4 ms·
The AMA pushed for limited residency slots ~20 years ago, as they feared too many doctors would cut their own incomes. For some reason, residencies are paid by
by alistairSH 11mo ago
The AMA pushed for limited residency slots ~20 years ago, as they feared too many doctors would cut their own incomes.
For some reason, residencies are paid by the federal government. Not sure of the history there - I find it hard to believe a resident doctor is a net-loss for the hospital system. Either way, I can't find any legal cap on number of residents - only a cap on funded slots (ie, a hospital could hire more residents and pay them out of pocket).
- paleotrope 11mo agoThe residency system itself is a relic and represents a sort of trapped labor system.
- alistairSH 11mo agoThat might be true, but at the same time, do we really want doctors who haven't completed some form of apprenticeship? The hours/shift were sliced in 2003 and again in 2011. Though they're still much higher than what's normal in the EU. What I can't quite figure out is patient outcomes... morbidity appears to have increased (very slightly) as resident working hours were reduced (possibly more risk from handoffs than tired MDs?) - how does the EU compare in this regard? Somebody must have done a study... Anyway, some form of on-the-job training seems reasonable here. But the current residency system in the US definitely appears broken, for several reasons.