Junior Doctors Unemployment in August

[PurpleFairyLights]

Name changed but long term poster. Have a child that is in this situation with 100k of student debt.

https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2025-05-07/bma-we-could-potentially-see-thousands-of-unemployed-doctors

Unbelievable this was allowed. Most countries protect their medical graduates.

But we are talking about medicine here. Not other sectors.

The reason why you need to be aware of these other sectors - is precisely because modes of governance tend to spread through the system and sectors. If you would like to change the state of affairs in medicine - and ensure the model doesnt return - then you better be aware of what the different modes are, how they function across different policy areas and ways in which they impact of these other sectors. Otherwise going to the ministers will result in the same blank stare of yeah and so what.....

I read somewhere (cannot find it now) that some IMGs (possibly from India) are exempt from the having to do surgical exams MRCS part A and B to enter higher surgical training.

I think I saw it on either this thread or on @Needmoresleep threads.

Also CREST forms signed overseas are a potential danger. It is very hard to get them signed in the UK as consultant signing the forms will work with the trainee and be mindful of their standing and professional reputation.

Can we gp back to the model pre 2019? UK graduates then worldwide.

Pre Brexit it waa UKMG and EUMG followed by worldwide.

Yes, you can go back to pre-2019 system. But it helps to understand why the system changed in 2019, how will the downsides identified prior to 2019 be managed, whether the government cares about the downsides, new political pledges such as getting a lot more doctors into the NHS asap etc etc - which again will only happen with huge influx of international medics, the general de-skilling of the NHS etc

I read it was due to Covid but not sure

Can't recall which but the lobby group's academy's courses provide exemptions. On the one hand they lobby, understandably, for equality and anti-discrimination policies to protect IMGs within the NHS. On the other hand through the academy, new wealthy IMGs in India by paying for expensive courses, can leapfrog poorer ones who might be better qualified still out in India and also leapfrog IMGs already working in the NHS and UK grads? Contradictory approaches? Money over merit possibly too?

Question that is never answered is how much do they charge the NHS Trust for each IMG new to the UK bearing in mind they already receive thousands from each IMG? Why has the NHS been allowing this while there are doctors already in the UK (IMG and UKMG) who are able to do those jobs?

The reality is that you have to be sure when and why it changed if you would like to revert this policy decision. You also have to know how you plan to mitigate and mange the previously encountered problems.

2019 is prior to Covid so it crealy wasn't due to Covid. However, a poster on this thread did give quite a good explanation of how things developed prior to 2019 and why this decision was arrived at.

Doctors will unemployed in August. Thousands of them. When waiting lists are 7 million + and we are increasing places at medical schools in the uk.

Do the NHS trusts really pay to place IMGs? Who do they pay? Who is driving this?

How do other countries manage to prioritise their own graduates without all these problems?

As far as I understand it, each IMG pays the academy for a course. As we know the academy charges each IMG £30 K plus for some of its courses. It seems that the academy also charges the NHS trust to place that same IMG in the NHS role. So the academy is paid twice. I also believe this is taking up NHS training capacity, hence fewer posts available for other doctors. It would be useful to know how much NHS is paying (for each IMG) to the academy.

This is really upsetting. My DC loves being a doctor but no job for him in August.

Better long term planning. The ones that are most successful understand that in order to grow the economy of a country, you have to invest in the education and training of its young people. Also they don't let a disproportionate number of foreign workers take jobs in important sectors to the detriment of the domestic workforce. If that happens, ultimately causes a division in society. Their governments don't just give in to the pressure of lobby groups which have strong ties to their home countries and certainly don't let lobby groups get into influential positions where they dictate how decisions on important matters should be taken.

Thanks.

Do you have an idea of the most powerful lobby group?

I know it's a difficult and uncertain time. Don't be upset. I expect we should get some clarity on prioritisation sometime this summer. They may be restructuring training as part of the new 10 Year Health Plan. Let's hope it all works out for your DC and many others.

I know it probably isn't what you want to do but does completing your training mean you can work in the private sector?

Doesn't it boil down to the naive thought that the reason we don't have enough doctors is that there aren't enough doctors available?

In market economics an increase in supply would reduce wages and increase the number that could be employed. However with a single major employer paying a fixed rate, protected by a union that can strike to protect salaries the actual effect is unemployment for British citizens who are doctors and no more doctors available to treat the public than before.

I feel like an investigative journalist / mumsnetter ought to dig into who the shareholders are in these training companies as well and if they have held positions where they have been able to influence government policy. If so it would be a conflict of interest.

I think @385nfw was referring to the post quoted here by @puffinchuffin

Thanks. What do you think they can do about unemployed doctors in August?

I see. It's the same basic misconception though. That the reason we don't have enough nurses is because there aren't enough of them when the real reason is that we don't have enough money to pay them.

And actually it turns out employing nurses from overseas is more expensive than giving employment to our own citizens anyway.

Not really. You need to do a number of years purely NHS first to build up reputation/contacts etc (and the insurance costs a fortune

I dont think that getting nurses from overseas because it's cheaper is a misconception. It's government policy. Similarly it might not even be cheaper - but it works in the short term. It's like getting people through the bank because you need to plug holes - it's more expensive in the long run but if the government isnt going to increase your overall budgets - you have to do it in order to plug holes. It's also how policy works - certain people create policies, others implement them. Government refuses to increase budgets because they dont have the money, decisions regarding hirings/getting external staff is down to local decisions.

Taking nurses and doctors from red list countries is not only v expensive but also immoral. Those countries need their own medical staff. And we have more than enough to staff to fill every hospital and GP

@mumsneedwine the NHS certainly doesnt have enough staff to fill every post. Have we forgotten about droves of British doctors leaving for overseas (or out of the profession altogether) with nurses also leaving because of poor pay and bad conditions. There are massive staff shortages without internal staff coming to take up posts. The question is whether local staff should always have priority and only then should posts be opened up to internationals and how to sort it out for example in terms of timelines/annual cycles.