PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 2, 2026Medical Education Online0 citationsOpen Access

Effects of the allopathic and osteopathic graduate medical education merger on U.S. specialty training: a review

View Full Paper
SISarah IbrahimMAMohamed AbdelhadyJVJacqueline Venckus

Key Points

  • To assess the effects of the SAS on specialty training opportunities for allopathic and osteopathic graduates.
  • Review of the implementation and outcomes of the Single Accreditation System (SAS) from 2015 to 2020
  • Analysis of match rates and representation of DO applicants in various specialties
  • Examination of structural challenges affecting DO graduates
  • DO graduates gained expanded opportunities in family medicine and pathology
  • Significant barriers remain for DO applicants in competitive fields like dermatology and neurosurgery
  • DO match rates are disproportionately lower compared to their allopathic peers
  • Structural challenges and biases persist, affecting equitable access to residency programs

Abstract

The Single Accreditation System (SAS) unified graduate medical education (GME) accreditation for allopathic (MD) and osteopathic (DO) programs under the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Implemented between 2015 and 2020, it aimed to expand access and standardize residency training across degree types. While the SAS succeeded in expanding opportunities for DO graduates in certain specialties, particularly family medicine and pathology, persistent disparities remain across competitive medical and surgical fields. Specialty-specific analyses reveal that DO applicants continue to face significant barriers in dermatology, ophthalmology, plastic surgery, neurosurgery, and orthopedic surgery, with disproportionately lower match rates and limited representation in top-tier residency programs. Structural challenges including the closure of many osteopathic-led programs, limited access to research mentorship, and degree-based bias among residency programs have exacerbated these disparities. Although Osteopathic Recognition and initiatives such as the Pathologist Pipeline have helped support osteopathic participation in select areas, broader reforms are needed to fulfill the original goals of the SAS. Enhancing academic partnerships, expanding research infrastructure, addressing implicit biases, and fostering DO leadership within academic medicine are critical steps toward ensuring equitable residency access for all graduates. Continued monitoring of match trends and specialty-specific outcomes will be essential to assessing the SAS's long-term impact on healthcare workforce diversity and equity.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Ibrahim et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6980fdc7c1c9540dea80f807https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2025.2605382
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Osteopathic Students Have Decreased Match Rates in Orthopaedic Surgery Compared with Allopathic Students2024 · 13 citations
  2. 2Plastic Surgery Away Rotations During the Coronavirus Disease Pandemic2021 · 8 citations
  3. 3MD and DO: Differing Medical Degrees and the Associated Perceptions2020 · 12 citations
  4. 4JAOA/AACOM. Attitudes of Family Medicine Program Directors Toward Osteopathic Residents Under the Single Accreditation System2017 · 5 citations
  5. 5Promoting Access of Osteopathic Medical Students to Surgical Residency Training Programs2020 · 10 citations