Fix doctor shortage by increasing Medicare residency funding

Health
,
1

Increase funding to Medicare so that more medical school graduates can enter residency in hospitals.
There has been an artificial cap on Medicare residency funding since 1997.

By increasing the supply of doctors in the marketplace, this will eventually lead to lower healthcare costs for all Americans.

From AI:
The American Medical Association (AMA) successfully lobbied Congress in 1997 to impose a cap on Medicare funding for graduate medical education (GME) residency slots, effectively freezing the number of federally supported positions at 1996 levels under the Balanced Budget Act. This policy limited the overall supply of new physicians entering the workforce, contributing to persistent doctor shortages that have driven up physician salaries by constraining supply relative to demand. Critics, including health policy analysts, have argued that the AMA’s advocacy was motivated at least in part by a desire to protect high physician incomes, as a restricted supply enhances doctors’ market leverage and bargaining power.At the time, the AMA justified the cap by warning of an impending “oversupply” of physicians, based on projections from a 1980 Graduate Medical Education National Advisory Committee report. However, these projections proved inaccurate, and the cap has since exacerbated shortages—forecasts now predict a U.S. physician shortfall of 37,800 to 124,000 by 2034. As a result, about 25% of U.S. physicians are now trained abroad to fill gaps in domestic residency slots.The AMA’s stance has since evolved; by 2019, it began advocating to lift the Medicare GME cap, and as recently as 2024, it supported bipartisan legislation like the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act to add 14,000 new slots. Despite this shift, the 1997 cap remains in place, and the AMA continues to face criticism for its historical role in creating the supply bottleneck.

1 Like
2

Increasing funding is NOT the solution, or even a reasonable idea. No offense intended.

Getting the government and the ama, OUT of “health care” will be a start, but much more must be done.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that we remove all “safety nets” at this time.

1 Like
3

No, you are wrong. It is the solution. There are thousands of potential physicians that cannot seek residency to become doctors because it has been artificially capped since the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. You can use the savings from the lower price of prescription medicine that is paid under Medicare to fund it. If we have a larger supply of doctors, you will lower the cost of healthcare for everyone by simple free market supply and demand economics. Unfortunately, since 1997 the law, in a corrupt way, protected the high salaries of physicians, by artificially limiting the supply of doctors in the market. Let the free market naturally lower the cost of healthcare by allowing more medical school graduates to go into residency so that we have more doctors.

4

Perhaps I should have elaborated a bit. You put effort into what you wrote and I responded in a less than ideal manner.

I still maintain that this is not “the answer.”

First, Medicare, and much less the AMA and other entities should NOT be the source of funding. For the moment, we can leave the funding issue aside and jump to the “free market” matter.

As you MUST know, we DO NOT have a free market, in any way, as pertains to “health care.”

If we did, it would be obvious, because it would succeed or fail on it’s own merits. But it doesn’t, RIGHT?

The American taxpayer has subsidized the “industry” over and over and over again. The ACA being, what I consider, the final nail in the coffin of subsidied “health care.”

So, you mention “free market,” but in the same few paragraphs, endorse the opposite.

It would be ideal for you to decide whether you really endorse a truly free market, or just your interpretaion of a “free market,” even though it’s supported by a socialist agenda.

A free market and a socialized industry are completely different things.

Moreover, your assertion that “the law, in a corrupt way, protected the high salaries of physicians, by artificially limiting the supply of doctors in the market,” is incorrect and lacks true critical thought. Worse, it fails to acknowledge that physicians worked their asses off to build and sustain a practice.

I’m happy to argue the point as long as you are.

1 Like
5

You just said a bunch of nonsense with no solution. The solution is very simple. If it bothers you, that you have to “increase” funding, you can just reallocate funds within Medicare itself. This is not some theoretical ideal solution, or waiting for some magical hard work and someone ideal smarter to figure out the solution. The problem is very clear, and the solution is very clear.

6

So, you want to avoid responding to what I’ve said by saying “it’s nonsense?”

Then reduce what I’ve said to a a simple problem with the “funding issue?”

You proposed this “solution” and I’m arguing there are major problems with throwing money at things without understanding/addressing massive factors that are directly related - in essence.

Honestly, this is tantamount to buying and applying more drano to a stopped up toilet as opposed to understanding there is a bunch of *hit in your lateral that needs to be taken care of.

Poor analogy, but maybe you’ll get the point.

If you prefer, I’ll drop off this thread and leave you to it. But, if you can reason through it, I’m happy to help come up with a policy prescription, as I’d like to see things change in so many different ways (this being one).

Let me know either way.

1 Like