Home >Newsletters >May 2001
 
ASA NEWSLETTER
 
 
May 2001
Volume 65
Number 5
   
National Residency Matching Program Results for 2001: Another Increase This Year

Alan W. Grogono, M.D.


This is the ninth in a series of annual Spring updates about the results of the National Residency Matching Program (NRMP) for anesthesiology. In 1993, the first article was provoked by an initial slight decline in recruitment. Surprisingly, in view of what followed, I expressed concern about the decline and concluded that it would be desirable to generate strategies to enhance our ability to continue attracting both excellent medical students and excellent graduates into our specialty.

Twelve months later we were worrying about oversupply so were the medical students who, about four years later, demonstrated the awesome power of the marketplace. As a result, there is now a shortage of anesthesiologists, and for at least two years now, we have resumed worrying about recruitment.

NRMP Results [Table 1]

Overall this year there has been a 21-percent increase in recruitment, a similar increase to last year. Once again, it is almost entirely attributable to a rise in the number of graduating seniors entering anesthesiology from U.S. allopathic medical schools (from 549 to 713). This is the fifth year in a row that recruitment of U.S. medical students increased [Figure 1]. From the low of 169 in 1996, there have been annual increases of 50 percent, 53 percent, 10 percent, 29 percent and now 30 percent. The increase in recruitment this year is slightly greater for the PG-1 group (39 percent) than for the CA-1 group (26 percent).

Positions Unfilled

The number of positions offered through the NRMP increased from 1,005 last year to 1,104 this year (10-percent increase), still well below the all-time high of 1,386 in 1993. Because there was a greater increase in the number recruited, the number of positions remaining unfilled fell from 204 to 131, about 21 percent of the maximum number of positions unfilled, which reached an all-time high of 622 in 1996.

Distribution of Recruits [Table 2]

The most striking trend of the last six years has been the ongoing increase in the number of U.S. graduates recruited (from 169 to 713). This was initially accompanied by a rise in the number of other medical graduates [Figure 2]. Since 1997, however, the number of other medical graduates has stabilized at about 250. That number now represents about 27 percent of the total because of the rise in the number of U.S. allopathic student recruits.

Among the nonallopathic medical graduates, only four categories contribute significant numbers. This year, osteopathic physicians were the largest category; their number has roughly doubled each year since 1997 (from 7 to 107). By contrast, the number of non-U.S. citizen international medical graduates (IMGs) fell from a high of 213 in 1997 to 79 this year. The number of U.S. citizen IMGs has changed little, providing 50 recruits this year. The sponsored physician group grew this year to 15 recruits. The remaining three groups, (fifth pathway, Canadian, U.S. physician) provided nine recruits between them.

Of the available pool of applicants in each category, anesthesiology once again attracts the highest percentage of applicants from graduates of U.S. osteopathic medical schools (8.62 percent) and U.S. medical allopathic schools (4.93 percent). In these two categories, recruitment is above our average of 4.12 percent of the total available via the NRMP.

Regional Distribution [Table 3]

The NRMP data for the last five years has also been compiled by state and ranked by the numbers recruited into each state’s residencies via the NRMP. For the second year in a row, the two largest totals were California (106) and New York (93); those two states recruited 20 percent. The next three states recruited: Texas 70, Massachusetts 68 and Pennsylvania 65. Between them, the top five states recruited 402 (41 percent), and the top 10 recruited 582 (60 percent). During each of the last five years, California has recruited the largest number. For four years in a row New York, Texas and Massachusetts have occupied the next three positions, but not in the same sequence. Most states recruited more this year than last. Nearly half of states matched all of the positions that had been made available via the NRMP. The following states recruited fewer this year than last year: Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Washington and West Virginia.

Distribution Among Schools and Programs [Table 4]

The uneven distribution observed between states is just as evident between individual schools and programs. This year, 713 graduating U.S. allopathic seniors matched into anesthesiology. The closest match to this number occurred in 1994 when 705 U.S. seniors matched [Table 4]. 1994 was also the last year of significant recruitment of U.S. seniors before the major decline. This year has been selected for comparison between the top 20 schools and the top 20 programs based on numbers recruited.

The percentage attracted into the specialty was similar to last year (about 4.95 percent), but the proportion of those recruits entering anesthesiology from the top 20 schools rose slightly from 36.6 percent to 39.4 percent this year. The number absorbed into the top 20 residencies showed a slight trend in the opposite direction: from 38.6 percent of all recruits in 1994 to 34.3 percent in 2001.

Membership in these top 20 lists, as well as the rank order, changed considerably in the seven years, with residency programs demonstrating more consistency. Only six of the medical schools still appear seven years later whereas 11 of the residency programs appear seven years later.

More striking, perhaps, is the difference in membership between the two lists in the same year. In 1994, only five institutions appear in both top 20 lists, while six appear in 2001. Only a single institution, the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, appears in all four lists. This exception only serves to emphasize that, in general, the presence of a strong residency program is not necessarily associated with successful recruitment of medical students from that institution.

Comments

One year ago, there was an increased number of seniors graduating from U.S. allopathic and osteopathic medical schools, as well as increased numbers of U.S. citizen IMGs. The increase in the number of recruits from U.S. allopathic and osteopathic medical schools has continued. This year, the number of U.S. citizen IMGs has decreased, and the number of sponsored graduates has increased. The total recruited this year via the NRMP is 95 percent of the peak number (1,025) recruited in 1992. The major difference appears to be that there were 347 unfilled positions in 1992 and only 131 unfilled this year.

Adequate employment opportunities continue to be abundantly available, as was mentioned in the February 2001 Ventilations in the ASA NEWSLETTER. The shortage of anesthesiologists ensures employment for several years. For individual members of the profession, this must be good news. For a profession committed to the widespread distribution of expert anesthesiology care, however, it is a handicap. When and if the threat of oversupply reappears, we should treat it with a moderation born of this recent cycle. A mere mention around our operating rooms of an adequate supply of anesthesiologists will probably suffice to modulate the supply of recruits. Our Abt reports* and discussions of “limits on residency numbers appear to be overkill and almost certainly contributed to our current shortage.

Sheer size of a residency program is not the only yardstick for success. However, the association between size and eminence is far from random. By contrast, there appears to be no association between eminence and recruitment from one's own medical student population. Indeed, some of the most successful anesthesiology residency programs recruit astonishingly few of their own students into the specialty. This year, the top three residency programs absorbed 64 recruits but were associated with schools that provided only 12 students between them.

This disparity invites speculation. In the spirit of provoking discussion, and perhaps research, some of these speculations follow in a style encouraged by the relief we all feel in once again being popular:

The top 10 reasons given by major anesthesiology chairs when asked to explain why they recruit so few of their own students:

10. I travel to too many meetings to meet students.
9. When they graduate, they should get away from here and travel.
8. They all decided to do surgery before even applying to medical school.
7. I’m never in the operating room.
6. What students?! You’re telling me medical students come here, too?
5. How can I meet students, I'm always in the laboratory?
4. Students are smarter than me, and they scare me.
3. Students are smarter than me, and that really scares them.
2. Our anesthesiology residency actually makes a surgery residency look attractive.

And the number-one reason given by major anesthesiology chairs when asked to explain why they recruit so few of their own students:

1. Other medical schools have far better students!

Conclusion

Recruit! Recruit the best! Welcome any eventual oversupply and merely greet it with a carefully orchestrated whisper to selected students: We may have enough for the present.

Web site

Detailed information about the numbers of students recruited into anesthesiology from each school and the numbers recruited into and graduating from each residency program is available at www.grogono.com/nrmp.

Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to thank Liz Lostumbo of the NRMP for sending the data to me by e-mail. Her prompt response permits the rapid production of this article. This article was prepared primarily for publication in the ASA NEWSLETTER. I thank the Editor, Mark J. Lema, M.D., for his agreeing that it should be simultaneously made available on the Web site.

Dr. Grogono’s past NRMP articles have appeared in August 1993, May 1994, June 1995, May 1996, May 1997, May 1998, May 1999 and May 2000.



    Alan W. Grogono, M.D., is Professor, Department of Anesthesiology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana.


return to top


 


FEATURES

Chemical Dependence:
Exposing a Silent Enemy

ARTICLES


DEPARTMENTS


The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views, policies or actions of the American Society of Anesthesiologists.

NL Archives

Information for Authors