> Because doctors' associations and regulatory bodies (like AAMC in the US) lobby to keep it that way to keep the value of their profession up.
This isn't true of the AAMC position in the US today, and when it was true in the 90s, there were many articles about an upcoming oversupply of physicians.
First, US medical school graduating classes are smaller in number than the number of available residency positions. So every year, the US is importing physicians trained in other countries.
Next, residency positions (required to practice in the US) are funded by the US government. You could readily contact your US representatives about the problem you perceive - if this a legitimate concern for you.
Additionally, US residency positions don't need to be funded by any government body, at all! Hospitals need 'simply' show that there is enough patient volume to support educating additional residents. This is another avenue where you can intervene, if this is indeed something you care about.
Lastly, 'advanced practice providers' are filling in large amounts of the deficits in physicians in primary care providers. So focusing on the number of physicians is to ignore the huge growth of NPs and PAs - some of whom can function without a physician in some parts of their practice.
I see many people blame 'the AAMC' for healthcare problems, but worry that not many appreciate the lack of a role the AAMC plays in the number of providers in America.
> First, US medical school graduating classes are smaller in number than the number of available residency positions.
That's because the artificial restriction is placed on entrants to study, not qualified post-study graduates.
And it really is a purely artificial restriction: in the 90s, in SA, when affirmative action was implemented (where a C student from a particular background would get placed before an A student from a different background) didn't result in any measurable difference to the resulting quality of doctors.
We literally have a small experiment showing that allowing C students into med school doesn't affect the outcomes, and yet there is still a very limited intake into medical schools, and this is purely an artificial limitation.
Not to disagree with any of your points, I'm skeptical of the proportion of NPs that can safely practice any medicine at all. I've met one competent PA, one PA who didn't understand basic human anatomy, and an PMHNP with a PhD who had seemingly no knowledge of pharmacology at all. Then I stumbled across some forums about 'noctors' with horror stories about real doctors taking patients suffering from malpractice by NPs.
This isn't true of the AAMC position in the US today, and when it was true in the 90s, there were many articles about an upcoming oversupply of physicians.
First, US medical school graduating classes are smaller in number than the number of available residency positions. So every year, the US is importing physicians trained in other countries.
Next, residency positions (required to practice in the US) are funded by the US government. You could readily contact your US representatives about the problem you perceive - if this a legitimate concern for you.
Additionally, US residency positions don't need to be funded by any government body, at all! Hospitals need 'simply' show that there is enough patient volume to support educating additional residents. This is another avenue where you can intervene, if this is indeed something you care about.
Lastly, 'advanced practice providers' are filling in large amounts of the deficits in physicians in primary care providers. So focusing on the number of physicians is to ignore the huge growth of NPs and PAs - some of whom can function without a physician in some parts of their practice.
I see many people blame 'the AAMC' for healthcare problems, but worry that not many appreciate the lack of a role the AAMC plays in the number of providers in America.