This subject came up between Regulator and me. https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3981142/posts?page=50#50
Regulator to Kevmo
Oh sure, but I really only have the one data point.
My search link was
https://search.brave.com/search?q=ama+future+MD+requirement+totals&source=desktop
There’s a lot of other hits.
It’s a long discussion, and I had at least two more paragraphs that I deleted in my original reply to you.
The bottom line is that a supply side approach to MDs in this country would solve major cost issues, and that an enormous number of perfectly capable people were denied entry to medical school in the last 50 years because of the system being gamed by not just the AMA but a lot of other people. What surprises me is that the customers - the INSURANCE companies - went along with it.
FYI
I’m not sure if there are any pertinent ping lists
I’ve never known of an unemployed doctor, other than a retired one.
Keeping doctor’s salaries high was the original, stated, explicit purpose of the AMA. That’s what licensing is all about: a barrier to entry to the marketplace, which those charged with keeping the barrier have a vested interest in maintaining.
The information I have is rather old:
Only about 10% of licensed doctors choose to join the AMA because the 90% feel that it is a corrupt organization which only wants the dues money and does little else.
The AMA is not a regulatory board — it is an association and a rather liberal one at that. I cannot stand that AMA — they are a bunch of idiots and I am not a member as neither are any of my colleagues.
The number of residencies are set by the federal government which determines the number of physicians.
Its disgusting.
We don’t need any more Dr. Fauxcys...
Insurance companies are highly regulated. As I recall, and I can be corrected, Insurance companies are allowed a profit of essentially cost plus a "reasonable percentage". Thus, insurance companies have an incentive of increasing medical costs. As medical costs increase, what they can charge and how much they can profit can increase.
The AMA and the ABA. Two entities fully positioned and endowed with authority to bamboozle the common man.
The medical field is a powerful and well protected lobby. In the military they are virtually their own chain of command like JaG or Chaplains.
You can be a PhD in physics and the military will treat you as a private and see little interest in you. But a mere nurse can get red carpet treatment and be an officer just like that with all kinds of waivers, age does not matter.
I think this issue has existed long before the AMA was set up to highjack this lobby for its niche own benefits. Eg. The American Heart Association is also a licensing mafia for CPR certification, but even AHA certified people have a hard time accessing the technical knowledge needed to do a good job, they thus learn on the job and with other 3rd party material to get current.
The result I suppose is few people get certified and they make a lot of money training restaurant owners and even doctors, however the overall scheme to realize is that it really is a pyramidal scheme where you make money certifying other instructors who will then certify other people etc. To save the planet from heart attacks.... Or, rather, get $$$
Congress needs to fund more residencies. Then Med Schools can expand enrollment.
It seems we are importing them by leaps and bounds. My poor sister can’t understand a word her doc says, but he’s the only GP covered by her insurance within any kind of reasonable distance.
Hogwash. Including most of the reply posts. I won’t dignify it any further than that.
The AMA is a liberal lobbying group. They have nothing to do with setting the number of residency spots available
bmk
The bottleneck is mainly at the medical education level, including residencies. But the bottom line is that we have too few doctors. We have fewer per capita than most of the developed world. Yet we should have more given the high demand there is for healthcare in this country.