I'm not an expert on this topic, but the article confuses a handful of issues that should be separated.
There is a limit on the number of seats in US medical schools but this does not affect the number of new practicing physicians in the US directly. Thus the article's discussion of MD matriculations and of DO programs should be ignored.
The article correctly states that all physicians must complete residency programs. The US Medicare and Medicaid programs fund the vast majority of residency slots. Residency slots preferentially are awarded to US medical graduates (i.e., new MDs) but they are available to any graduate of an accredited MD program. Thus, if a bottleneck exists, it exists here.
However, hospitals can - and do - use other funds to train medical graduates in their residency programs. I do not know the thinking about how many such slots a residency program operates, but this would have been a far more interesting area for the article to examine.
There is a limit on the number of seats in US medical schools but this does not affect the number of new practicing physicians in the US directly. Thus the article's discussion of MD matriculations and of DO programs should be ignored.
The article correctly states that all physicians must complete residency programs. The US Medicare and Medicaid programs fund the vast majority of residency slots. Residency slots preferentially are awarded to US medical graduates (i.e., new MDs) but they are available to any graduate of an accredited MD program. Thus, if a bottleneck exists, it exists here.
However, hospitals can - and do - use other funds to train medical graduates in their residency programs. I do not know the thinking about how many such slots a residency program operates, but this would have been a far more interesting area for the article to examine.