Abstract
Background:
International Medical Graduates (IMGs) are an important component of the US healthcare workforce. Prior studies have investigated bias against IMGs during the general surgery residency application in the United States. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is a growing field; The MIS fellowship match was established in 2004 and is a competitive process with a match rate of 47%. Opportunities for applicants who are non-US citizens are limited by a series of factors that are not related to their professional qualifications.
Objectives:
The aim of the study was to explore the challenges faced by IMG in the MIS fellowship match.
Methods:
This is a cross-sectional study analyzing the minimally invasive surgery application requirements of all the programs listed in the Fellowship Council. Individual program requirements were collected into a database and a descriptive analysis was performed comparing programs who accept IMGs versus those that do not. Further statistical analysis was performed to explore those differences and associated factors.
Results:
There were 148 MIS fellowship programs and 187 positions offered during the 2021 match year in the US. Ninety-seven programs (65.5%) were found to accept graduates of foreign medical schools if they were US-citizens, whereas only 49 programs (33.1%) were found to accept IMG and sponsor a visa for their training. University affiliated programs (88.9% vs 75.0%, p = 0.04), programs with a general surgery residency (94.4% vs 75.0%, p = 0.003), and older programs (63.0% vs 45.5%, p = 0.04) were more likely to accept IMGs requiring visa sponsorship.
Conclusions:
There is a significant bias against IMGs in the MIS fellowship match, with a reduced number of positions available based on factors not related to their professional performance or qualifications. Well established programs, university, and residency affiliated programs are more likely to consider these physicians for training.
Keywords: Minimally invasive surgery, International medical graduates, Fellowship match
INTRODUCTION
International medical graduates (IMGs) are physicians who received their medical degree from a school located outside the US.1 Similar to US medical graduates (USMG), IMGs are required to pass the US medical licensing examinations (USMLE) to be eligible to apply for residency and fellowship training. After completing the USMLE examinations, the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG), undergoes a thorough review of their credentials and certifies their qualifications for pursuing graduate medical education (GME) in the US.2 Some of these physicians are not US citizens (non-US IMG) and additionally require visa sponsorship for their training. Conversely, non-US citizens that underwent medical education in the United States (noncitizen USMG) also seem to face restrictions when applying for further GME. Having to overcome several extra challenges to be accepted into the US residency system, IMGs are a crucial component of the US healthcare workforce as they compose 25% of the national physician pool and disproportionately care for underserved populations.3–6
Prior studies have addressed bias against IMG during the residency application process in the US.7,8 Some of the preconceptions that have been refuted in the past include the alleged substandard education, poor communication skills, and administrative difficulties these physicians entail.9,10 However, it has also been postulated that this bias comes from protectionism towards USMG, concerns for compromising the reputation of the program, and even xenophobia.7,11 Similarly, studies in the general surgery residency match have shown that program directors purposefully avoid matching IMG, and that medical school/applicant nationality is one of the first factors considered when reviewing an application.8
Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) represents one of the most significant advances in medicine since laparoscopic surgery was introduced in the 1980s.12 It has become the standard of care for a wide variety of procedures as it has been proven to be safe, effective, and well-tolerated by patients.13 As any area in medicine, it requires dedicated training and mentoring. It officially became a general surgery subspecialty fellowship with its independent match on 2004.14,15 The MIS fellowship has become increasingly competitive with a matching rate varying from 8% to 18% for international applicants in the last four years.16 We sought to determine if there is bias against IMGs and noncitizen USMG in the MIS fellowship selection process and to further explore these differences with information obtained from the Fellowship Council website.
METHODS
Study Design
This is a cross-sectional study analyzing the MIS match’s individual program application requirements of all the programs listed in the Fellowship Council website. The Fellowship Council website was queried, and a database was created with the bariatric, flexible endoscopy, foregut, hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB), and advanced gastrointestinal minimally invasive programs.17 Individual programs were assessed, and all available data was collected. Emphasis was placed on characteristics that may influence the acceptance of US-IMGs, non-US IMGs, and noncitizen USMG.
Data Collection
General information included location of the program as either in Canada or USA, affiliation to a university, presence of a general surgery residency at the primary institution, and start year of the program. Eligibility information included citizenship, visa requirements, and medical school requirements. Fellowship characteristics included the number of positions offered, the type of fellowship, and salary requirements.
Definitions
“IMG accepting programs” were defined as the ones that stated: “We accept graduates of Foreign Medical Schools if ECFMG Certified” or “We accept graduates of U.S. or Canadian Medical Schools and Foreign Medical Schools”. Programs which stated, “We ONLY accept graduates of U.S. or Canadian Medical Schools” were defined as “Not IMG accepting”. Programs that accepted IMGs and sponsored a Visa for training were defined as “IMG Friendly”. Programs were also defined as either “Visa Sponsoring” or “Not Visa Sponsoring” regardless of IMG acceptance.
Methodology
We performed descriptive statistics on our data and performed a comparison in program eligibility and fellowship characteristics between IMG accepting and Not IMG accepting programs. We then compared program characteristics between visa sponsoring and not visa sponsoring programs. Lastly, we conducted a comparison between IMG friendly vs not IMG friendly programs.
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics 22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Data was presented as freqencies and percentages for categorical variables and means ± standard deviation for continuous variables. χ2, Fischer’s exact test and student’s T-test were used accordingly for the comparison. Statistical significance was considered at P < .05.
RESULTS
There were 148 MIS fellowship programs for a total of 187 positions offered during the 2021 match year in the US. Fifteen programs (10.1%) were located in Canada and 133 (89.9%) were located in the US. The oldest program was established in 1983 and the newest in 2021. On average programs had been established for 15.6 ± 7.9 years. Based on the year of establishment, programs were sub classified as senior programs (> 15 years) and junior programs (< 15 years) (Table 1).
Table 1.
General Characteristics of Minimally Invasive Programs
| n (%) | |
|---|---|
| Canadian Program | 15 (10.1%) |
| University Affiliated | 118 (79.7%) |
| General Surgery Residency | 121 (81.8%) |
| Established years* | 15.6 ± 7.9 |
| Established > 15 years | 76 (51.4%) |
| Established < 15 years | 72 (48.6%) |
| Advanced GI | 71 (48%) |
| Bariatric | 71 (48%) |
| HPB | 15 (10.1%) |
| Foregut | 14 (9.5%) |
| Flexible Endoscopy | 4 (2.7%) |
| Funding dependent on fellow’s billing | |
| Yes | 4 (2.7%) |
| No | 120 (81.1%) |
| Not specified | 24 (16.2%) |
| Acceptance of IMG | 97 (65.5%) |
| Canadian Citizen | 76 (51.4%) |
| Visa | 54 (36.5%) |
| H1 | 37 (25.0%) |
| J1 | 26 (17.6%) |
| O1 | 18 (12.2%) |
GI, gastrointestinal; HPB, hepatopancreatobiliary; IMG, international medical graduate.
*Mean ± Standard Deviation.
Most the programs were affiliated with a university (79.7%) and had a general surgery residency at their primary institution (81.8%). The preponderance of the programs were advertised as advanced gastrointestinal (48%) and bariatric (48%) with the minority of the programs being classified as HPB (10.1%), foregut (9.4%), and flexible endoscopy (2.7%).
Sixty-one of 133 U.S. programs (45.9%) were found to accept Canadian citizens. Ninety-seven programs (65.5%) were found to be “IMG accepting”, and 49 programs (33.1%) were found to be “IMG friendly”. Noncitizen USMG were eligible to apply to 54 (36.5%) of the programs only due to “Visa sponsoring” status. The percentage of programs accepting H1, J1, and O1 visas are 25%, 17.6%, and 12.2%, respectively.
Regarding funding, the predominance of the programs (81.1%) state that the fellow salary was not linked to billing from acute care calls. One hundred eight (57.7%) of the positions were advertised as independently funded by a grant from the Foundation for Surgical Fellowships.
When comparing IMG-accepting vs not-IMG accepting programs (Table 2), there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of Canadian programs (10.3% vs 10.0%, P = .95), university affiliated programs (81.4% vs 76.0%, P = .44), programs with a general surgery residency (81.4% vs 84.0%, P = .70), or salary being dependent on the fellows billing (17.5% vs 20.0%, P = .71). There was a higher percentage of HPB programs in IMG-accepting group (15.5% vs 0%, P = .003). As expected, IMG-accepting programs were more likely to sponsor visas (52.7% vs 10.2%, P < .001) and accept Canadian citizens (58.3% vs 40.8%, P = .05).
Table 2.
Program Characteristics by Group
| IMGAcceptingn = 97 | No IMGAcceptingn= 51 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Program Characteristics | n (%) | n (%) | p |
| Canadian Program | 10 (10.3%) | 5 (10.0%) | 0.95 |
| University Affiliated | 79 (81.4%) | 38 (76.0%) | 0.44 |
| General Surgery Residency | 79 (81.4%) | 42 (84.0%) | 0.70 |
| Established years* | 15.3 ± 7.7 | 16.5 ± 8.2 | 0.38 |
| Established > 15 years | 49 (50.5%) | 27 (54.0%) | 0.69 |
| Positions per year* | 1.2 ± 0.5 | 1.4 ± 0.6 | 0.11 |
| Advanced GI | 44 (45.4%) | 27 (54.0%) | 0.32 |
| Bariatric | 42 (43.3%) | 28 (56.0%) | 0.14 |
| Foregut | 9 (9.3%) | 5 (10.0%) | 0.55 |
| Flexible Endoscopy | 3 (3.1%) | 1 (2.0%) | 0.58 |
| HPB | 15 (15.5%) | 0 (0%) | 0.003 |
| Funding dependent on fellow’s billing | 17 (17.5%) | 10 (20.0%) | 0.71 |
| Canadian Citizen | 56 (58.3%) | 20 (40.8%) | 0.05 |
| Visa Sponsorship | 49 (52.7%) | 5 (10.2%) | < 0.001 |
GI, gastrointestinal; HPB, hepatopancreatobiliary; IMG, international medical graduate.
*Mean ± Standard Deviation.
When comparing programs that sponsor visa versus those that do not (Table 3), there was a statistically significant difference in the following program characteristics: 1) being university affiliated (88.9% vs 75.0%, P = .04), 2) having a general surgery residency program at the primary institution (94.4% vs 75.0%, P = .003), and 3) and being a senior program (63.0% vs 45.5%, P = .04). There was also a significant difference in the percentage of bariatric programs by visa sponsoring group (37.0% vs 54.5%, P = .04). As expected, programs that sponsor visas would consider IMGs (90.7% vs 50.0%, P < .001) and accept Canadian citizens more often (94.4% vs 25.0%, P < .001) than those that do not.
Table 3.
Programs by Acceptance of Visas
| Sponsor Visan = 54 | No SponsorVisan = 94 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) | n (%) | p | |
| Canadian Program | 7 (13.0%) | 7 (8.0%) | 0.33 |
| University Affiliated | 48 (88.9%) | 66 (75.0%) | 0.04 |
| General Surgery Residency | 51 (94.4%) | 66 (75.0%) | 0.003 |
| Established years* | 17.7 ± 7.3 | 14.6 ± 7.8 | 0.02 |
| Established > 15 years | 34 (63.0%) | 40 (45.5%) | 0.04 |
| Positions per year* | 1.2 ± 0.5 | 1.3 ± 0.5 | 0.73 |
| Advanced GI | 29 (53.7%) | 42 (47.7%) | 0.49 |
| Bariatric | 20 (37.0%) | 48 (54.5%) | 0.04 |
| Foregut | 5 (10.6%) | 9 (11.1%) | 0.85 |
| Flexible Endoscopy | 2 (3.7%) | 2 (2.3%) | 0.63 |
| HPB | 8 (14.8%) | 4 (4.5%) | 0.06 |
| Funding dependent on fellow’s billing | 10 (18.5%) | 16 (18.2%) | 0.97 |
| Canadian Citizen | 51 (94.4%) | 22 (25.0%) | < 0.001 |
| Acceptance of IMG | 49 (90.7%) | 44 (50%) | < 0.001 |
GI, gastrointestinal; HPB, hepatopancreatobiliary; IMG, international medical graduate.
*Mean ± Standard Deviation.
Finally, programs that were considered IMG friendly were compared to those that were not (Table 4). IMG friendly programs were more likely to have a general surgery residency as well (93.9% vs 75.8%, P = .007) and be senior programs (65.3% vs 44.4%, P = .02). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of the program being Canadian (12.2% vs 9.1%, P = .55), or university affiliated (87.8% vs 75.8%, P = .09).
Table 4.
Programs that are International Medical Graduate Friendly or Not Friendly
| IMG Friendly n = 49 | No IMG Friendly n = 99 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) | n (%) | p | |
| Canadian Program | 6 (12.2%) | 9 (9.1%) | 0.55 |
| University Affiliated | 43 (87.8%) | 75 (75.8%) | 0.09 |
| General Surgery Residency | 46 (93.9%) | 75 (75.8%) | 0.007 |
| Established years* | 17.6 ± 7.5 | 14.6 ± 7.9 | 0.03 |
| Established > 15 years | 32 (65.3%) | 44 (44.4%) | 0.02 |
| Positions per year* | 1.2 ± 0.5 | 1.2 ± 0.5 | 0.53 |
| Advanced GI | 24 (49.0%) | 47 (47.5%) | 0.86 |
| Bariatric | 20 (40.8%) | 51 (51.5%) | 0.22 |
| Foregut | 5 (10.2%) | 9 (9.1%) | 0.52 |
| Flexible Endoscopy | 2 (4.1%) | 2 (2.0%) | 0.60 |
| HPB | 8 (16.3%) | 7 (7.1%) | 0.09 |
| Funding dependent on fellow’s billing | 7 (14.3%) | 21 (21.2%) | 0.31 |
| Canadian Citizen | 46 (93.9%) | 30 (31.3%) | < 0.001 |
| Visa Sponsorship | 49 (100%) | 5 (5.4%) | < 0.001 |
GI, gastrointestinal; HPB, hepatopancreatobiliary; IMG, international medical graduate.
*Mean ± Standard Deviation.
DISCUSSION
IMGs are an important component of the US healthcare workforce at large and within the field of gastrointestinal surgery.18 Prior studies have shown bias against this group of physicians while applying for GME programs.7,8 To this date, there is very limited data exploring the challenges that this under represented group faces when pursuing subspecialized training in the US, and the factors that explain the restrictions in their opportunities.6,18,19 In our study, we queried the Fellowship Council website to assess if IMGs had the same training opportunities in the MIS field as USMG and found that overall only 65.5% of the positions were open to these physicians, of which only 33.1% were willing to consider an applicant requiring visa sponsorship.
Moreover, 34% of the programs were found to restrict fellowship positions even to US-IMG, which raises the question of the nature of this bias being solely based on immigration status or on concerns for the quality of this group’s qualifications. Interestingly, there is no data to suggest that this “preference” for selecting USMG is driven by worse performance or lesser professional qualifications on the IMG group, but rather seems to be based on several logistic and administrative limitations that programs face during the matching process; such as developing strategic plans to avoid going unmatched, struggling by selecting an international applicant who won’t be able to start in time due to visa issues, and being unable to give “attending” privileges to an IMG on a visa to help fund the fellowship salary. This last point is likely related to ECFMG regulations regarding J1 visa and is expected to worsen given recent US Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy change.20,21 Additionally, J1 holders are not financially allowed to have independent practice or bill to support their salary.22
Regardless of the reason, the data presented is clear evidence that this underrepresented group of physicians has fewer opportunities to pursue subspecialized training, even after completing residency in the US, which would assume that at this point both IMGs and USMG are at the same level of training. In order to fight these systematic disparities, two important components are necessary. First, the existence and source of the problem needs to be identified and acknowledged. Second, in order to address it and eliminate it, proper education to all programs about the due process of sponsoring visas and promote discussions about inclusion of all groups is needed. Exclusion of this and other groups has such a significant impact in the healthcare system in the US, as this problem certainly has the potential of truncating their education and ultimately preventing underserved populations from receiving advanced quality care.
Thirty-six percent of the MIS programs are willing to sponsor a visa, demonstrating that the sponsorship is feasible. Well-established programs, university affiliated programs, and residency affiliated programs were more likely to sponsor visas which is likely due to familiarity with visa regulations and administrative understanding and competency in the visa application process. Along with the administrative difficulties of the visa application, licensing might contribute to the equation. Considering that MIS fellowship programs are found in 35 of 50 states, and that the requirements and time needed to obtain a license differ by state, there is a possibility that certain programs influence their decisions based on these specific requirements.
According to the Fellowship Council, more than half of the programs are sponsored by a grant from the Foundation for Surgical Fellowships; however, this only covers for 20,000 US dollars per year, which is not enough to cover all the fellows salary pointing to the need to find additional sources to complete the funding for these positions to help making the selection process even and based on the applicants qualifications only.
Our study has the limitations inherent to cross-sectional studies. The program websites’ information might not reflect the actual programs’ interests, and might be prone to misclassification bias. We did not assess the acceptance rate of IMG in the applications process as the data provided is generated from the fellowship program’s application requirements only. Also, this paper evaluates disparities in the MIS fellowship match in the 2021 application cycle given program reported requirements; thus, it is not possible to determine from previous years if there has been a change over time towards opportunities for IMGs. Nevertheless, our study is the first to our knowledge to address disparities in GME opportunities against IMG in the field of surgery after having completed accredited training in the US. We hope that this manuscript helps to bring attention to this important situation and that these surgeons will face better opportunities in the future.
Footnotes
Disclosure: none.
Funding sources: none.
Conflict of interests: none.
Informed consent: Dr. Diego L. Lima declares that written informed consent was obtained from the patient/s for publication of this study/report and any accompanying images.
Contributor Information
Gustavo Romero-Velez, Department of Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY..
Jorge Humberto Rodriguez-Quintero, Department of Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY..
Erin Moran-Atkin, Department of Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY..
Diego L. Lima, Department of Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY..
Flavio Malcher, Center for Abdominal Core Health. Division of General Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY..
Diego R. Camacho, Department of Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY..
References:
- 1.Certification - Definition of an IMG. ECFMG. https://www.ecfmg.org/certification/definition-img.html. Accessed May 29, 2021.
- 2.Certification. ECFMG. https://www.ecfmg.org/certification/. Accessed May 29, 2021.
- 3.NRMP Main Residency Match Report Shows Record-Highs in Registrants, Positions. The Match, National Resident Matching Program. Published May 7, 2020. https://www.nrmp.org/press-release-mrm-results-and-data-2020/. Accessed May 29, 2021.
- 4.Rajesh A, Asaad M, Chandra A, McKenzie TJ, Farley DR. Outcomes of non-designated preliminary general surgery interns: a 25-year Mayo Clinic experience. Surgery. 2020;167(2):314–320. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Keipper R, Berman AE. Forecasting the general surgery physician workforce deficit in the state of Georgia: a public health perspective. Public Health. 2019;175:108–110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Hing E, Lin S. Role of international medical graduates providing office-based medical care: United States. NCHS Data Brief. 2005. –2006(2009;(13):1–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Desbiens NA, Vidaillet HJ. Discrimination against international medical graduates in the United States residency program selection process. BMC Med Educ. 2010;10(1):5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Moore RA, Rhodenbaugh EJ. The unkindest cut of all: are international medical school graduates subjected to discrimination by general surgery residency programs? Curr Surg. 2002;59(2):228–236. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Zulla R, Baerlocher MO, Verma S. International medical graduates (IMGs) needs assessment study: comparison between current IMG trainees and program directors. BMC Med Educ. 2008;8(1):42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Dorgan KA, Lang F, Floyd M, Kemp E. International medical graduate–patient communication: a qualitative analysis of perceived barriers. Acad Med. 2009;84(11):1567–1575. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Riley JD, Hannis M, Rice KG. Are international medical graduates a factor in residency program selection? A survey of fourth-year medical students. Acad Med. 1996;71(4):381–386. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Siddaiah-Subramanya M, Tiang KW, Nyandowe M. A new era of minimally invasive surgery: progress and development of major technical innovations in general surgery over the last decade. Surg J (N Y.) 2017;3(4):e163–e166. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Crawshaw BP, Chien HL, Augestad KM, Delaney CP. Effect of laparoscopic surgery on health care utilization and costs in patients who undergo colectomy. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(5):410–415. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Swanstrom LL, Park A, Arregui M, Franklin M, Smith CD, Blaney C. Bringing order to the chaos: developing a matching process for minimally invasive and gastrointestinal postgraduate fellowships. Ann Surg. 2006;243(4):431–435. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Rattner DW, Apelgren KN, Eubanks WS. The need for training opportunities in advanced laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2001;15(10):1066–1070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Fellowship Council - Matching Process Statistics. https://www.fellowshipcouncil.org/fellowship-programs/matching-process-statistics/. Accessed January 4, 2022.
- 17.Fellowship Council - About The Fellowship Council. https://www.fellowshipcouncil.org/about/. Accessed May 29, 2021.
- 18.Terhune KP, Zaydfudim V, Abumrad NN. International medical graduates in general surgery: increasing needs, decreasing numbers. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210(6):990–996. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Haider AH, Scott VK, Rehman KA, et al. Racial disparities in surgical care and outcomes in the United States: a comprehensive review of patient, provider, and systemic factors. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216(3):482–492.e12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.EVSP: Non-standard Clinical Training. ECFMG. https://www.ecfmg.org/evsp/applying-types-nonstandard.html. Accessed June 3, 2021.
- 21.Awamlh B AHA. Alien J-1 physicians in a pandemic. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(6):743–744. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Al Ashry HS, Kaul V, Richards JB. The implications of the current visa system for foreign medical graduates during and after graduate medical education training. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(7):1337–1341. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]