Not a Cheap Investment: Estimating the Cost of the 2017 to 2018 Ophthalmology Residency Match to the Applicant and Program

Abstract

Purpose To estimate the cost of the match process for all ophthalmology applicants and the departmental costs at the University of Kentucky during the 2017 to 2018 match cycle. Design Financial analysis. Methods Using the available national match statistics for the 2017 to 2018 ophthalmology residency match and the mean of all residency interview costs available in the literature, the estimated mean and total match costs were calculated for all applicants, including application fees and interviews. Program costs were estimated based on direct interview costs, lost productivity, and fixed costs. Results Of 625 applicants, 475 matched into an ophthalmology residency position in 2017 to 2018. The mean estimated cost was US$6,613 for matched applicants, and all applicants spent US$4,646,950 on the match in aggregate. Our department spent an estimated US$179,327 over four interview days with 12 faculty volunteers, or an average of US$3,736 per each of 48 interviewed applicants. Conclusions and Relevance Matching into an ophthalmology residency position is expensive not only for the applicant but also the program. Reforms to the process would likely be beneficial to both parties.

The Case for Capping Residency Interviews

“…These practices are not only detrimental to the entire application process, but are also costly in terms of the faculty time required for interviews. 19,26 For 2021, programs will no longer need to provide applicants with welcome receptions and interview day meals; however, these offerings make up only a small portion of the overall interview day costs to programs. 26 Our models demonstrate the bare minimal financial implications of the increased faculty time that would be necessary for residency programs to increase interviews, which needs to be taken into account-especially during these times of economic challenges for clinical departments.…”

“…19,26 For 2021, programs will no longer need to provide applicants with welcome receptions and interview day meals; however, these offerings make up only a small portion of the overall interview day costs to programs. 26 Our models demonstrate the bare minimal financial implications of the increased faculty time that would be necessary for residency programs to increase interviews, which needs to be taken into account-especially during these times of economic challenges for clinical departments. 29 All stakeholders urgently need equitable solutions that address both individual and systems-level problems for this coming application cycle and beyond.…”

“…Moreover, our calculation does not take into account the losses in faculty productivity and fixed clinic costs that result from the allocation of this additional faculty time to residency interviews. 26 …”

“…Moreover, our calculation does not take into account the losses in faculty productivity and fixed clinic costs that result from the allocation of this additional faculty time to residency interviews. 26 Models 1 and 4 assume that applicants in Group 12+ complete 100% of their interview offers, however it is possible that applicants may not be able to actually complete all offers secondary to logistical constraints such as conflicting interview offers on the same day. For Model 1, if applicants in Group 12+ completed 90% of their interview offers, then the Interview Differential would be 323 fewer interview offers available to applicants in Group <12, and Group 12+ would complete 17.1 interviews/applicant, and Group <12 would complete 2.8 interviews/applicant.…”

Ophthalmology Applicant Perceptions of Two Residency Application Services: The San Francisco Match Central Application Service and Electronic Residency Application Service

“…15 This highlights the financial investment of the AAMC in ensuring ERAS's ongoing utilization in the match process. Similarly, given the direct relationship between the AUPO and SF Match, there is a financial benefit ($1 million in the 2015 and 2016 cycles 16 ) for the AUPO to keep the CAS as the application system for the ophthalmology match now and in the future. Given the very limited pool of programs funding the SF Match (two residencies and some fellowships) compared with ERAS, the resources available for supporting the ophthalmology match and its applicants' interests are limited.…”