4 ms·

Really showing my blind ignorance here. I'm not exactly a fan of for profit hospitals, but why wouldn't they open up vast numbers of residency positions? I'd a

by jfoutz 12y ago

Really showing my blind ignorance here. I'm not exactly a fan of for profit hospitals, but why wouldn't they open up vast numbers of residency positions? I'd assume they can charge whatever they want for resident's time, and add enough peer review to keep malpractice costs down. I'd also assume it's much cheaper to use a resident than a (not sure of the term) practicing physician (?)

chimeracoder 12y ago
> I'd assume they can charge whatever they want for resident's time, and add enough peer review to keep malpractice costs down. I'd also assume it's much cheaper to use a resident than a (not sure of the term) practicing physician (?) Residents are certainly cheaper than attending physicians, and this is what they already do (Scrubs is, I have been told by many, a very accurate depiction of what a hospital actually looks like in this regard). Residents are already paid what amounts to minimum wage or less when you factor in the amount of time they spend. (Keep in mind that they are also paying back medical school loans off of this same stipend). I'm not sure what you mean by "add enough peer review", but attending physicians are already responsible for residents, but even then the threat of malpractice is already incredibly high. The short answer is that, as any engineer who's ever hired a bunch of interns at once knows, no matter what you do, training residents costs more money on average than it saves. That's why the government has to foot the bill already - if hospitals could find a way to keep their costs lower with this strategy, I guarantee you it'd be one of the first things they did.
blue11 12y ago
The ratio of attending physicians to residents must be relatively low, something like 1:4, so a hospital cannot get more residency spots approved unless it also hires more attending physicians.
- hackuser 12y ago
  > a hospital cannot get more residency spots approved unless it also hires more attending physicians. If there is a shortage of attending physicians, then we need more residents.

by jfoutz 12y ago

chimeracoder 12y ago

> I'd assume they can charge whatever they want for resident's time, and add enough peer review to keep malpractice costs down. I'd also assume it's much cheaper to use a resident than a (not sure of the term) practicing physician (?) Residents are certainly cheaper than attending physicians, and this is what they already do (Scrubs is, I have been told by many, a very accurate depiction of what a hospital actually looks like in this regard). Residents are already paid what amounts to minimum wage or less when you factor in the amount of time they spend. (Keep in mind that they are also paying back medical school loans off of this same stipend). I'm not sure what you mean by "add enough peer review", but attending physicians are already responsible for residents, but even then the threat of malpractice is already incredibly high. The short answer is that, as any engineer who's ever hired a bunch of interns at once knows, no matter what you do, training residents costs more money on average than it saves. That's why the government has to foot the bill already - if hospitals could find a way to keep their costs lower with this strategy, I guarantee you it'd be one of the first things they did.

blue11 12y ago

The ratio of attending physicians to residents must be relatively low, something like 1:4, so a hospital cannot get more residency spots approved unless it also hires more attending physicians.

hackuser 12y ago
> a hospital cannot get more residency spots approved unless it also hires more attending physicians. If there is a shortage of attending physicians, then we need more residents.