Who should we take in medical school? What should be the criteria? Who will be a good doctor?

There are many serious inequities in our society, and they tend to build upon one another. People with more advantages have more opportunities to do well themselves, and those with fewer have less. Those advantages (or, conversely, disadvantages) include wealth, white race, male  gender, suburban or urban (but not poor areas) location, and education. All these feed one another. For example, coming from a well-to-do family and being white dramatically increase the odds of success in a chosen field. Even if there were no discrimination against people based on race and color (and this is a long way from being true), there is still the fact that people of color are grossly over-represented in low-income communities and families. This is a clear example of structural racism, so that effective discrimination based on class disproportionately falls on people of color.

An important manifestation of this exists in healthcare, and in particular the production of healthcare professionals (but also in other professional fields). In medicine specifically, we have a physician workforce that does not reflect the population of the US in terms of class (or family income), race, gender (although this is the area in which the greatest progress has been and continues to be made), geographic location (rural vs. urban), and specialty choice. Our doctors overwhelmingly are from upper-middle-class backgrounds, are white, are from suburban (or well-to-do urban) communities, and largely male. They practice in urban and suburban areas in even greater proportion than they come from them, in part because they also practice in specialties and subspecialties that cannot survive in smaller communities, rather than in family medicine and other primary care specialties that are in shortage. This exacerbates the other inequities by making healthcare something that is less accessible to many Americans based on geography (where are the doctors located?) and culture, as well as because of cost, the absence of a universal affordable healthcare system being an almost uniquely American phenomenon.

Not having a medical workforce that looks like America, or practicing in the areas and specialties where there is most need, goes beyond the admissions process to medical school. It is impacted by the curriculum (both formal and informal, or “hidden”) in medical school, by role models and mentors, and very much by the potential income from practice. The systemic characteristics of society greatly influence who is considered a “good” candidate for medical school, and even who applies. These are considerations addressed in a recent blog post on LinkedIn®, a professional networking site, by Dr. Heidi Chumley, dean of the Ross University School of Medicine (RUSM). Dr. Chumley focuses on the challenges faced by students from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine (URiM), and in particular on the emphasis on performance on the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) for deciding who gets into medical school, since URiM students perform less well on that test. She notes that what seems like a small difference in scores makes a significant difference in admission: “There remains an unexplained gap in average MCAT scores between White (503.1), Black (494.9), and LatinX (497.1) test-takers. This gap matters as 29% of applicants with a score of 502-505 are accepted compared to 10% with a score of 494-49.”

Dr. Chumley also address two other critical points. First, that the lower MCAT scores are likely tied to many of the social and educational disadvantages faced by URiM students, thus reflecting, and compounding, the other factors that these students have to overcome. Second, that efforts implemented by many medical schools (and endorsed by the Association of American Medical Colleges, AAMC) to have a more “holistic” admissions process mostly changes the selection of which high-scoring students are admitted. Yes, it is great that students who have a social conscience and have done volunteer work in the US and abroad are selected over those who are selfish and not so involved, but this rubric, as she points out, ignores the fact that many lower-income (and URiM) students need to work at paying jobs to support themselves (and often their families), and devalues such employment in comparison to the voluntarism that is more accessible to those from privileged backgrounds.

Added to this is the financial component of the cost of medical school itself, which, in the US and in the US (and Canadian) serving Caribbean medical schools (of which Ross is one of the largest and most prominent), is staggering. Students typically graduate from medical schools with debt loads of $250,000 or more. In addition to being outrageous to start with, add the fact that compound and accrued interest makes the total to be repaid much higher, and this encourages students to choose higher-paid specialties even when that is not where the greatest need is (you may make, over a lifetime, $7M more practicing as, say, an anesthesiologist compared to a primary care doctor) or even where the student’s personal interest lies.

Dr. Chumley describes some of the efforts to increase access for URiM students at RUSM, and they are indeed impressive. They include “pipeline” relationships with HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities) and HSIs (Hispanic-Serving Institutions) and  re-thinking what criteria for admission are essential, valuing the life experience (including work experience) of applicants and putting less emphasis on the absolute score students get on the MCATs. As she points out, the MCAT predicts performance on similar multiple-choice tests of knowledge including most “pre-clinical” tests in medical school, and the licensing exam, the USMLE (particularly Part I, which covers basic science). It definitely does not predict performance as a good or excellent clinician. Also, while there are significant differences in the first-time pass rates on USMLE in those who score “over-500” (> 95%) and “just under 500” (> 80%) groups on the MCAT, the medical school curriculum should be addressing those differences.

The two points I would like to emphasize are the criteria for who is likely to become a good doctor (and thus should preferentially be admitted to medical school) and the enormous cost burden on medical students that obviously falls hardest on those with the least wealth. As I have said before (The high cost of medical education: Who should be trained to become doctors?, Dec 10, 2019; Free tuition in medical school is only one step toward producing the doctors America needs, Aug 26, 2018), those who should be given the opportunity to become doctors (ie., be admitted to medical school) should be those most likely to make a positive difference in the health of our population. This includes a sense of community over self, a willingness to serve where needed, and interest in (preferably commitment to) practicing the specialties most in need in the areas most in need of them. Since URiM doctors are more likely to practice with patients from similar backgrounds (and those patients are often more comfortable seeing them), and a comparable correlation exists with those from rural backgrounds, these characteristics should be very important criteria. As should coming from a family with lower than average wealth and income, which requires addressing the second point. Higher income does correlate with better education and higher MCAT scores, and maybe higher scores on basic science tests in medical school (which are very like undergraduate science tests) and USMLE Part I scores, but not (and almost inversely) with practicing the specialties most needed and caring for the people most in need. So this should at best be a neutral, not positive, criterion.

And the money is a big one. You can admit a student from a low-income family who will be a great doctor, but they should not have to go into absolutely crushing debt and certainly not to enter the highest-income specialties to pay it off. This can partially be addressed by medical schools offering scholarships and states and localities offering loan-repayment programs, but it would be most effective if the federal government could subsidize the cost to make it far lower, and in conjunction with requirements that schools (state or private, stateside or Caribbean) to produce the physicians America needs.

Of course, as well, and even more important for all our people, to have a free or very low cost universal health system.

 

Disclosure: Dr. Chumley and I have known each other for many years and previously worked together.

The urban-rural divide and the health of people in both settings

I recently wrote about the impact of the massive vote for Donald Trump by “white working class” voters and how it will have repercussions for their health, as well as that of others, if the policies advocated by the Republican majority (as exemplified by Secretary of HHS nominee Rep. Tom Price) are implemented. And there is little doubt that they will be implemented, but slowly, so people are less aware of what is being done to them. As Medicare is increasingly privatized, as vouchers that cannot cover the cost of health insurance for those with chronic disease are implemented, “Medicare for all” will increasingly seem a poor idea. And people’s health will suffer. I wrote about the cynicism of the AMA and the AAMC in endorsing Mr. Price; they are doing more than “kissing the ring”, as a colleague suggested. They are lauding the fact that one of “theirs”, a doctor, will be in this role, not an insurance executive. But if anyone had a doubt about whether having an “MD” at the end of your name guarantees a concern for people’s health, Mr. Price is the poster child for “not so”.

The other big divide demonstrated by the election is urban-rural, and this one is also real. A majority of the people in the US are jammed into small geographic areas, urban islands. Maps that portray “red states” and “blue states” seem to be an ocean of red because of physical size; think New Jersey  (population about 9 million, with 8700 square miles, more than 1000 people/sq mi) vs. Montana (just over 1 million, in 147,000 square miles, less than 7 people/sq mi). The contrast is even greater if we look at counties; most of the population of even “blue” states is concentrated in a few urban counties, although, conversely, there are many “blue” seas and islands in “red” states, cities like Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, St. Louis, Kansas City, etc. The media has recently been awash in articles about the way that our Electoral College system advantages rural areas; because of the 2-Senate-seat-per-state rule, a Wyoming voter has 5 times the clout of a Californian. See, for example, Steven Johnson’s “Why blue states are the real Tea Party” in the NY Times, December 4, 2016. He points out that at the time of the writing of the Constitution, the urban northern states were in debt while the southern states were solvent – largely through the magic of the free labor of slavery. Now cities are the engines of our economy; they are where ambitious and educated young people go, leaving rural areas increasing older and poorer (as well as whiter).

But we need to remember that there is tremendous need in rural America, as there is in the inner city. Rural areas are poor, and underserved both medically and in terms of social services (as well as, of course, in the other things you’d expect – access to groceries, for example). Those rural areas that are located in “red” states are even worse off, because those states spend far less on health care and social services in the first place so that their more isolated communities are in the worst shape. And yet, as Johnson points out, they get far more federal aid for tax dollar contributed: New Jersey receives $0.61 on the dollar while Wyoming gets $1.11. The Trump campaign, and the Republican Party, strongly appealed to voters in these areas, but Trump and his proposed cabinet all live and work in cities; they are not rural billionaires. Tom Price is a suburban doctor; he does not deliver care to the rural poor, as do Rural Health Clinics.

So there is tremendous need in rural communities, but their political clout, which is both unfair and anti-democratic, is not being used to actually help the people there, but rather to limit positive policies in urban areas. The North Carolina “bathroom law”, to force people to use the restrooms of the gender of their birth, was a reaction to the city of Charlotte (a blue “lake”) making it legal for people to use the restroom of their current gender. The most well-publicized efforts currently are threats by Trump and his people to forbid cities from declaring themselves “sanctuaries” for immigrants (see NY Times debate on whether sanctuary cities have a right to defy Trump, December 1, 2016; “yes” by Cesar Vargas and “no” by Jan C. Ting). These cities are trying to exert their local control over such important issues, while states (generally supported by rural populations that do not actually have to deal with these problems) try to restrict their ability to do so. These hypocrites are against government regulation when it comes to their rights to carry guns or graze their cattle on public land (things they want to do), but are all for it when it comes to things important to others, like deciding who can marry, where one can go to the bathroom, whether people can get an abortion or even contraception. “Those who deny freedom to others,” said Abraham Lincoln, “deserve it not for themselves”, which I first learned as a young stamp collector; it appears at the 4 cent American Credo stamp.

If the selective interpretation of what “freedom” means is not enough, if rampant discrimination and bigotry is not enough, there are other, health related, concerns that go with this divide. For example, federal funds for HIV care go to the area where patients are from. However, a large percentage of gay HIV patients leave those areas for the cities where they are more accepted. Thus the cost of providing that care is borne by the cities, while the money flows to the rural areas where services are not available – and often the victims themselves are not welcome.

A recent article published in Science Direct by Jason Beckfield and Clare Bambra, “Shorter lives in stingier states: Social policy shortcomings help explain the US mortality disadvantage” demonstrates that the lack of social services in the US leads to shorter lives than in other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, i.e., the rich countries. The “highlights” of their study are that:

• The US combines a laggard welfare state with shorter life expectancy compared to the OECD.
• Fixed-effects models show associations between life expectancy and social policy generosity.
• US life expectancy would be 3.77 years longer if the US welfare state were just average

In this article “state” refers to nation-states, comparing the US to other OECD countries, but similar differences can be seen among the US states, again depending upon their social services, including public health and access to health care. This is supported by a new study from the Commonwealth Fund which finds that “adults in the U.S. are more likely than those in the 10 other countries to go without needed health care because of costs”. A third of U.S. adults “went without recommended care, did not see a doctor when sick, or failed to fill a prescription because of costs”, as compared to as few as 7-8% in other countries. They were also the “most likely to report material hardship. Fifteen percent said they worried about having enough money for nutritious food and 16 percent struggled to afford their rent or mortgage.”

This is not good for our country, not good for our health, and not good for our lives. And as far as we can see, the new administration’s plans are not to fix it but to make it worse.