GENERAL MEDICAL NEWS
The staff of The Reproductive Times here offers brief referenced notifications on interesting general medical and scientific news with broad relevance to reproductive medicine and biology. Some of these news items may become subjects of more detailed reporting in The Reproductive Times on later occasions. The purpose of these short notifications is to give readers the opportunity to get immediately more detailed information by looking up the reference of the notification.
WHY WOULD A LEADING MEDICAL JOURNAL FEARMONGER?
We recognize that how much medical journals should be involved in politics – and especially in election politics – has become a contentious subject. As medicine must survive and prosper in a politically increasingly splintered world, to simply ignore politics is no longer possible. Fair and balanced commentaries, therefore, can offer valuable contributions at times to often overheated debates. But this does not mean that leading medical journals should in a political debate lend their pages to pure propaganda for one side or the other.
Yet this is exactly what happened when JAMA – paradoxically exactly in its November 5 (number 17 issue) on Election Day published a Viewpoint article by three Boston University authors under the heading, “Health and the 2024 US Election” and titled, “The US Presidential Election’s High Stakes for the Future of Medicine” (1). The article basically offered a (very negative) opinion (which we at least partially share) about the so-called Project 2025, while noting that the Republican Party Platform included (only) a few sentences on health care-related issues, while “specifics may be found within a policy ‘playbook’ published by Project 2025 outlining a comprehensive, concrete transition plan for each federal agency.”
And this sentence in their article was an indisputable lie because candidate Trump on innumerable occasions during the campaign had very definitely distanced himself from Project 2025 and, indeed, clearly stated that he not only had nothing to do with the document but opposed it on several grounds (2).
Project 2025 is also known as the “2025 Presidential Transition Network” and has been as a product of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank (3). The paper was, however, presented by the three authors as not only reflecting Trump’s opinions but as representing his plan of action regarding US healthcare during his second administration. That JAMA would publish such a misleading article is, therefore, really inexcusable because the claim that Project 2025 was foreseeing Trump’s action as president remained a major talking point of the Harris campaign until the end, even though the claim had been so many times rebutted by Trump.
If editors choose to allow politics into the pages of their journals (and nobody, of course forces them to do so), they, of course, concomitantly acquire the responsibility for such publications. Here JAMA, the flagship journal of the American Medical Association (AMA) very obviously failed in this responsibility.
References
1. Huberfeld et al., JAMA 2024;332(1&):1421-1422
2. The New York Times. September 12, 2024. https://www.nytimes.com/article/project-2025.html
3. The Heritage Foundation. 2025. Mandate for Leadership. The Conservative promise; eds: Dans P, Groves S. https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership
IT APPEAR THAT 3 YEARS OF MEDICAL SCHOOL ARE ENOUGH – It is high time to shorten how long it takes to become a physician
That is at least the impression based on a recent article and press release from NYU Langone (1, 2). Academic and residency performance between an accelerated 3-year MD program and the standard 4-year medical school program did not differ significantly in a trial program at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in NYC: 3-year students scored an average of 84% on their pre-clerkship exams; 4-year students 83%. They also had similar scores in clinical skills, communication, critical thinking and medical knowledge.
Considering the threatening shortage of physicians despite record numbers of new medical schools being established in the U.S., it should not surprise that 3-year programs are becoming increasingly common (3). They not only will speed up the new physician supply, but – according to studies – could produce lifetime savings between $250,000 and $400,000.
The first class to graduate from New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine’s three-year medical degree program matriculated in 2013. (NYU Grossman School of Medicine)
And the next step should be the shortening of residencies and sub-specialty fellowship. Does it really take 4 years to train a general Ob/Gyn? It definitely does not, for example, take three years to train a competent reproductive endocrinologist and infertility specialist (REI)! At the CHR, we can do that probably in one year for clinical competence and in two years for clinical as well as academic excellence. In other words, we could produce a new generation of highly competent REIs within 5 years from graduating medical school and within 8 years after college, with college being yet another subject that deserves scrutiny.
The table above demonstrates what would seem possible with just a little good will and imagination. As the table demonstrates, it should be possible to shorten the time after high school from 12-16 years to 9-10 years. The potential advantages and cost-saving for the country and individuals who wish to become physicians appear obvious. An easier and shorter route would also make the medical field more attractive again as a career choice.
References
1. Satyamoorthi et al., Academic Medicine 2024. ():10.1097/ACM.0000000000005896, October 15, 2024
2. NYU Langone Health Press Release, October 15, 2024. https://nyulangone.org/news/accelerated-three-year-medical-school-students-perform-well-peers-traditional-four-year-programs
3. Palmer K. Inside Higher Education. November 4, 2024.