This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
We're no stranger to the immigration hot button here; we all want some way to filter for attractive women and investment dollars where we live and less competition for labor, but the want for those things proves weaker than the iron laws of supply and demand for both. However, here's a problem in the immigration debate that I don't think has come up in discussion before: ladies and gentlemen and undecideds of the Motte: how do we fix the doctor shortage?
And I mean globally. The solution many places settled on after it became clear that it was difficult to impossible to train more doctors locally is to import them, but this simply moves the problem around and causes brain drain as market efficiencies mean doctors move where they can get paid more.
Accounting for inflation, apparently physician pay growth is lagging although I'm not sure if anyone has more up to date information on whether this is still the case.
The easy low effort swipe is to make it easier to qualify as a doctor, but doing so without lowering medical standards and/or quality of care seems more difficult. There's also the simple calculus where people are less willing to take on, in the US, large amounts of student debt and to commit to the many years of study it takes to become a qualified doctor. After which you can look forward to high stress, long hours, dealing with patients, and potential lawsuits. It's no surprise that people would rather hustle sneakers or crypto or streaming when the effort to do so is significantly less.
Previously, governments would subsidize medical training as they saw medical professionals as a necessary function. Now, why bother? If there are opportunities and more money to be made elsewhere, they'd just move elsewhere after being trained, which would be happy to take them. Is there a low effort politically achievable band-aid fix, like making mandatory provision of medical care within the country a necessary precondition of qualification? But that'd make the profession even less popular - if you're a Kenyan doctor, fuck staying in Kenya if you can get paid multiples of that elsewhere.
Disclaimer: I'm asking for entirely selfish reasons. Working on a new investment thesis after the last one turned out spot on although with limited rewards so far for being right. I foresee this problem getting much, much worse as doctors retire, populations trend upwards in age and require increased medical care.
Okay batching out my usual response to this:
-Most people don't have a good feel for what doctors actually do, your intuitions for your outpatient PCP are probably good, but outside of that something like The Pitt is more representative than general OP clinic life, and when you ARE in the hospital and you see your doctor for under five minutes it isn't because they are just chilling in an office somewhere doing nothing. This will be important for AI later.
-No the AMA is not conspiring to cause a doctor shortage. That's an outdated meme for the 70s and 80s. For the last few decades the AMA has been lobbying for an increase in supply via the production of midlevels (for senior doctors to supervise) and watching that genie get loose from the bottle. The AMA is also extremely unpopular with doctors, most doctors want more med schools and residencies, and we HAVE made more med schools and residencies. As it turns out what is actually happening with the shortage is (shocking!) highly complicated (ex: my rants about surgical modality changes making it so we can't really increase the number of surgical training slots anymore).
-The healthcare industry and government have been workshopping this problem for a long time. They've landed on midlevels as the solutions. As designed they work okay but they quickly metastasized beyond that and are a catastrophe. Putting aside the quality difference which yes is very real, they generate more shortages in some cases by over testing (which requires physician evaluation) and over consulting (ex: cardiologists are flooded with work that midlevels cant handle but is easily within PCP physician scope of practice).
-Decreasing training length by making undergrad medical school is a mixed bag. It works well in other countries with less economic opportunity and a less painful training period. In the U.S. you get lots of career changers into medicine (and you'd lose these) and drop out rates are reasonably high in med school/residency, this would worsen that problem. Think of all the Indian moms who would decide their 16 year old will be a doctor long before it becomes clear if that is reasonable. I don't know the drop out rates for BS/MD vs. traditional MD but I bet it's bad.
-AI is obviously coming but it's incredibly far from prime time. This is for a number of reasons. Risk: if we aren't allowed to have self-driving cars and it's taking forever but any accident is an unacceptable travesty...how much worse are people going to handle an AI getting things wrong? Lawsuits: people want to be able to see. You can't sue the computer. This is also one of the problems with midlevels, you cant sue them the way you can sue doctors. Hospitals like this. The actual work: most types of physician tasks aren't "I have x, y, z, how do I treat this?" Usually you are managing several comorbid conditions that overlap, trying to interrupt what the symptoms the patient tells you actually means "I am dizzy" means different things to every patient and will send you down different rabbit holes. Patient's who can't communicate well or have to be visually eyeballed and examined are a huge part of the work. That's not counting physician leadership roles (aka motivating the nurses) and so on. The types of ambiguities that exist in actual clinical practice are huge barriers to AI taking over. It will happen one day but by that point everyone has lost their jobs.
So this is a good writeup of what the problem isn't, but I notice you don't actually say what the problem is that's creating such a shortage of doctors. Is it just that there's so much medical knowledge now, compared to the past, that it's impossible to find enough people who can learn all of it?
It's complicated, multifactorial, and hard to convey quickly and clearly.
The population, amount of knowledge, complexity of patients, and demands on doctors have all increased sharply. This also means that training is harder and more burdensome, this can be partially fixed by increasing spots but not entirely. At the same time the positives of the profession have decreased (including respect and wages relative to inflation). It makes sense that less people would be interested, that they'd be of lower quality, and that they'd want to work less when they are in it. Back in the day you could hang your own shingle and become truly wealthy and some people did that, working 2-3 full time jobs worth of patients seen. People don't do that anymore nearly as much. Likewise we've adjusted who we choose to be doctors away from mercantile money types and hard working autists. We have more need, more complex work, less people doing to relevant to the population, and those each doing less work.
A bigger problem is the allocation one. Most of the types of work are not primary care but most of the volume of patient doctor interactions are primary care. You need to encourage people to do that, in the area that needs them, but the job is no fun, harder than other, and pays less - a solution of "pay more" does help with the problem but is gloriously unpopular for the obvious reasons.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If I understand correctly, the big problem with training doctors is they need to see a certain number of patients (say 10,000 for neatness) before they have seen 90% of the full gamut of what they might experience while practicing on their own.
This takes time and there's a saturation effect. You can make it take shorter time by forcing medical students to work for 80 hours a week, but you can't (or at least shouldn't) make more patients for trainees to see. In a given city, there will only be 100,000 people who need to see a doctor (in that specialty) that year, and so if you have a four year residency, each resident needs to see 2,500 patients a year, and only 40 people can be in residency a year in that city.
The confusing thing is how it ever worked. Was there a huge pathway from "war medic to ER doc" that we're missing now?
It isn't quite as universal as all that, procedural skills and procedural specialties for sure need that, for medical specialties you can usually do a decent enough job with adequate extended length education and case simulation.
However the specific problem you are talking about kinda stems from improvements - as surgical technology and medical management improves you don't need to do certain kinds of things as often. This is great! But some things you simply cannot be allowed to do alone for the first time without decades of experience pecking at the margins to improve skills in aggregate.
This means that the number of surgical specialists needs to be restricted by supply of ill patients, and furthermore by supply of academic centers that can actually train them.
If you gave the SE federal funding for 2,000 extra general surgeons they just ....couldn't do a good job. The NE might be able to figure it out.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link