<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: No doctor glut &#8211; oops!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.medrants.com/archives/2291/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.medrants.com/archives/2291</link>
	<description>Internal medicine, American health care, and especially medical education</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:15:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: nevins</title>
		<link>http://www.medrants.com/archives/2291/comment-page-1#comment-67246</link>
		<dc:creator>nevins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:53:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medrants.com/archives/2005/03/03/no-doctor-glut-oops/#comment-67246</guid>
		<description>Medicine is a land of bizarre economics.  Supply and demand does not exist.  The price of a service is not allowed to float a market pricing so physicians cannot allocate themselves to areas of greater need because areas of greater need often paradoxically reimburse at lower rates.  

This is not greed, it is just plain market capitalism.  No one expects the star quarterback to accept a tenth of the salary just because some mediocre team would derive greater benefit from his presence than if he went with the high bidder.  

As long as the backward economics in health care run counter to what makes the rest of our economy run efficiently we cannot expect a rational distribution of health care providers.  

We bitch and moan about the price of gasoline right now, but the supply/demand setting a floating price has kept virtually every pump open.  If you can recall the effects of rationed gasoline and price controlls of the 70&#039;s it mirrors what happens in health care;  lines, inefficient distribution, hoarding.  

Why does the government not want market rates to apply?  Because then medicare/medicaid would have to pay commensurate with private insurers.  Government insured patients will never get optimal access as long as they are viewed as a cost liability for whom the provision of care is seen as a public service.  Sure there is a tradition of charity in health care, but this &#039;charity&#039; comes with onerous paperwork requirements, and the everpresent possibility of a government audit with the specter of prison and large fines if they don&#039;t like the book-keeping.  Try to limit the amoung of &#039;charity&#039; so that one does not go financially bust and run afoul of more laws mandating this enforced &#039;giving&#039;.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Medicine is a land of bizarre economics.  Supply and demand does not exist.  The price of a service is not allowed to float a market pricing so physicians cannot allocate themselves to areas of greater need because areas of greater need often paradoxically reimburse at lower rates.  </p>
<p>This is not greed, it is just plain market capitalism.  No one expects the star quarterback to accept a tenth of the salary just because some mediocre team would derive greater benefit from his presence than if he went with the high bidder.  </p>
<p>As long as the backward economics in health care run counter to what makes the rest of our economy run efficiently we cannot expect a rational distribution of health care providers.  </p>
<p>We bitch and moan about the price of gasoline right now, but the supply/demand setting a floating price has kept virtually every pump open.  If you can recall the effects of rationed gasoline and price controlls of the 70&#8242;s it mirrors what happens in health care;  lines, inefficient distribution, hoarding.  </p>
<p>Why does the government not want market rates to apply?  Because then medicare/medicaid would have to pay commensurate with private insurers.  Government insured patients will never get optimal access as long as they are viewed as a cost liability for whom the provision of care is seen as a public service.  Sure there is a tradition of charity in health care, but this &#8216;charity&#8217; comes with onerous paperwork requirements, and the everpresent possibility of a government audit with the specter of prison and large fines if they don&#8217;t like the book-keeping.  Try to limit the amoung of &#8216;charity&#8217; so that one does not go financially bust and run afoul of more laws mandating this enforced &#8216;giving&#8217;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DB&#8217;s Medical Rants &#187; The cost of medical school</title>
		<link>http://www.medrants.com/archives/2291/comment-page-1#comment-66673</link>
		<dc:creator>DB&#8217;s Medical Rants &#187; The cost of medical school</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:53:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medrants.com/archives/2005/03/03/no-doctor-glut-oops/#comment-66673</guid>
		<description>[...] I have previously address the number of medical students problem - No doctor glut - oops!. This is the real reason for the limited number of slots. We listened to planners who made incorrect assumptions. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I have previously address the number of medical students problem &#8211; No doctor glut &#8211; oops!. This is the real reason for the limited number of slots. We listened to planners who made incorrect assumptions. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nuj gonzales</title>
		<link>http://www.medrants.com/archives/2291/comment-page-1#comment-21955</link>
		<dc:creator>nuj gonzales</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 May 2005 02:02:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medrants.com/archives/2005/03/03/no-doctor-glut-oops/#comment-21955</guid>
		<description>i think america should change its MD test. why not adopt the test of canada  - make the test more clinical than the basic sciences (MLE 1)  i think this will attract more MDs from other countries</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i think america should change its MD test. why not adopt the test of canada  &#8211; make the test more clinical than the basic sciences (MLE 1)  i think this will attract more MDs from other countries</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matthew Holt</title>
		<link>http://www.medrants.com/archives/2291/comment-page-1#comment-15358</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Holt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2005 03:13:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medrants.com/archives/2005/03/03/no-doctor-glut-oops/#comment-15358</guid>
		<description>Given that the supply of physicians increases the use of medical care, and that we seem to have no practical way of stopping it in this country, it&#039;s clear to me that increasing the supply of physicians further will have ONLY the result of increasing overall costs. There is no evidence and there never has been that more medical care increases the overall health of the population. Some particular disease state are improved by technology, but there&#039;s no evidence that the increased number of physicians since the 1970s (when medical school class sizes doubled) had much to do with that.

Instead we will simply add to the growing number of specialists (75% of graduating residents), and Health Affairs printed  an article last week proving that the more specialists, the higher the mortality rate at a county level. So producing more doctors may actually hurt the health of the population rather than help it.  Either way it&#039;ll cost society a hell of a lot more money.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Given that the supply of physicians increases the use of medical care, and that we seem to have no practical way of stopping it in this country, it&#8217;s clear to me that increasing the supply of physicians further will have ONLY the result of increasing overall costs. There is no evidence and there never has been that more medical care increases the overall health of the population. Some particular disease state are improved by technology, but there&#8217;s no evidence that the increased number of physicians since the 1970s (when medical school class sizes doubled) had much to do with that.</p>
<p>Instead we will simply add to the growing number of specialists (75% of graduating residents), and Health Affairs printed  an article last week proving that the more specialists, the higher the mortality rate at a county level. So producing more doctors may actually hurt the health of the population rather than help it.  Either way it&#8217;ll cost society a hell of a lot more money.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DB&#8217;s Medical Rants &#187; Long hours and the doctor shortage</title>
		<link>http://www.medrants.com/archives/2291/comment-page-1#comment-14056</link>
		<dc:creator>DB&#8217;s Medical Rants &#187; Long hours and the doctor shortage</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2005 21:10:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medrants.com/archives/2005/03/03/no-doctor-glut-oops/#comment-14056</guid>
		<description>[...] ase trainee size have been constrained by federal policy. 	As I blogged several days ago - No doctor glut - Oops! we will probably see an increase in both medical schools and  [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] ase trainee size have been constrained by federal policy. 	As I blogged several days ago &#8211; No doctor glut &#8211; Oops! we will probably see an increase in both medical schools and  [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mudfud</title>
		<link>http://www.medrants.com/archives/2291/comment-page-1#comment-14044</link>
		<dc:creator>mudfud</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2005 02:11:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medrants.com/archives/2005/03/03/no-doctor-glut-oops/#comment-14044</guid>
		<description>While I&#039;m all for increasing the size of medical school classes, there are many practical considerations that can take some time to overcome.  In order to increase a current class of 160 students by 15%, you would need to add 24 students per year.  What happens when the lecture halls were only built to hold 170?  When there isn&#039;t enough room in the gross labs for 6 more groups?  When there isn&#039;t enough room to add tables in the micro/path labs for everyone and their microscopes?

Obviously you can add an extra person to a gross anatomy group, figure out something for the microscopes, and count on a crowded classroom for only the first few weeks until people stop going to class.  But you still run into all sorts of other problems: too few computers in the library, not enough study space, overtaxed support staff, not enough lockers, for everyone, etc, etc.  Some of the costs for increasing infrastructure will be covered by the $26,000 tuition those extra 24 students are paying each year, but if a school&#039;s resources are already taxed, and significant improvements need to be made, the easy solution is to just increase tuition.  Tuition increases can be problematic for those reaching the end of their loan limits, or and the amount of debt someone graduates with certainly influences career decisions. 

So, what is the best solution?  I honestly don&#039;t know.  Obviously some schools can absorb extra students more easily than others, but is that even a good solution to the problem?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While I&#8217;m all for increasing the size of medical school classes, there are many practical considerations that can take some time to overcome.  In order to increase a current class of 160 students by 15%, you would need to add 24 students per year.  What happens when the lecture halls were only built to hold 170?  When there isn&#8217;t enough room in the gross labs for 6 more groups?  When there isn&#8217;t enough room to add tables in the micro/path labs for everyone and their microscopes?</p>
<p>Obviously you can add an extra person to a gross anatomy group, figure out something for the microscopes, and count on a crowded classroom for only the first few weeks until people stop going to class.  But you still run into all sorts of other problems: too few computers in the library, not enough study space, overtaxed support staff, not enough lockers, for everyone, etc, etc.  Some of the costs for increasing infrastructure will be covered by the $26,000 tuition those extra 24 students are paying each year, but if a school&#8217;s resources are already taxed, and significant improvements need to be made, the easy solution is to just increase tuition.  Tuition increases can be problematic for those reaching the end of their loan limits, or and the amount of debt someone graduates with certainly influences career decisions. </p>
<p>So, what is the best solution?  I honestly don&#8217;t know.  Obviously some schools can absorb extra students more easily than others, but is that even a good solution to the problem?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: arf</title>
		<link>http://www.medrants.com/archives/2291/comment-page-1#comment-14000</link>
		<dc:creator>arf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:26:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medrants.com/archives/2005/03/03/no-doctor-glut-oops/#comment-14000</guid>
		<description>From the USA Today article:

&quot;TALLAHASSEE, Fla. â€” Retired fisherman Billy Bodiford was diagnosed with prostate cancer in October. The doctor who found the cancer is the only urologist available in Taylor County, Fla. (pop. 19,200) â€” and he visits just one day a month.&quot;

C&#039;mon db !!!

Would YOU want your radical prostatectomy done in a hospital servicing a county of less than twenty thousand people?

Even if there WERE a urologist in that county, even if that hospital DID radical prostatectomies in that county, simple statistics would hold that the hospital would do them so rarely that you would not want that surgery done on you, or on someone you cared about, in that hospital.

You know d@mn well you would be the first on the road to Tallahassee if you were in that county.....and you would be recommending the same to your patients.

Sorry....I have no sympathy for those who get upset that they don&#039;t have the Mayo Clinic in Jerkwater USA.

I live and practice in an area that small. It&#039;s beautiful, so we get a lot of people who want to retire here. I have had many new patients who move here, despite major illness that requires tertiary care.

I mean ONGOING tertiary care.

I tell tham, they have no business moving here. Many have taken my advice and moved back to the big city, to be closer to the healthcare we won&#039;t have a prayer of offering here. Some ignore me, but after a year of driving back and forth 100+ miles one-way to the University, they see the error of their ways.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From the USA Today article:</p>
<p>&#8220;TALLAHASSEE, Fla. â€” Retired fisherman Billy Bodiford was diagnosed with prostate cancer in October. The doctor who found the cancer is the only urologist available in Taylor County, Fla. (pop. 19,200) â€” and he visits just one day a month.&#8221;</p>
<p>C&#8217;mon db !!!</p>
<p>Would YOU want your radical prostatectomy done in a hospital servicing a county of less than twenty thousand people?</p>
<p>Even if there WERE a urologist in that county, even if that hospital DID radical prostatectomies in that county, simple statistics would hold that the hospital would do them so rarely that you would not want that surgery done on you, or on someone you cared about, in that hospital.</p>
<p>You know d@mn well you would be the first on the road to Tallahassee if you were in that county&#8230;..and you would be recommending the same to your patients.</p>
<p>Sorry&#8230;.I have no sympathy for those who get upset that they don&#8217;t have the Mayo Clinic in Jerkwater USA.</p>
<p>I live and practice in an area that small. It&#8217;s beautiful, so we get a lot of people who want to retire here. I have had many new patients who move here, despite major illness that requires tertiary care.</p>
<p>I mean ONGOING tertiary care.</p>
<p>I tell tham, they have no business moving here. Many have taken my advice and moved back to the big city, to be closer to the healthcare we won&#8217;t have a prayer of offering here. Some ignore me, but after a year of driving back and forth 100+ miles one-way to the University, they see the error of their ways.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stormy Dragon</title>
		<link>http://www.medrants.com/archives/2291/comment-page-1#comment-13831</link>
		<dc:creator>Stormy Dragon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2005 23:34:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medrants.com/archives/2005/03/03/no-doctor-glut-oops/#comment-13831</guid>
		<description>Don&#039;t forget that the AMA is originally and ultimately a trade association.  And as almost any trade association in its position would have, it&#039;s used its stranglehold on the licensing and accredidation process to limit the number of people allowed to practice medicine, the reduced supply translating into higher incomes for its members.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don&#8217;t forget that the AMA is originally and ultimately a trade association.  And as almost any trade association in its position would have, it&#8217;s used its stranglehold on the licensing and accredidation process to limit the number of people allowed to practice medicine, the reduced supply translating into higher incomes for its members.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vish Subramanian</title>
		<link>http://www.medrants.com/archives/2291/comment-page-1#comment-13829</link>
		<dc:creator>Vish Subramanian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2005 23:14:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medrants.com/archives/2005/03/03/no-doctor-glut-oops/#comment-13829</guid>
		<description>Maybe if the AMA allowed more immigrant doctors, there wouldnt be a shortage. As it is, unneccessarily restrictive requirements keep most foreign doctors out. Perhaps medical outsourcing will change this trend.

Vish

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe if the AMA allowed more immigrant doctors, there wouldnt be a shortage. As it is, unneccessarily restrictive requirements keep most foreign doctors out. Perhaps medical outsourcing will change this trend.</p>
<p>Vish</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ali</title>
		<link>http://www.medrants.com/archives/2291/comment-page-1#comment-13785</link>
		<dc:creator>Ali</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2005 04:29:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medrants.com/archives/2005/03/03/no-doctor-glut-oops/#comment-13785</guid>
		<description>I suppose this is good news for me (applying to med school next year), but we probably won&#039;t see the effects of these recommendations for a while yet. Ditto to what Dr. Charles said, too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I suppose this is good news for me (applying to med school next year), but we probably won&#8217;t see the effects of these recommendations for a while yet. Ditto to what Dr. Charles said, too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

