out of school with less and less surgical training?</p>
<p>DO= Doctor of Osteopathy
OD= Oculus Doctor=optometrists</p>
<p>DOs can do an ophth residency. ODs can’t.</p>
<p>I have no idea what you’re talking about in the second part of your post.</p>
<p>Jaylynn thank you for your comment. Residents now a days come out of school with very little surgical experience compared to ten years, or more years ago. They then go to a fellowship program to make up for that lack of experience. Just to make myself clear a second time on my comment about DOs I know they are not optometrists. My husband is an ophthalmologist (MD).</p>
<p>Which surgical specialty residency are you talking about? Many residencies of course involve no surgery at all…</p>