The high cost of medical education: Who should be trained to become doctors?

Medical school is expensive. College, for that matter, is expensive, but medical school is more expensive. According to a consultant website, based on data from the Association of American Medical Colleges,

On average, medical school tuition, fees, and health insurance during the 2019-2020 academic year ranges from $37,556 (public, in-state) to $62,194 (public, out-of-state). Average private school figures come in just below public schools for in-state and out-of-state students, at $60,665 and $62,111, respectively.

That is a lot of money. Per year. Multiply by 4 years. Add books, living expenses (you know, food, rent, like that), and miscellaneous other costs, and it is not surprising that the average medical student graduates a quarter-million dollars in debt.

Of course, if your family is very wealthy, it is not a problem. But given that the mean household income in 2019 was about $63,000, just about a year’s tuition in many of these schools, it would be a stretch for those families to pay such expenses. Indeed, at the 75^th%ile ($113,000) it would be more than half of gross income, and I doubt that even those at the 90^th%ile ($184,000) would find it easy to support a medical student. As medical schools (hopefully) strive for increasing diversity, by income of family of origin, race and ethnicity, and geography (rural vs. urban), this cost becomes a bigger and bigger issue, much more than when only children of the elite (including physicians) attended medical school.

Of course, these students are going to be doctors, on average the highest-paid profession in America. According to most sources, including this one based on a survey on the doctor site “Medscape”, even the lowest-income medical specialties would be easily in the top 10% of income, and several way into the 1% ($475K). (Indeed, the income for those highest-paid specialties seems to be lower than those I have known, who not uncommonly make over $1M.) But even using those numbers, there is a several-fold difference in being in, say, Pediatrics ($212K) or Family Medicine ($219K), and Orthopedics or Plastic Surgery ($500K). It is certainly understandable that, at such high debt loads, the greater income of a high-paid specialty seems more attractive, and may further decrease student choice of primary care (lower paid) specialties. (At a difference of almost $300K a year, a plastic surgeon could expect, over a 30 year career, to earn almost $9M more than a pediatrician! That is real money!)

In addition to their own cost of living, often having to help support, rather than be supported by, a family, is another reality for those who are in medical school and later in residency training. This is a major focus of an important NY Times article on the topic published November 26, 2019, “I have a PhD in not having money”, about the challenges that low-income medical students have, and by extension the challenges for medical schools that really might wish to have a diverse class. The challenge is not only for minority students, who on average come from families with significantly less wealth and income, but across-the-board for students from families with incomes that are not in the higher ranges. It includes most students from rural areas.

In fact, there is an enormously close correlation between students from areas and population groups which are most needed in medicine and those most poorly represented in medical school. In some ways this is a tautology; since doctors are likely to practice in communities like those in which they grew up, poor, minority, and rural communities which are dramatically underrepresented in medical school are the least served. Also, the higher income earned by subspecialists (and, let us not forget, the explicit and implicit encouragement by faculty for students to enter these fields) means that they can practice only in “major medical centers”, places with populations big enough to support a need for that specialty and with hospitals that can provide them a place to practice. Thus, fewer medical students train to be family doctors, who can practice in and are much needed in rural areas, exacerbating the existing reticence of students brought up in cities and suburbs to relocate there.

The Times article is good, but it focuses almost entirely on the issue of paying for medical school. Clearly this is incredibly important. The students featured in it say things like “You have to decide, do you use your loans for a study aid or for a rainy-day fund in case someone at home gets sick?...I haven’t had dental insurance in two years. When tuna is on sale for 80 cents a can, I go buy 30 at CVS,” and “There’s this idea that because we’ll all be doctors one day, the loans don’t matter and it’ll all even out. But that doesn’t account for day-to-day expenses now, like if my mom texts me asking for help.” This begins to get at the larger issues, that it is not only the question of how to pay for medical school, but a variety of related things that characterize students from lower-income backgrounds.

Students from poor families tend to live in poor neighborhoods. Because of the US’ regressive system of financing public education, which depends a great deal on local funds, the quality of the education is likely to not be as good. I refer not to the skill or dedication of the teachers, but the resources to provide additional instruction, instructional support, and special classes such as Advanced Placement. Similar conditions apply in rural areas. Where the student from an upper-middle-class suburb may have many advanced placement classes, especially in sciences, by the time they graduate from high school, and have learned disciplined study habits and been given lots of role models, students from less-well-off school districts are much less likely to have. In a rural area, there may be one science teacher who is shared by more than one district. This gives the more privileged students a leg up before they even start college. Before they start high school. Before they start school altogether.

Then, disadvantaged students have to compete on academic criteria with those from wealthier backgrounds on Medical College Admissions Tests (MCATs), a type of test for which those others have been prepping for years. Medical school faculty on admissions committees often can’t – or don’t care to -- distinguish between the ability to perform well academically and the potential for becoming a good doctor if given the right support. A child of a well-to-do family who has had not only excellent schools but tutors and other support when needed, and who looks like the children of the MD and PhD faculty, might be “hitting on all cylinders” to do as well as they are, while the child of a farm worker or motel cleaner in a rural area may have unlimited untapped potential.

And, yet, it is still more. Producing more doctors from the top income levels means that the communities like those they come from, which already have enough or more than enough physicians, will become more overserved; that the specialties that exist in abundance in those locations will have more members. And lower income communities, rural communities, minority communities, communities that need primary care doctors, will remain underserved. And the health of the US population will be further jeopardized.

Some schools, like Mount Sinai in New York, have eliminated tuition. That is a good thing for the students who are admitted, especially for those who are from low-income families, but it does not explicitly choose students from low-income families. That is a major flaw; it mostly serves to further advantage the most-highly-advantaged students who comprise the bulk of the class. To care for the American people, medical schools need to admit and train physicians who “look like America”, for real, not a few token students in a class mostly comprised of scions of the top 25% or even 10%. This means that the first pass for admission should be demographic – students who come from low-income, from rural, from minority communities, students who don’t look like most current students, students who don’t look like the children of medical school faculty and their neighbors. If there are to be some slots reserved for those who are from privileged backgrounds and overserved communities, they should be for those who are most likely to practice in areas and specialties unlike those in which they were raised, those who have a demonstrated history (not an essay expressing intent) of real service. Were they in the Peace Corps, or AmeriCorps, or Teach for America, or something that actually required extended work and sacrifice?

Those students who are admitted will need maximal financial help, scholarships as much as loans, and even more educational support, so that they can reach their full potential and be able to become the doctors who can help their communities if they choose to return (not all will but they are much more likely to than others). That is what medical school funds should be spent for.

And we need it to start soon. It will be 30 years before currently accepted medical students replace the existing doctors, and we shouldn’t have half-measures.

Primary care specialty choice: student characteristics

.
I have written about both the characteristics of medical schools (recently, in A New Way of Ranking Medical Schools: Social Mission, June 20, 2010; also Rankings of Medical Schools: Do they tell us anything?, September 5, 2009) and of medical students, including the people being accepted into medical school, the specialty choice of those graduating, and what aspects of both schools and students are associated with the kind of doctors students become (Who will care for the underserved? The role of off-shore medical schools, June 2, 2010, Primary Care and Residency Expansion, January 7, 2010, "Uncomplicated" Primary Care?, October 8, 2009, Medical Student Selection, December 4, 2008). A recent study, “Primary care specialty choices of United States medical graduates, 1997-2006” (Academic Medicine June 2010;85(6):947-58) by DB Jeffe, AJ Whelan and DA Andriole from the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis provides further information to inform this discussion.

The authors used two surveys administered annually by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) to medical students: the Matriculating Student Questionnaire (MSQ) given when students begin school and the Graduation Questionnaire (GQ) given at graduation. They were able to match the questionnaires of nearly 2/3 (64.9%) of medical students graduating in the 10 years 1997-2006 to look at the degree to which the answers students gave to questions on the MSQ and GQ would predict their choice of specialty. It takes a while to get through the description of how they grouped questions, and “weighted factors”, but there are a number of important findings. Most of them not surprising, but this study provides additional data support for things we have been seeing.

Fewer graduates are entering primary care. For some reason the AAMC’s GQ counts 6 “primary care” areas, including, in addition to the usual family medicine, general internal medicine, and general pediatrics, also obstetrics/gynecology, internal medicine subspecialities (IMSS), and pediatric subspecialties (PdSS). However, this study separates them out. The percent of students entering the first 4 of these dropped from 1997 to 2006 (GIM from 15.7% to 6.7%, GP from 10.2% to 6.6%, FM from 17.6% to 6.9%, and OBG from 8.2% to 6.1%), while the subsubspecialties increased (IM from 6.8% to 11.4%, Peds from 2.2% to 4.4%). This increase in the last 2, however, did not compensate for the decrease in the first 4 so there was a net decrease from 60.7% to 42.1% for all these “primary care” specialties. The increase was in, then, surgical specialties, and more significantly in specialties such as radiology, anesthesiology, and emergency medicine. And the trend continues – although not part of the study, the article reports that the total % of students entering these 6 specialty areas in 2008 was down to 30.3% from the 42.1% in 2006. Remember, this is not just real primary care – it includes medical and pediatric subspecialties!

The more important part of this article is its correlation of certain demographic and attitudinal characteristics with specialty choice. Being female is important: over the 10 years of the study 45.1% of graduates were women, but they were over-represented in each of the 6 fields except IM subspecialties: 77.3% of OBG, 72.6% of GP, 58.2% of PdSS, 50.8% of FM and 49% of GIM. Indeed, the authors suggest that one of the reasons for the continued downturn in entry of medical students into PC fields is that the % of women in medical school, which was increasing during the study period, tended to compensate somewhat for the decreased interest in PC among men. Now that the % of women in medical school has stabilized, at roughly 50%, while interest in PC continues to go down, this is no longer having the same compensatory effect.

Compared to white students, underrepresented minority (URM) students were somewhat less likely to choose the PC specialties of GIM, GP, and FM, while Asian/Pacific Islander (As/PI) grads were less likely to choose FM, OBG, GP and PdSS, according to the text, but there are subtleties to this. For example, white students were 68% of the total but 75.3% of those entering FM; however, the % of URM students in FM (14%) was also greater than in the overall cohort (12.7%). The difference is that As/PI were much lower in FM, 9.9% compared to 18.2% of the overall cohort. In this report URM students include black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaskan natives, while the As/PI group includes some groups that are truly underrepresented in medicine and are usually counted by Federal grantmakers as URM, as well as some groups, e.g., South Asian, Japanese, Chinese, that are in fact over-represented in medicine. Many of these are among the 15.7% of students who had one or more parents who was a physician or the 24.1% more who had a non-physician professional parent. This is important because “…a student’s having a physician parent had a pervasive negative effect on graduates’ choice of any generalist-primary care specialty…” while those with non-physician professionals as parents were more likely to choose GIM, GP, and IMSS.

Though highly-touted as a deterrent to entering PC (and, perhaps, of more significance now than in the early part of this study period) debt had only a “modest” effect; students with higher debt were less likely to choose GP, PdSS, GIM, or IMSS, but more likely to choose OBG, and choice of FM was essentially unaffected. The probability of students from public medical schools entering PC was much greater than from private schools, a consistent finding of all studies, presumably reflecting the curriculum and emphasis of those schools as well as the characteristics of the students they select. The authors linked a number of questions to assess students’ “choice of medicine as a career goal” (including the importance of innovation and research, social responsibility, and prestige), and students’ “perceptions about medicine and medical practice” (including altruistic beliefs and the belief that the demands of medicine interfere with family/other interests). All were high, and few led to big differences in specialty choice. Among the most significant of those that did were “intention to practice in an underserved community” (more PC, especially FM), and “interest in academic faculty positions” (very low FM -- the odds of being interested in academic practice compared to full-time non-university practice was only 12% for someone entering FM, compared to GIM’s 86%, IMSS’ 185% and PdSS’ 316%!).

Among areas that the questionnaires did NOT look at was the probability of entering rural practice; other studies have shown that, except for family medicine, essentially no students are entering practice in rural areas (see Primary Care and Rural Areas, April 28, 2010, Medicare Costs in Rural America: A case of reaping what we haven't sown?, March 26, 2009, Ten Biggest Myths Regarding Primary Care in the Future, January 15, 2009 ). Despite their assertion (probably correct) that “…the predictive validity of planning to practicing in an underserved community at graduation has been established,” intention to practice in an underserved community is not a surrogate for intention to practice in a rural area, because practicing in a rural underserved community means living in a rural community, while one can practice in an urban underserved community and live in a more upscale neighborhood. This is particularly true for pediatrics (see Primary Care, Pediatrics, and Physician Distribution, May 21, 2009).

So what does all this tell us that is new? Not much. There is a dramatic decrease in the number and percent of students entering true primary care specialties, combined with some increase in the number entering obstetrics/gynecology, internal medicine and pediatric subspecialties and a large increase in specialties that are in no way primary care. It tells us that students who are interested in and attracted to, and are wooed by, “high-status” research and specialty care medical schools are less likely to enter primary care; that being the child of a physician or having a high family income makes one less likely to enter primary care; that students interested in caring for the underserved and women are more likely to enter primary care (although not rural practice). So what does this mean “we” should do?

Well, that depends on who “we” are. If “we” are the selective, high-status medical schools who are low on social mission (see A New Way of Ranking Medical Schools: Social Mission, June 20, 2010) and “we” value what “we” do, maybe “we” shouldn’t do anything. The same might be said if “we” are the schools that tend to be high on social mission and production of PC physicians. If, however, “we” are the American people, who need more primary care and rural physicians, or the politicians and policy makers who actually can have some influence, “we” need to make policies that reward schools that select the students whose demographic and attitudinal characteristics make them more likely to enter primary care, underserved, and rural practice. And those schools whose curriculum (formal and informal) and faculty attitudes and relative status-within-the-institution favors those same outcomes. And pay, on the back end, more money to those who do what “we” don’t have enough of (primary care, underserved and rural practice) than those who do what “we” have too much of already.

Whether or not “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity”, it is sure not going to accomplish any change in the physician workforce.
.