[riahi]

Removing the need for undergrad does nothing to increase the supply. I also fail to see how it reduces costs. Everything is bottlenecked at the residency step.

Current billing rules do not allow for additional reimbursement just because a trainee took care of a patient. You're basically saying the hospital should foot the bill. Fine. That's a valid argument, but then you've got the problem of convincing hospitals to open up residency slots to train more doctors (and pay for them) instead of just hiring a PA/NP or two.

[Retric]

Granted, it's not going to make a difference for ~30 years but by allowing doctors to start younger means some of them will work as a doctor for longer periods of time. Most importantly your adding time at the end of their career when there most capable. (Perhaps add a specific associates degree as an acceptable alternative as even 1 or 2 years times a few 100k doctors adds up.)

As to reducing costs, undergrad is not free so if you reduce/remove that cost students can afford to spend more on other things. Start med school with less debt and being unpaid for the ~first year of Residency is more reasonable which means you could have more slots open for the same subsidy.

Still, I would also suggest modifying the billing rules. This may create some perverse incentives but it balances the costs between Medicare and private insurance while paving the way for increasing the number of available slots.

[autokad]

you're not required to get an undergraduate degree. you are only required certain courses and the MCATS.