Blog Home

«
»

The 2014 GME Residency Match Results: Is There Really A “GME Squeeze”?



April 24th, 2014

Each spring thousands of seniors at medical and osteopathic schools and other physicians apply for positions in graduate medical education (GME) training programs; simultaneously, thousands of training programs rank their preferred candidates.  Based on the preferences of the medical student/physician applicants and the training programs, the two are matched by a sophisticated computer program.  Since GME is a prerequisite to becoming licensed and practicing medicine in the US, this is a critical juncture in the education – training pipeline and provides a spotlight on the future physician workforce.

There are two matching systems: one administered by the National Residency Match Program (NRMP) for allopathic training positions, accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), that matches medical doctors (MDs), doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs) and graduates of schools outside of the US, known as international medical school graduates (IMGs); and one for GME programs accredited by the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) that is limited to DOs.  The following are among the highlights of the results of this year’s matches.

First year positions (PGY 1 positions) for entrants into GME reached an all-time high and the number continues to grow. This year, a record 26,678 first year positions were offered by the NRMP and an additional 2,988 first year positions were offered in the AOA sponsored match, for a total of 29,666 positions offered in 2014. (See Note 1) This represents an overall increase of 2.2 percent from 2013. (See Note 2)  However, some of the NRMP increase may reflect the “all in” policy instituted by the NRMP effective in 2013. (See Note 3)

Entry level GME positions far outnumber the number of US medical and osteopathic graduates seeking a residency position.  Despite a lot of rhetoric and fear that new US graduates are facing a lack of training slots, overall, there were about 22,300 US MD and DO seniors competing for the 29,666 first year positions.

The number of graduates of foreign medical schools continues to be significant. More than 6,350 IMGs were matched into ACGME programs. (IMGs are not eligible for AOA accredited training programs.)  Between 2013 and 2014, there was a very small increase in the number of IMGs matched through the NRMP.  However, the NRMP “all in” policy had the greatest impact on IMGs participating in the match, making comparisons prior to 2013 match data inappropriate, and some of the 2014 increase may reflect the residual impact of that change.  Of the IMGs matched through the NRMP in 2014, 2,722 (43 percent) were US citizens who had graduated from foreign medical schools.

Some MD seniors were not matched in the main match.  For MDs, 975 of 17,374 active senior participants were not matched in the main match.  This was down 11 percent from 1,097 in 2013.  There is a supplemental match process, the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP), which allows unmatched applicants to try to obtain an unfilled residency position during the few days following the main match (previously known as the “scramble”). In 2014, there were 991 entry level positions unmatched in the NRMP main match. While this is very close to the 975 senior MDs who were not matched, several thousand unmatched DOs, IMGs and other US MDs (non-seniors) were also competing for those 991 unfilled positions. While 1,097 senior MDs were unmatched after the main match in 2013, this was reduced to 526 US MD seniors (3 percent of all seniors) after the supplemental match.  (Those that remained unmatched were eligible to apply again in 2014.)

Some DO graduates did not get matched in the main matches. The AOA sponsored match occurs prior to the NRMP match. As a result, the figure for osteopathic seniors who do not match is less clear, as they can apply to ACGME programs through the NRMP. A total of 611 DOs that participated in the NRMP were unmatched. They too could compete for the 991 positions in the NRMP supplemental match.

There appears to be a slight increase in the numbers of physicians going into primary care.  One bright spot is a steady increase in both NRMP and AOA matches of physicians going into family medicine; the combined increase was 3.2 percent between 2013 and 2014 and it was driven by an increase in matches for US MD and DO seniors.  For both match programs this seems to be a continuation of a steady increase over the past 5 years.  This is encouraging because about 95 percent of residents entering family medicine training actually end up practicing primary care.  Among all US MD seniors in the match, 8.5 percent were matched into family medicine; representing a slight increase over prior years.  However, US MDs only comprised 45 percent of the NRMP matches in family medicine in 2014.  There were also increases in NRMP and AOA matches in internal medicine and pediatrics, both of which lead to primary care; but this does not provide a clear picture of the future primary care workforce, as many or even most of these physicians will go on to sub-specialize or become hospitalists. Data from a point later in the education-training pipeline is needed to assess if the percent of internists and pediatricians going into primary care is changing.

Discussion

The “GME squeeze.”  A number of groups have suggested that the nation needs to expand GME funding in order to increase GME slots to assure that all medical and osteopathic school graduates are able to complete the training required to become a licensed physician. The argument is that the number of medical and osteopathic graduates is growing faster than GME slots and that eventually there will be more graduates than entry level residency positions.  Based on the match data, it is clear that there are currently far more GME entry positions than graduates.  Analysis shows that using the recent growth rates of graduates and GME slots, there will continue to be several thousand more GME positions than graduates at least for the next decade.  Thus, while finding a GME position may be getting more competitive, in no way is it a tight squeeze.

Nevertheless, we should be concerned with the fact that several hundred MD and DO graduates were not able to find a GME position. Adding GME positions will not assure positions for all US seniors.  The issue needs to be examined closely to identify the root causes of the problem.  Issues to be explored include the following:
.

  1. Does this reflect poor medical student decision making around specialty choice? For example, according to the NRMP, in 2013, 724 US seniors applied only for positions in orthopedic surgery; however, there were only 693 orthopedic positions available altogether and a few went to applicants other than US seniors.  Would better student counseling help?
  2. Do some GME programs prefer foreign medical school graduates? If so, why?  Given the rigorous accreditation process for US medical education, it is appropriate to ask why so many graduates of foreign medical schools were accepted when US MD and DO grads were unmatched. Is this something the ACGME should explore?
  3. Are some US graduating students inadequately prepared for GME? Do medical and osteopathic schools need to review their curriculum?
  4. Would a modification in the current NRMP match process, such as allowing a two-stage process with the most competitive specialties going first, better serve programs and seniors?

Foreign medical school graduates.  The number of IMGs matched through the NRMP increased slightly from 6,247 in 2013 to 6,355 in 2014, an increase of 1.7 percent. Some of this increase could reflect additional programs entering the NRMP.  Regardless, 6,335 IMGs is a significant number representing 24.7 percent of all NRMP matches and 22.9 percent of all NRMP and AOA year matches combined. This is well above the percent of foreign-educated individuals in most other health professions, like nursing and pharmacy, which are generally in the 5 to 10 percent range.  The primary beneficiary of increasing GME slots would be IMGs, who are facing the greatest pressure from the increasing competitiveness for GME positions.  Increasing the number of IMGs would be contrary to the World Health Organization’s Code of Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel, which was signed by the US and 182 other countries. The Code called for countries to do a better job of meeting their own needs rather than relying on foreign educated health professionals.

Specialty choice.  As noted above, while the increase in the numbers entering family medicine in both ACGME and AOA accredited programs is encouraging, the match data on entrants into GME in general do not provide a clear picture of the future primary care physician workforce.  Since this is a critical issue for the health care system, more needs to be done to develop and monitor data later in the training process and post training to assess the trends in primary care.  One particular challenge is getting accurate and timely data on the numbers of internists and pediatricians becoming hospitalists.  Major gaps currently exist in this area.

Note 1. Despite the NRMP “all in” policy (described below) a few programs may still match outside of the formal match system, which would lead to an under count of total new entrants. However, there are some programs that are dually certified by the ACGME and the AOA. This could lead to a slight over count of positions. Both of these phenomena seem to be relatively limited in 2014.

Note 2. This is consistent with earlier findings.  Jolly and coauthors found 0.9 percent annual growth of ACGME positions; while an earlier study by Salsberg and coauthors found a 1 percent annual growth in ACGME entry positions.

Note 3. As of 2013, programs wanting to participate in the NRMP had to offer all of their positions in the match (“all in” policy).  This led to a large increase between 2012 and 2013.  Some of the increase in 2014 may have also reflected existing programs deciding to participate in the match. The change in the NRMP administrative policies makes comparisons with NRMP data prior to 2013 inappropriate except for US MD seniors who have been required to participate in the NRMP for many years.

Email This Post Email This Post Print This Post Print This Post

No Trackbacks for “The 2014 GME Residency Match Results: Is There Really A “GME Squeeze”?”

5 Responses to “The 2014 GME Residency Match Results: Is There Really A “GME Squeeze”?”

  1. Mike Stevens Says:

    In 2014, there were 40,000 applicants vying for 26,678 first year residecy positions. 526 “active” senior MD students didn’t obtain a residency position. Active senior means a U.S. senior that obtained at least one interview. There are an unknown number of U.S. MD seniors that completed all licensing exams but were considered non-active because no programs wanted to interview them. Around 750 “active” previous MD graduates also did not obtain a residency. Approximately 600 U.S. Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine graduates also failed to obtain a residency, but they are able to reapply to the AOA residency which has hundreds of unfilled positions. Over 2,500 “active” U.S. citizens who graduated from medical schools abroad failed to obtain positions while 3,500 “active” non-citizens who attended medical school abroad also failed to obtain positions. An additional 6000 “non-active” participants of undisclosed origin in the residency match failed to obtain a residency position as well. Overall over 30% of the applicants failed to obtain a residency. 98 percent of U.S. senior graduates obtained a residency while 50% of previous graduates (750) obtained a residency. Out of the remaining 20,000 applicants who passed all licensing exams to obtain a U.S. residency, only 6,000 or 30% obtained residency positions.

    Increasing IMG spots in the match is not a problem to the World Health Organization when there were 5,000 “active” IMG U.S. citizens in the match. Many of which attended medical schools in the Carribean such as St. Georges, Ross and AUC. These medical students received U.S. federal loans and complete their last 2 years of clinical training in U.S. hospitals along U.S. medical students. St. Georges currently has over 1,000 students in New York hospitals today completing the clinical component of their medical education. Out of the 6000 non-active participants in the match, I would suspect a significant number is also U.S. citizens.

    A bigger question that the author brought up is why non-citizen IMG’s (3,500) are able to obtain residency positions ahead of U.S. citizens that are not being offered positions. These foreign nationals are required to obtain J1 or H1b visas while 8,000+ U.S. Citizens are currently “out of work”.

  2. Edward Salsberg Says:

    In response to the comments from Mr. Kerenick and Levitan, I reviewed the data used in my blog. They both raised important points. Based on the additional review, I determined that there were 30,459 first year positions available to the 22,300 US MD and DO seniors rather than the 29,666 I had reported in my post. The difference is the addition of 793 first year positions that were filled in what is known as the “military match”. (See http://www.militarygme.org/index.html). These positions are not included in the PGY 1 positions offered by the NRMP or AOA.

    A recent report by the NRMP “Results and Data from the 2014 Main Residency Match” (http://www.nrmp.org/2014-results-data-book-available/) documented that there were 1.54 first year positions in NRMP for every US MD senior, a record high. (Table 5) A presentation by the Executive Director of the NRMP reported that after the main match and the supplemental match (SOAP), 412 US MD seniors did not obtain a residency position in 2014, less that 2½% of the 17,374 allopathic medical school graduates active in the match. (http://www.nrmp.org/nrmp-executive-director-mona-signer-presents-national-gsa-meeting/).

    Mr. Kerenick raises an important point: some of those being matched by the NRMP and AOA matching programs are being matched to preliminary or transitional positions. Wouldn’t many of those physicians be back looking for positions next year, therein representing growing demand for the available entry positions? According to the NRMP, some 3,611 residents were matched with preliminary or transitional positions. The good news is that some 2,068 were simultaneously matched with PGY 2 positions. These physicians are set. The status of the other 1,543 going into preliminary/transitional positions is less clear. Some may go into the San Francisco match which offers 2nd year positions in ophthalmology and plastic surgery (https://www.sfmatch.org ) or the urology match (http://www.auanet.org/education/urology-and-specialty-matches.cfm. Some US graduates may go directly into practice in the few states that only require 1 year of accredited GME for US graduates. Finally, some will show up next year in the NRMP reported as “Previous Graduates of US Medical Schools”. A careful analysis of the outcomes and paths for physicians entering preliminary and transitional programs is warranted.

    Ms. Peton in her comments states that a study of trends over the past 12 years found that 78% of DO graduates were staying in primary care. I am not sure what definition is being used, but this is very inconsistent with other sources of data and does not appear accurate. For example, data from the AMA Masterfile as analyzed by the AAMC in their report on physicians by specialty indicates that about 30.8% of active DOs were in primary care (defined as family medicine, internal medicine, general pediatrics and geriatrics); another 5.4% were in obstetrics/gynecology. (https://www.aamc.org/data/workforce/reports/)

    Future blogs will continue to explore issues related to the data on the physician workforce and GME.

  3. Dean Kerenick Says:

    I’m sure that I will be corrected if this is in error, but the 29,000 spots the author refers to includes some 4800+ preliminary/transition spots (4300 MD/500 DO) that are for one year only. Graduates that fill one of these positions will be back in the hunt for a full residency the following year. Considering this, the number of position to graduates is much tighter and quite possibly going to get even more so. This creates highly competitive system in which graduates may be faced with “settling” for a specialty as opposed to training in the field they wish. After accumulating up to $350,000 in debt and spending 8 or more years in stressful and just as competitive higher education, to settle for anything less than your primary desire is, to say the least, disappointing. I believe an argument could made that it has a marked negative effect on physician satisfaction. In a time that we face a shortage of physicians (and healthcare workers in general) for the foreseeable future, It would seem prudent to assure more than ample GME for all qualified candidates. Yes let’s look at educating med students on choosing a specialty, modifying the match process and assess the impact of FMGs, but let’s admit more positions/funding is needed as well.

  4. Ann Peton Says:

    Although match data alone does not provide true clarity of the impact current students will have upon the nation’s need for primary care physician workforce, it does provide a strong correlation when coupled with practice location and specialty data from NCAHD’s enhanced state licensure data*. In a recent report by the Robert Graham Center, where a medical student was raised and where they receive their training experiences directly correlates to the increased likelihood of choosing primary care, rural and underserved careers . The Osteopathic profession has been diligent in identifying locations for new medical schools/residency programs in areas where students are more likely to train and remain a local primary care physician.

    NCAHD recently conducted trend analysis over a twelve-year span, which indicates that the average percentage of Osteopathic graduates remaining in a primary care specialty is 78%. The positive trend since 1995 in Osteopathic graduates choosing Primary Care specialties reflects the influence of Osteopathic medical school expansion and focused efforts of residency program development by the profession in primary care specialties.

    NCAHD research findings provide multiple examples throughout the entire Osteopathic medical education process that fortify this trend of supplying primary care physicians in areas of greatest need across the nation:
    •Virginia College of Osteopathic Medicine (est. 2004) reports 51% of their first eleven classes (n=2,411) are from rural or underserved areas and that 62% of their alumni are practicing primary care physicians.
    •Lincoln Memorial University-DeBusk College of Osteopathic Medicine (est. 2007), reports 35% of students from their first five classes (n=767) are from rural or underserved areas and over 80% of their graduates placed into a primary care residency program.
    •As of April, 2013, nine (26%) of Osteopathic medical schools are located in rural areas as compared to five (3%) of the Allopathic medical colleges.
    •Of the 1,064 Osteopathic residency programs, 41% are located in a medically underserved area/population as compared to 29% of the Allopathic residency programs.

    *The National Center for the Analysis of Healthcare Data (NCAHD) generates annually an enhanced state licensure dataset, which is an amalgamation of state licensure, NPI, and other data sources that contains 98% and 92% specialty data on, DO’s and MD’s respectively.

    1. Phillips, R.P., et al., (2009). What influences medical student & resident choices? Robert Graham Center: AAFP Center for Policy Studies. Retrieved from: http://www.graham-center.org/online/etc/medialib/graham/documents/publications/mongraphs-books/2009/rgcmo-specialty-geographic.Par.0001.File.tmp/Specialty-geography-compressed.pdf

  5. Tom Levitan Says:

    There are many numbers being published about the “GME Squeeze,” prospective physician shortages and maldistribution by geography and specialty. Maybe the only thing that those who work with those numbers can agree on is that there are many different interpretations.

    Yes, there are more GME positions in the US system than there are current graduates of DO-granting and US MD-granting medical schools. But we need to acknowledge that there is still much growth underway in both DO- and MD- granting medical schools. The DO-granting medical schools will increase the number of graduates by over 1000 by the year 2018, just based on the classes currently being admitted to start in the Fall. Similar growth is occurring in the US MD-granting medical schools.

    It is also important to note that the GME match/placement process for DO graduates allows a bit more flexibility in the system. Although there were over 600 unmatched DO graduates at the end of the NRMP match, those future doctors had the opportunity to participate in SOAP and to go back and seek unfilled AOA accredited GME positions. Data collected from the nation’s osteopathic medical schools show that as of April 15, 2014 of the approximately 4950 expected graduates seeking GME, 4876 (98.75%) had been placed in GME – 48% in AOA accredited programs, 46% in ACGME accredited programs, and 6% in military programs.

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is in use. Please do not submit your comment twice -- it will appear shortly.

Authors: Click here to submit a post.