Using an AMA source is disingenuous since it’s a professional cartel with a massive vested interest in keeping doctor supply as limited as possible.

Do you have a substantive comment to contribute or are you going to stick with baseless low-effort snark? The comment I posted is true and correct. You could verify it with other independent sources if you bothered to do any research.

Yeah sure.

Fighting residency expansion: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doctor-shorta...

Fighting expansion of care to other types of practicioners: https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/scope-practice/...

Why would you believe the AMA's line on this? Do you think the professional association that represents all doctors, one of the highest paid and influential professions in the country, has no power to control the amount of residencies are funded by the government? They have no reason to increase the number of doctors, absolutely none. They benefit in every way from having constrained supply.

An article from 17 years ago reflects the PoV at that time, not today. The AMA has had different positions based on what they thought was best at the that time.

If they cared about expanding access to medical care they'd stop lobbying to prevent PAs and NPs from providing care. A half hearted attempt to add a paltry amount of residencies after 30 years of lobbying which led to the state we're in now does not absolve them of blame.

The AMA is literally lobbying Congress to expand residency program funding, and even putting their own money into it. Did you even read the article?

Yes - they're lobbying now to reverse caps they themselves[1] helped put into place, and like I said, have also limited primary care availability by lobbying against the ability of NPs and PAs to provided basic medical care. It's a complete bunch of talk until they get change done.

By the way, that expansion of 15000 residency positions barely puts a dent in the number of doctors we are lacking[2]. But yeah, a press release from 3 years ago really absolves them of guilt for sure.

[1]: http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9708/24/doctor.glut/ [2]: https://www.washingtonian.com/2020/04/13/were-short-on-healt....

But they are arguing in the source for more doctor supply?

They are blaming the lack of supply on something they don't control. There's a subtle difference.

How does that make any sense? Aren't student graduates actually paid to do those residency programs? If it's too expensive to train them, can't they take a pay cut? How come no other profession requires federal funding for placing/training graduates? Makes absolutely no sense unless you uncritically accept the status quo.

Residents are paid an average salary of $64K. That's less than many entry-level STEM jobs, and they often work up to 80 hours per week. They can't afford to take a pay cut. And hospitals incur other costs for running residency programs which go beyond paying resident salaries.

Most other private sector professions don't require nearly as much postgraduate training before being allowed to work. Prospective lawyers usually take the bar exam less than a year after graduating from law school. Medicine is simply more complex.

What would you propose as an alternative to the status quo? The AMA has proposed a number of improvements, but perhaps there are alternatives?

https://savegme.org/