MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7007672844

Aggravating the U.S. Physician Shortage

2020· article· en· W7007672844 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueParasite Biology and Host Interactions
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésImmigrationEconomic shortageQuarter (Canadian coin)VettingStaffingScrutinyCitizenshipLicensure
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A growing physician shortage in the United States contributes to the country’s 24-day average wait time for patients to see a new doctor. New York and other hard-hit states felt this shortage acutely during the initial COVID-19 surge, and many other states are now starting to experience similar shortfalls in medical staff. Faced with surging infections across the United States and an aging physician pool, the need to attract new doctors to the profession appears never to have been greater. Yet federal laws restricting the ability of international medical graduates to practice medicine in the United States have needlessly exacerbated the physician shortage. Doctors who receive their education outside the United States or Canada and pass a rigorous vetting process to practice medicine in the United States make up approximately a quarter of the U.S. physician workforce. These internationally educated doctors have helped to stymie the ever-growing shortage of physicians in the United States—especially in medically underserved communities. Many internationally educated physicians come to the United States on H-1B visas. Administered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the H-1B program permits companies to employ foreign workers temporarily in jobs requiring “specialized knowledge.” Physicians on H-1B visas can come to the United States for an initial period of three years and may apply to extend their stay for up to six years, with additional extensions available if the visa holder is waiting for a decision on a visa petition or an adjustment to their immigration status. A number of regulatory barriers to entry and mobility for physicians on H-1B visas are partly to blame for both nationwide and regional physician shortages in the country—including during the COVID-19 pandemic. One significant barrier to entry for physicians seeking an H-1B visa stems from the fact that the visa is tied to the job more so than to the worker. It is not enough that a worker is qualified for a specific type of job in the United States—even when there is a severe shortage of workers in that industry. Rather, an employer must be motivated to begin the laborious H-1B visa process and certify that a specific foreign worker is needed to fill a position at their institution. In addition, the USCIS fee schedule for employer-initiated visa applications combined with the unique pay structure of residents—doctors completing additional years of training after medical school—may discourage hospitals from hiring foreign doctors. Since the federal government funds resident training programs, hospitals pay their residents at uniform rates by specialty and cannot bring in “cheaper foreign labor” by hiring doctors on H-1B visas. Instead, hospitals that hire international physicians for resident training programs pay those physicians at the same rate as their U.S. peers but must also pay USCIS fees to hire them. Finally, although doctors who have succeeded in obtaining an H-1B visa can file a petition to transfer their visa to another employer, that process can take up to four months—a delay incompatible with fast-changing needs for medical staff amid the pandemic. Throughout the coronavirus crisis, the Trump Administration has taken actions that have further threatened the supply of physicians in the country. In March, for example, the U.S. Department of State suspended visa processing worldwide, announcing a categorical exception only for agricultural workers. Facing significant criticism, the Department later softened the suspension, announcing that visa processing for medical professionals would resume. The result of a sustained suspension could have been disastrous, with would-be resident physicians slated to begin their training over the summer being denied entrance to the country. Then, in October, the U.S. Department of Labor issued an interim final rule that overall curtails the H-1B visa program. The rule adjusts the manner in which prevailing wage levels are calculated to determine that the hiring of an H-1B visa applicant will not negatively impact wages in the country. According to critics of the rule, the new requirements could inflate the wages that must be paid to certain H-1B workers to a degree that will make hiring them cost prohibitive for some U.S. employers. The Labor Department defended its recent rule by asserting that the H-1B program has been depressing U.S. wages—a concern frequently cited by critics of visa programs but largely inapplicable to internationally trained physicians. Indeed, the American Medical Association (AMA) submitted a comment urging the Labor Department to exempt physicians from the new rule, which the association predicts will have “destructive consequences for the entire medical field.” In particular, the association takes issue with requiring H-1B employees to be paid the same wage regardless of their location. Because wage levels will be set based on voluntary employer wage reporting, the AMA predicts that these changes will skew required wage levels upward since most wage reporting comes from higher-paying metropolitan areas. The AMA asserts that, taken together, these changes will render foreign doctors cost prohibitive to hire in rural and medically underserved areas—which, by definition, already struggle to attract medical personnel. For example, the AMA contends that the new rule could force hospitals to pay H-1B residents training in family medicine $208,000 per year, a dramatic increase from the typical family medicine resident salary of $73,000 per year. The new rule, which took effect immediately, is likely to exacerbate the physician shortage in the United States at a time when the country desperately needs medical professionals, a consequence that does not seem justified by the Labor Department’s purported concerns about protecting physician wages.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,042
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,142

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,013
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0100,002
Communication savante0,0040,004
Science ouverte0,0010,008
Intégrité de la recherche0,0080,009
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0420,007

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,019
Tête enseignante GPT0,285
Écart entre enseignants0,266 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueeYLS (Yale Law School)→Même sujetParasite Biology and Host Interactions→Travaux en français237 207→