Do you REALLY want to be a PA?

[GetMeOuttaThisMess]

I think the M-F taking in $90-110K are being harder to find. With the physician route you also don't have to mess with the DEA situation that's dependent on a supervising physician. Just had to decline some part-time hours because it would be needed but you can't get one without the SP to sign off on it. Catch-22. Still don't understand why obtaining this authorization can't be applied for the same time one applies for a state license? It would still require the specific supervising physician to authorize utilization of same.

[EMEDPA]

I think the M-F taking in $90-110K are being harder to find. With the physician route you also don't have to mess with the DEA situation that's dependent on a supervising physician. Just had to decline some part-time hours because it would be needed but you can't get one without the SP to sign off on it. Catch-22. Still don't understand why obtaining this authorization can't be applied for the same time one applies for a state license? It would still require the specific supervising physician to authorize utilization of same.

that must be state specific. my sps have never been involved in me getting a dea# and there is nowhere on the dea application that requires you to enter their name. .Granted , if you wrote a narc script without an SP in that state you would get in a boatlaod of trouble, but they give you that rope to hang yourself with if you so desire...

[PACdan]

it really should be viewed as an avenue for experienced folks to expand their capabilities, not a way for 22 yr old bio majors to avoid taking the mcat.

 

Truth. And it has taken this turn. Unless a myraid of compelling reasons exist, there should be some structured medical background prior to PA school.

 

part of my problem was that I had good pa role models in good jobs, not role models in typical pa jobs with severely limited scope of practice and autonomy.

 

I had excellent PA mentors/shadows as well. One was the Director of Student Health at my college (formerly in surgery for a decade). Another worked in peds hem-onc with fullscope and another was in the ER (main). All were very satisfied with their practice. We don't hear from these people much, as they aren't hitting obstacles.

 

I finally found it but it took over a decade for a job I feel I could have doone shortly after graduation from pa school.

 

Now that is a huge bummer.

[GetMeOuttaThisMess]

that must be state specific. my sps have never been involved in me getting a dea# and there is nowhere on the dea application that requires you to enter their name. .Granted , if you wrote a narc script without an SP in that state you would get in a boatlaod of trouble, but they give you that rope to hang yourself with if you so desire...

 

Yep, in Tx you have to go through state DPS requiring listing of SP, practice address, etc. first. Once you have this then one applies to the DEA.

[whoRyou]

It's a compelling argument. To steal and modify your saying slighty: "PA school is 2/3 the material of med school, in about 1/2 the time, for 1/3 the pay afterwards."

If I wasn't in my late twenties with other comorbidities :), I might have made a push for DO/MD school. From a purely financial standpoint there is something to be said for looking at the NPV of a PA v. Doc path. They will always make more, but lifetime income differences aren't so astronomical as to disincentivize PA school. I think the main problem (from reading here) will be finding a place in which I can "practice to the fullest of my abilities". I know it will be a search, but I'm confident it will come in time.

Dan brings up an article I found in the The Atlantic called, Is Medical School A Worthwhile Investment For Women? It is interesting to note and I quote,

 

An NPV calculation adds up the costs of obtaining a degree, and all of the earnings received over the career that degree enables, taking into account the fact that money earned later is not as valuable as money earned earlier (due to interest), summarizing a career decision in a single number. This captures the insight that in order for an investment in the high up-front cost medical degree to overcome the lower up-front cost of a PA degree, not only do a doctor's wages have to significantly exceed those of the PA, but the doctor needs to be willing to work enough hours to make those wages pay off.

 

To see if doctors do indeed work long enough hours, we looked at data from a Robert Wood Johnson survey of physicians on how many hours female and male primary-care physicians work at different points in their careers. We combined that with data from the American Academy of Physician Assistants.

 

We then compared the earnings of male and female physicians in our data and estimate what those individuals would have earned if they had worked as PAs.

 

We found that, for over half of woman doctors in our data, the NPV of becoming a primary-care physician was less than the NPV of becoming a physician assistant. In contrast, the vast majority of male primary-care physicians earned an NPV greater than the NPV earned by a male PA. That is, while the vast majority of male doctors are financially better off for having become a doctor, the median female primary care physician would have been financially better off becoming a PA.

 

Where does this result come from? As you might have guessed, it is partially due to a wage gap. Male doctor earns more per hour relative to the male PA than the female doctor earns relative to the female PA. However, a big part of the difference comes from an hours gap. The vast majority of male doctors under the age of 55 work substantially more than the standard 40 hour work week. In contrast, most female doctors work between 2 to 10 hours fewer than this per week. (Sound familiar E?) ;-)

 

Even though both male and female doctors both earn higher wages than their PA counterparts, most female doctors don't work enough hours at those wages to financially justify the costs of becoming a doctor.

 

We also examined alternative medical professions such as pharmacy, and our basic findings were the same. Programs that have high upfront training costs only make financial sense if you plan to work enough hours later on, and many women doctors do not end up working enough to justify the costs they pay.

It is worth noting that this specific result pertains to women primary-care physicians who work about 40 hours a week. Obviously, some women doctors work more hours, and some work many fewer. Women working significantly more than this do get a financial advantage from becoming a physician.

 

Do these results mean anything for women undertaking other advanced professional degrees such as the JD or MBA? The kind of analysis that we do in our research is not easily applied to many other professions. For doctors, it is reasonable to assume (and the data support) a fairly simple relationship between hours and earnings. Work more hours, see more patients, make more money. It is much harder to track down the relationship between hours and earnings for many other professions.

 

However, the issues that our research raises are certainly relevant in other fields. Indeed, there is evidence that women doctors actually "drop out" less frequently than women lawyers and (especially) women MBAs. For example, a 2010 study by Herr and Wolfram find that in a sample of Harvard graduates, 94 percent of mothers with MDs remain working in their late 30s, compared to only 79 percent of JDs and 72 percent of MBAs. One of the attractive features of primary care medicine is the possibility to scale up or scale down the workload -- flexibility often not feasible for an executive or investment banker. If one scales down enough, though, the upfront investment of becoming a doctor isn't recouped.

 

Does this mean that women should not become physicians? Certainly not. Our results suggest that correctly forecasting how much you will work later in life should influence your career choice. But that forecast may be very difficult for a young person to make accurately. Also, there are clearly a host of reasons that people choose their careers that are not captured in our NPV calculations--like inherent satisfaction from the work. Still, in a time when student debt can rival mortgage debt, the costs of higher education have never been higher. Thinking through what kind of work schedules would justify these costs is an important part of making smart career choices for both men and women.

 

The research found that after factoring in the high upfront costs of becoming a doctor, most women primary-care doctors would have made more money over their careers if they become physician assistants instead. As far the median man on the other hand, becoming a doctor pays a substantial premium over becoming a PA. And as our friend "E" mentions he would have done this if things were different.

 

Then the article goes on about the wage gaps. Yes, WE all know too well about women in any profession earning a lower hourly wage than males. But do not knock us down if WE as women choose not work enough hours to make our expensive training pay off. IMHO, I personally think it is NOT wage gap, I think it is mostly an hour gap. We as women or men who want to choose in becoming PAs want to find some flexibility and that is the beauty in becoming a PA.

[PACdan]

It's definitely not a financial negative to become a PA.

One argument I see thrown out about why to go DO/MD over PA is due to the income potential difference. On its face value (the one most often calculated) it appears to be a few million dollars more lucrative to become a Doc. But with all else being equal (taking proportional loans, hours worked, speciality) the difference can be much closer to 1.2 million. A good chunk of change to be sure, but that's the difference of netting 3.1 million over a career to 4.3 million. Depending on how one manages their money and if you compare inter-speciality between a PA and Doc, that gap can drop into the hundreds of thousands. Not earth shattering.

I don't believe reasoning against becoming a PA should be based on MD salaries. Nor do I think PA incomes should solely justify choosing that route. It is just not a valid argument to think being a doctor is magnitudes more lucrative; hence a better choice. The data doesn't support it.

As EMED stated, the decision should be based primarily upon where one's interests lie in practicing medicine, their prior experience, and understanding the future opportunities for practice as a PA.

It is what you make it.


Sent from the Satellite of Love using Tapatalk
 

[EMEDPA]

if it was all about the money we would all become UPS drivers:

http://graphaday.blogspot.com/2010/04/doctor-salary-vs-ups-driver.html

[PACdan]

if it was all about the money we would all become UPS drivers:

http://graphaday.blogspot.com/2010/04/doctor-salary-vs-ups-driver.html

 

I still remember when a lot of UPS drivers became millionaires over night in 1999. They all had employee stock before the IPO.

 

I was in middle school and told my parents I wanted to be a UPS driver. :)

[whoRyou]

if it was all about the money we would all become UPS drivers:

http://graphaday.blogspot.com/2010/04/doctor-salary-vs-ups-driver.html

 

HAHA UPS Workers Accrue Bundles Of Wealth

 

I still remember when a lot of UPS drivers became millionaires over night in 1999. They all had employee stock before the IPO.

 

I was in middle school and told my parents I wanted to be a UPS driver. :)

 

Timing is everything, eh? LOL I guess this could be a "PLAN B or Z" for me (IF and that is a BIG IF I do not get into PA skool the first time around)

 

PS Yep, Dan you are right. I forgot 1999 ... Check out the article it's dated 1999

[PACdan]

Money is one of the more unfortunate realities of our lives. Yet as my father (and his before him) rightly reminds me; You can't take it with you. To the original idea of this thread, do you really wanna be a PA, I can say this:

 

Being a PA seems, in a lot of ways, like being the underdog. You have to strive to prove yourself when others doubt. You have to step-up or be left out. But being an underdog keeps you fresh, alert, and hungry for more. Being an underdog keeps you from becoming complacent and keeps you fighting for that next win. These are qualities good for medicine, or any profession.

 

I like being an underdog, it motivates me. I'll check back in 20 years when I'm an old dog, and see if that fight is still there.

[whoRyou]

Money is one of the more unfortunate realities of our lives. Yet as my father (and his before him) rightly reminds me; You can't take it with you. To the original idea of this thread, do you really wanna be a PA, I can say this:

 

Being a PA seems, in a lot of ways, like being the underdog. You have to strive to prove yourself when others doubt. You have to step-up or be left out. But being an underdog keeps you fresh, alert, and hungry for more. Being an underdog keeps you from becoming complacent and keeps you fighting for that next win. These are qualities good for medicine, or any profession.

 

I like being an underdog, it motivates me. I'll check back in 20 years when I'm an old dog, and see if that fight is still there.

Dan, something tells me no matter what age you be, you will always have that fire under your belt no matter what you do. Happiness is a belt fed weapon - Murphy's Law War. Good Luck

[PACdan]

Good luck to you on your applications!

 

 

Sent from the Satellite of Love using Tapatalk

 

 

[GetMeOuttaThisMess]

I used to think the same thing (the constant fire).  Flame has blown out.  Doesn't mean that it will happen to you, I'm just saying that it does happen.  I'm still bidding time till I can drive around town in the yellow ball cap NAPA delivery pickup while listening to my local sports talk radio station.  EMEDPA/skyblu, there's the supplemental income until the beachside cabana is up and fully operational since I can listen to the radio via an app on my phone!  Mahalo!

[Lymphonucleosis]

"A 25 year old PA or a 30 year old MD are both equally likely to be ill-equipped to connect on a human level with the patients who need that connection the most: the poor, the illiterate, the medically uneducated who place an unreasonable amount of faith in the advice they get from medical"

 

I have seen some of the most compassionate acts by 16-17 year old students and some heinous acts commited by their parents and teachers (all of which were older and thus "wiser")

 

In fact i would be highly surprised if there was any statistical correlation with empathy verses age. For a long time I thought that to have an emotional connection with a patient or student you HAD to be super extroverted and happy or be old and wise and know exactly what to say.

 

I have found that the best teachers or providers are ones that simply care. They care enough to listen , do research, think things through, and to ask what's wrong. I would rather have a PA, nurse or teacher who was awkward and cared then one who was old, "wise" and judgemental. But what do I know my undergraduate was in high school education and, as you said, I obviously do not posses intellectual curiosity (I at least have enough to pursue PA school though thankfully).

 

Last thing- high school teaching is a natural step to graduate school (for those that wish to pursue such a job). Especially in sciences, getting an undergraduate in education is looked upon very well because they know you will make a decent TA. Some of my best professors were once high school teachers (one actually taught me in middle school and later, after she got a phd, taught my evo class at the state school) I actually can't think of a more uneducated comment like "teachers do not posses intellectual curiosity to become professors" but I suppose there is a teacher out there saying "my doctors assistant is stupid and thinks he's a doctor"

[JohnnyM2]

Going back to the OP from several years ago, my rant would be that many of the naive questions people ask have been answered ad infinitum in this forum. HCE, shadowing, LORs, stats, etc. I have really learned a lot from the forum. I don't always agree with the information given but, to disagree, I have to have learned something in order to be able to evaluate and weigh various opinions. I would like to see newbies spend some time searching and reading full posts before asking for help. How many ways can you answer this question: "I am now absolutely sure I want to be a mid-level provider like a PA or NP, but as an English major I don't have most of the prerequisites and my overall GPA is 2.2 with a 2.0 science GPA, not to mention I foolishly got two DUIs in one weekend. Can someone tell me how to get HCEs and find a PA to shadow who will also write me an LOR. Also, what schools should I apply to and what are my chances?"

God love all those who would patiently and compassionately answer this question because I know my answer is this: A. Forget it; and B. If you researched the forum and applied some introspection, you would already know that you are very poor candidate with almost no chance of succeeding.

OK. Now that I got that off my chest, I can go back to being helpful and understanding.

 

Sent from my Kindle Fire HDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[EMEDPA]

: "I am now absolutely sure I want to be a mid-level provider like a PA or NP, but as an English major I don't have most of the prerequisites and my overall GPA is 2.2 with a 2.0 science GPA, not to mention I foolishly got two DUIs in one weekend. Can someone tell me how to get HCEs and find a PA to shadow who will also write me an LOR. Also, what schools should I apply to and what are my chances?"

 

"...and I have lots of experience. I have been a scribe now for almost 65 hours and my dad( a dermatologist) tells me I should get in on the first try although he says being an np would be better because they can write prescriptions and pas can't. he says pa training takes about 3 months and you learn to take bps and help doctors and stuff ".

[smccccc]

"...and I have lots of experience. I have been a scribe now for almost 65 hours and my dad( a dermatologist) tells me I should get in on the first try although he says being an np would be better because they can write prescriptions and pas can't. he says pa training takes about 3 months and you learn to take bps and help doctors and stuff ".

Sounds like this person is describing the job of a medical assistant not a PA

[rev ronin]

Sounds like this person is describing the job of a medical assistant not a PA

That would be the point of the sarcasm, yes.

[Guest louisweil]

i am really good at taking BPs from working as a transport EMT, maybe i have a shot! 3 months isn't too big a time investment...

[educatedblkman]

im sure PA is a tough profession.  I gravitate towards it because of the general flexibility of the occupation and though less time in school it is on par with many medical schools

[cm7sus4]

1) PA is not an entry-level medical profession

 

3) PA is not for the young; they belong in medical school

 

4) PA is not a shortcut

 

1) PA is entry-level with respect to clinical practitioners.  This is the purpose of the PA - to extend what a physician does.  If it was not entry level, then PAs would be autonomous, which they are not in the hospital setting.  It is not entry level in the sense that it is pathway to an MD/DO - this is obvisouly a fundamentally flawed assumption.  PA is a way for folks with experience and an education to start practicing right out of the gate given adequate physician oversight, whereas physicians themselves still have many years of residency, fellowship and board certification but are given complete autonomy of practice.  I see that as entry-level, no disrespect intended.

 

3) How, in one fell swoop, can you determine who belongs in medical school?  What about those who want to practice in 2 years instead of 6+?  We're not supposed to say it, but that's the reason many choose this profession.  What of those who want to practice medicine but know they could never make it into med school?  This opinion is very flawed.

 

4) Except that, and again this is something we're not supposed to talk about, it is a shortcut.  The schooling is shorter and does not dive as deeply into the hard sciences (read: hard vs soft, not hard as in difficult) as medical school.  That's just the way it is.  It's a more attractive option for those who get good grades, but are not strong enough in the sciences to pull off a competetive MCAT score.  You can pretend that doesn't exist if you want, but that's the reality.  The nature of PA school's barriers to entry is such that it fits a specific crowd; not everyone in that crowd is a "reformed pre-med" but some are, and for the reason that said barrier is a bit lower and more family-friendly...when one approaches a college guidance counselor about an interest in practicing medicine, what does that guidance counselor reply?  "You have 3 optoins, NP, PA, and MD/DO."  The road to the profession is significantly shorter, not as intense academically (notice I did not say it is not difficult, I am making a direct comparison to medical school), and the PA ends up in the same practical place as the primary care physician in the pc clinic.

 

Most of your list reads like you feel as though you have been accused of being inferior to the physician.  The newbs don't need a forum sticky to weed them out of the process - if the sole reason for one's PA application is because it is easier than medical school, then that person will be found out by a good adcom.  If they slip through the cracks, then so be it.  There are plenty here who intend to apply for PA school for just that reason, and this post will dissuade none of them.  There are certain things one keeps to oneself during the interview, but that does not mean that the notion simply ceases to exist.  If someone makes a great PA, then who cares why they chose that path?  There are plenty of subpar PAs who had all the politically correct intentions - that did not make them a good PA.   Besides, all of this comparison is, in the end, just a false dichotomy, which makes most of your points of topic a collective non-issue.  This thread should be un-stickied.

[sharesmiles]

As a patient, interpreter, LVN : I have been seeing/working with/among many providers in family medicine. Outside of work, I'm the primary medical/dental appointments “keeper” not only for my family, but for many LEP at local pagodas; most of them were on a scheduled sliding-scale fees (from 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%, etc.) if un-insured. For those had inadequate plan of health insurance, the co-pays, deductibles are also headaches.

 

From those patients, regardless whom they seen by young vs older MD/DO or PA/NP, they will pay ~$100 per visit after 50% discount on sliding scale. It is a just a matter of “how many # visits” they need from the point of establishing care -> a systemly managed chronic conditions -> a satisfied patient. For those whose suffered multiple severe conditions, it’s a matter of $ vs their health decision. This is where it gets: the “gray area”

 

Executives train managers & supervisors, managers & supervisors trained receptionists & staff: “new patient visit, physical exam visit, follow up visit, problem visit” vs “triage visits”

• Triage visit is most simple from the book, if not emergency; it will be a problem visit. If doubt, then refer to ED.
• A problem visit from the book: known as patient reports 1 condition most concern at the time of visit.
• Physical exam: is simply a physical, not for “problems” or “triage” unless it is a “disability physical”.
• New patient visit general in “gray area” histories & current meds visit.
• Follow up visit (f/u): is to f/u on existing condition discussed, limited to 2 conditions in general.

Here what I seen where a credentials do not matter:

 

There are providers just go with the book and expect their recommendations will “treat & manage” the patients’ problems.

 

There are providers whose will go outside the book by not limiting their visit to a certain # of problems. Those providers often kept in mind that their patients do “have a budget”. I spoke on behalf of some clients I helped:

 

--- as a your so call “difficult patient”, I tried to follow and comply with what you (providers) recommended me to exercise more, to cut sweet, to cut fats intake, eat more small meals instead of big meals, be on low carbs diet and it cost me a deduction of XY amount of salary or risk losing my jobs (eat too often at work) while having less energy & lower work performance and after all owed the clinic/hospital thousands $ of medical bill. After a while, beside my uncontrolled problems, you tell me that I have to go see behavior health specialist for my depression.

 

--- at age 74, a widowed-woman like me was doing ok. My husband, parents, siblings & relatives & people I knew all went away visiting their ancestors on heaven at age 60-75. I came to see you (provider) for cough medicine that works, then you started me to be on different types of medications which I had many diff side effects, seeing different types of specialists and surgeries for a tumor in my lung. I became very ill, unable to make decisions, which POA kicks in, where the daughter has not understand that her mom did not want CPR.

 

-------------------------

 

Regardless NP/PA/MD/DO or their ages, I have seen both "good" & "compassionate" in the same person. "Compassionate" in my terms: is diversity sensitive, is culturally sensitive, is humanely sensitive, is out-of-the-box (willing to find alternatives). "Good" means: to the point, willing to talk to other providers, refer to others providers' notes but will not just leave it as is.

 

-I worked with a client whom going multiple visits between different providers & ED rooms for nauseated & vomiting during peak flu season. Not until a PA (whom subbed for the client's PCP/ARNP on an f/u appt) requested a head CT (result: tumor found).

 

-Each provider does have his or her own panel of patients. I seen MDs with patient panel never filled while there are a few NPs with panel filled. In addition, all PAs had their panel filled quickly. <-- this experience has the value on its own in my opinion.

 

-There was a young PA in a local community health clinic whom was loved by his patients, but he pursued medical school, graduated, and worked in a FM clinic with a prestige hospital where they do not accept certain subsidized health plans.

 

After all, I am limited to my own limitations at experiences/exposures to my work as medical worker and patient.

------------------------

 

I do hope anyone reading this will gain a perspective from some patients. Future PAs (including myself): let begin a journey to gain patient's trust, to gain their health outcomes, to gain their access to medical care and reduce their waiting times (especially at community clinics without backup/on-calls where 1 PCP is sick, his/her patients will be either turned away, sent home, sent ED or wait 4 hours for a standby appointment).

 

Thank you & sincerely,

Your patient(s).

Spell checked.

[demayette]

Nope. I knew a guy pretty well once who was dissatisfied with the six-figure job he held at the pinnacle of an almost 20 year career in IT, so he decided to go back to school and become a PA... oh, wait, that's me. Doctors "trapped" in high-paying, high-pressure jobs because they chose at every step to continue along the path, from pre-med, to med school, to residency, investing more in it at each step of the way... no, gotta say, they get some sympathy from me, but their bed is of their own making. Getting intractably into debt is a bad idea in and of itself, but the only people who have to get into debt to practice medicine, either as PAs or MDs, are the ones for whom obligated service contracts won't work.

 

 

If you think it's a contradiction, then you don't understand the point. The reason medical school+residency is seven years and PA school is at most three is that the typical med student hasn't got enough life experiences to practice medicine--which is NOT about simply knowing facts and being able to answer pimping questions on rounds at zero-dark-thirty. Medical school takes fresh smart kids and molds them into doctors. PA school takes seasoned adults and makes them medical providers. Either one is bad for people who don't belong in the practice of medicine.

 

 

Nor do I view it as second best, although your point is somewhat undermined by the fact that most schoolteachers don't have the intellectual curiosity needed to succeed as professors, while I don't see any real difference in intellect between the docs and PAs I've known. The PAs tend to have better personalities and more diverse pathways into the profession. If anything PA is a second chance for those of us who missed the MD/DO train to practicing medicine in our youth.

On average, there is a difference, but it is not as wide as MD/DO vs. NP. Most PAs are extremely bright, but because of the competitiveness in getting into MD/DO, It easier for schools to attract extremely bright individuals... Also, PA school expansion is scary now. I hope they don't follow the path of law school or pharmacy school... I am not saying getting into PA is NOT competitive, but on average, it is easier to get into PA than US medical school. I am a non trad med student and I agree on most of the points you made in your original post...

[demayette]

It's definitely not a financial negative to become a PA.

 

One argument I see thrown out about why to go DO/MD over PA is due to the income potential difference. On its face value (the one most often calculated) it appears to be a few million dollars more lucrative to become a Doc. But with all else being equal (taking proportional loans, hours worked, speciality) the difference can be much closer to 1.2 million. A good chunk of change to be sure, but that's the difference of netting 3.1 million over a career to 4.3 million. Depending on how one manages their money and if you compare inter-speciality between a PA and Doc, that gap can drop into the hundreds of thousands. Not earth shattering.

 

I don't believe reasoning against becoming a PA should be based on MD salaries. Nor do I think PA incomes should solely justify choosing that route. It is just not a valid argument to think being a doctor is magnitudes more lucrative; hence a better choice. The data doesn't support it.

 

As EMED stated, the decision should be based primarily upon where one's interests lie in practicing medicine, their prior experience, and understanding the future opportunities for practice as a PA.

 

It is what you make it.

 

 

Sent from the Satellite of Love using Tapatalk

 

 

You are assuming that all MD/DO will be PCP... Anesthesiologists average 400k+/year according to AAMC Careers in Medicine (CiM)... There are other stuff that work in PAs' favor such as ROI, opportunity cost etc... Other stuff work on MD/DO's favor such as purchasing power etc...

[rev ronin]

[...]

3) How, in one fell swoop, can you determine who belongs in medical school?  What about those who want to practice in 2 years instead of 6+?  We're not supposed to say it, but that's the reason many choose this profession.  What of those who want to practice medicine but know they could never make it into med school?  This opinion is very flawed.

[...]

Sorry that I missed this last month, but I thought I'd better respond late than never.

 

The bolded sentence, out of all of your post, demonstrates conclusively that you don't know what you're talking about.  Before you go picking on posts from three and a half years ago (which I still stand by, by the way), you might want to actually read them and understand what they mean by what they say.  I specifically addressed that residents do practice medicine, contrary to the unfounded assumption, repeated above, that only attending physicians practice medicine.

 

Many people, including yourself apparently, don't like me telling people where they belong. That doesn't make my advice incorrect, just unwelcome.