For-profit medical schools have been the center of controversy for nearly one hundred years. In fact, in the early 1900s, for-profit medical institutions were banned in the United States due to reports that they were producing underqualified and poorly trained physicians.ⁱ It was not until the 1970s, which saw the emergence of Caribbean for-profit medical schools, that the U.S. government allowed for-profit higher education institutions on American soil. This decision facilitated the opening of the over half a dozen such schools which exist today. There are now plans in motion to open additional for-profit medical institutions in Utah and Montana, and the idea has also been proposed in both Missouri and Maryland.ⁱⁱ 

The growing prevalence of for-profit schools has brought to light many concerns surrounding these institutions. While non-profit medical schools invest their excess funds back into their own facilities and faculty, there is far less transparency surrounding how for-profit medical schools spend their revenue and make a profit for their investors. Moreover, these schools do not make very pertinent financial information– such as annual expenses and revenue reports– available to the public. This distinguishes for-profit schools from private ones, which do openly provide this information, and is one of the main reasons these institutions draw so much criticism. Robert Shireman, a senior fellow and director of higher education excellence at the Century foundation, called for-profit medical schools a “recipe for predatory behavior,” in an interview with NPR.ⁱⁱⁱ  He later stated: 

“[For-profit medical schools] can create a situation where you invest less in excellence and you spend less on actually educating students. You charge more to the students themselves and you end up focusing almost exclusively on the easily measurable outcomes — like training people to pass the medical exams, rather than training people to be excellent doctors.” 

Despite these concerns, some believe that a medical school’s business model is not entirely relevant to the quality of education being offered. These parties– which include Dr. Kevin Klaur, CEO of the American Osteopath Association– tend to focus on the rigorous standards that all medical schools are required to meet. They argue that these make it impossible for the institutions to become financially manipulative. In his interview with NPR, Dr. Klaur stated: “If the standards are met, and fairness is provided to the students through those standards, we’re not questioning their structure and how they’re financed.”³ 

Regardless, it is becoming more clear that for-profit medical schools will continue to exist throughout the United States, particularly in states like Montana which have historically lacked medical education institutions. One barrier to their progress, however, is accreditation, which requires the graduation of the first class of medical students. This means that the students who initially matriculate into for-profit medical schools will have to do so with very little financial support. This may make these medical schools less appealing than more traditional options. Either way, the demand for medical education, as well as the normalization of high-cost education in the United States, will certainly help for-profit medical schools overcome this obstacle.   

References

ⁱ Flexner, A. (1910, January 01). Medical education in the United States and Canada (1910 edition). Retrieved from https://openlibrary.org/books/OL7069978M/Medical_education_in_the_United_States_and_Canada

ⁱⁱ Knight, V. (2021, June 07). Montana Med School Clash Revives For-Profit Vs. Nonprofit Flap. Retrieved from https://khn.org/news/article/montana-med-school-clash-revives-for-profit-vs-nonprofit-flap

ⁱⁱⁱ Knight, V. (2021, June 07). Once Banned, For-Profit Medical Schools Are On The Rise Again In The U.S. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/06/02/1002477044/once-banned-for-profit-medical-schools-are-on-the-rise-again-in-the-u-s