Student loan caps might worsen national doctor shortage
Tribune News Service
Twenty-eight-year-old Michaela Bonner has been working 12-hour shifts as an emergency medical technician in Norfolk, Virginia, for the past four years, while attending and paying for college to finish her prerequisites for medical school. But now that President Donald Trump's signature tax and spending law bars students from borrowing more than $50,000 annually in unsubsidised federal loans for medical school, Bonner is worried her dream of becoming a doctor is financially out of reach. 'I get told, 'Well, we really need you. We have a physician shortage, and you've done all this work leading up to this point,' and that's true as well, and it's not that I want to quit,' Bonner said in a recent interview. 'But there are no systems in place that I can rely on to support me now that I can't take out the full cost of living through loans.'
The tax and spending law includes provisions that significantly alter the student loan process for higher education. The law halts current student loan repayment plans for loans that are granted on or after July 1, 2026. On that date, the law also terminates Grad PLUS loans, which have helped people pay for their higher education degrees and total cost of attendance. Current borrowers will be grandfathered in. The federal law gives current borrowers enrolled in loan repayment plans for students based on income — such as those plans known as SAVE or IBR — until July 1, 2028, to switch to a new plan. Interest collection will resume Aug. 1 for students enrolled in the Biden-era SAVE plan.
At the same time, medical or law school students hoping to get unsubsidised federal loans — in which the borrower is responsible for paying the interest at all times rather than the government — will only be able to borrow $50,000 per year, with a $200,000 lifetime cap. Those seeking advanced degrees in areas such as history or philosophy have a $100,000 lifetime cap. The average yearly cost of medical school for the 2024-25 academic year ranged from around $42,000 to $72,000, depending on whether the school was private or public and whether the student was a resident or nonresident, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. Some congressional Republicans say that students need to be working harder to pay for higher education, like medical school, on their own. Others say the caps put the onus back on colleges and universities to rein in the rising cost of tuition. But critics of this legislation say the loan caps are only going to harm students, especially from lower-income backgrounds, and will exacerbate physician shortages.
In recent years states have tried to ease physician shortages by implementing various policy solutions. Since 2023, at least nine states have made it easier for doctors trained in other countries to get medical licenses. States have also participated in interstate licensing compacts, allowing nurses and physician assistants to travel across state lines to work, so long as they are licensed in one state within the compact. For student loan relief, more than 20 states have enacted legislation to address student loan forgiveness, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, a group that tracks state policies. Georgia passed a measure that will expand a cancelable loan programme for physicians working in rural and underserved areas. Idaho also created the Rural Nursing Loan Repayment Program, offering nurses $25,000 in forgivable loans after three years of service in a rural area. McKenzie Richards, a health care policy fellow at the conservative think tank Cicero Institute who has been studying the pace of physician shortages, told Stateline that the national physician shortage could potentially exceed 100,000 by 2034. At the end of 2024 that projected number was closer to 64,000 physicians.
Richards said states will be looking toward more policy solutions should the student loan changes exacerbate physician shortages. 'We know what's going to be happening coming down the line in just five years, so I think policies that states can adopt to get out of this are really important to be looking at now,' she said. 'The hope is that by capping (federal loans), it will encourage schools to lower tuition prices,' Richards added. 'Then maybe they need to be admitting more students, which would have a great downstream effect for getting more doctors through.' Other students will be in the same boat, said Lesley Turner, an associate professor of public policy at the University of Chicago and an economist. 'This is going to hit some students worse than others,' Turner told Stateline. 'Those (students) in more expensive programs tend to borrow more, and so for those students they will need to return to private student loans or other ways of financing their graduate education.'
Many students were already questioning their capacity to go to medical school before the student loan caps, said Shannon Jimenez, dean of the Arkansas College of Osteopathic Medicine. 'I expect that this bill, this cap, is going to push people out of primary care and into specialties to help pay off those higher interest rate loans,' Jimenez told Stateline. She added that caps will likely deter students from lower socioeconomic statuses from going into primary care — important in places like Arkansas, where she says there is a 'maldistribution of physicians.'
'Many schools like us try to attract those students, because they're more likely to go into primary care and serve in underserved areas. So it's going to tie our hands in a lot of ways.' Large states and more rural states will feel the gaps more deeply, said Richards, of the Cicero Institute. Louisiana, for example, is projected to be short almost 5,000 doctors from a variety of specialties by 2030, including close to 400 primary care doctors. Already more than a third of Louisiana physicians are close to retirement age — similar to the situation in neighboring Arkansas. As for whether schools will just be able to lower tuition, Jimenez said, 'it makes no sense.'
'We still function in a somewhat market-driven economy and have to compete with other schools around us, so our cost is based mostly on what we have to pay our faculty, and that's not going to go down,' she said. The annual cost of attendance at her school is between $80,000 and $85,000. Bonner, the EMT, holds a political communications degree from Regent University and now is studying biomedical sciences at Old Dominion University. She already has $20,000 in loans, she said, and for the rest of college tuition, she has paid out of pocket. Since she's supporting herself, she hasn't been able to save much. She'd planned to take the medical school entrance exam next spring, but now worries about how she'd pay for living expenses while attending. 'Medical school scheduling doesn't allow for working, so you have to take out loans for living expenses,' she said.
'A lot of people, I feel, would be panicked if you had worked for eight to 10 years of your life and found out that all the systems that you were banking on in a really academically challenging space are disappearing,' Bonner said. 'I don't see a path forward for certain, but I'm fighting to make one.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
7 hours ago
- Gulf Today
A ray of housing hope is emerging in Washington
Matthew Yglesias, Tribune News Service Housing affordability is a key issue for the American consumer on which the Trump administration has done nothing useful. From tariffs on construction material to higher budget deficits driving up interest rates to deporting building trades workers, virtually every policy lever is being thrown in an anti-supply direction. At the same time, good news may be coming from Congress where last week the powerful Senate Banking Committee passed an important package of bipartisan housing reforms with unanimous support. The only fly in the ointment is that the package is so ambitious, and the emergence of consensus between Republican Chairman Tim Scott and ranking member Elizabeth Warren so unexpected, that little groundwork has been laid for advancing these ideas in the House. But if champions for these ideas can be found in the lower house, Congress would have the opportunity to get something critical done on the long-neglected issue of federal housing policy. One particular aspect of the package that I've been following for years is the somewhat obscure topic of chassis requirements for manufactured homes. Most aspects of housing policy are state and local in nature, but since the 1970s the federal government, through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, has been the primary regulatory of houses that are built in factories and transported to their ultimate destination. The process of transporting these 'trailers' generally requires them to have an attached chassis that allows them to be transferred from the factory to their destination. But HUD, for no particularly good reason, requires the chassis to be permanently attached to the structure. This requirement was adopted amidst a boom in the market share of manufactured homes as part of a deliberate regulatory crackdown pushed by traditional homebuilders and affiliated labor interests. The chassis requirement is not single-handedly responsible for the shrinkage of the manufactured housing sector, but it is a big factor as the chassis makes it hard to site trailers on top of basements, hard to engage in architectural innovation, and easy for exclusion-minded local governments to discriminate in favor of stick-built homes. Both Scott and the Biden administration were agreed on the desirability of repealing the chassis rule and promoting a new boom in manufactured housing. But in the previous Congress, Scott paired chassis reform with an effort to roll back some Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regulations that he felt were unduly squelching the market for entry-level mortgages. Former Senate Banking Chairman Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, strongly objected to Scott's mortgage changes and the whole thing was deadlocked. Brown lost last his Senate seat in November, but that meant he was replaced as top Democrat on the committee by Warren — the CFPB's biggest champion — in a way that made progress seem, if anything, less likely. But rather than continue the deadlock, Warren worked out a deal that includes Scott's proposals on both manufactured housing and mortgages and expands them by some other ideas. One of these is the Build More Housing Near Transit Act long championed by Democratic Rep. Scott Peters of California which would have the Department of Transportation prioritize funding mass transit projects in places that are relaxing zoning requirements to allow dense construction near the stations. Another is the Housing Supply Frameworks Act that would direct HUD to promulgate a set of best practices for supply-friendly local land use planning. The Better Use of Intergovernmental and Local Development for Housing Act (the name makes no sense, but it lets them call it BUILD Housing) and the Unlocking Housing Supply Through Streamlined and Modernized Reviews Act both streamline National Environmental Policy Act reviews for infill housing, along with a few modifications or the creation of new pro-supply grant programs. A very intriguing development is a small $200 million competitive grant program for local governments that take regulatory action to increase housing supply. This is a notion that has been kicked around in Washington in concept form at least since President Barack Obama's second term but was stymied by, among other things, questions about how to measure compliance. A new Census product based on the agency's Master Address File allows for housing production to be measured at the Census block level for the first time. This administrative improvement makes it possible to take the idea of 'race to the top, but for housing' from concept to legislation. The $200 million isn't enough to radically alter American housing policy, but it will do some good on its own while more importantly allowing advocates to field test the new measurement system and lay the groundwork for more aggressive ideas. If the grant program is a small carrot, Warren of Massachusetts and Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana worked together on a provision that would wield Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) as a stick by depriving high-priced communities that stymie new housing of their federal grant money. For years now, even the most YIMBY-minded Republicans have tended to shy away from the federalism implications of conditioning federal grants on zoning changes. CDBG is perhaps an easier program for them to get to yes on since it primarily goes to urban areas where Democrats live.
Gulf Today
17 hours ago
- Gulf Today
It's time for a new American agenda
America is once again gripped by multiple political and societal crises. Most days in our local communities and in our wider public lives it can feel like we're living through dizzying confusion, chaos, and division. Acrimonious partisanship only deepens in Washington, DC, and our state capitols. Renewed calls for a third party are heating up, while Democrats plan to spend tens of millions of dollars to understand voters better, as if they had just discovered some new civilisation. It's like we're collectively stuck in the Tower of Babel, unable to understand one another and what we share in common, according to the Tribune News Service. Yet when I engage with Americans of all political persuasions and backgrounds, I am struck by what we do hold in common. From the food bank employee in small-town Connecticut to the business owner in Northern California, to the librarian in suburban Florida, to the philanthropic leader in North Carolina, and everyday Americans all across this nation, the aspirations I hear people articulate form something akin to a new American agenda. Not a political party platform. Not a new think-tank treatise. Not a recipe for mass resistance. Not an excuse to stay on the sidelines or simply disengage altogether. This is something fundamentally different and more hopeful. The Americans I meet want a new agenda. One that calls us to greatness. One that involves: * Acknowledging our past and telling the truth about it, knowing that American history is complex and multifaceted* Ensuring basic needs like food, housing, and safety are met in ways that bring us together rather than being used as political wedges * Focusing on concerns people are ready to work on, and which require shared action in our local communities, such as education and youth opportunities, senior care, affordable housing, loneliness and mental health, and belonging, among other things * Safeguarding our most cherished civic assets, like libraries, museums, and public media * Making our communities and the country work for all of us, not just some of us * Finding ways to come together, even amid our real differences, to become builders, doers, creators, and innovators again We have lost sight of the pursuit of this kind of greatness amid the distracting power of our toxic politics. With no meaningful alternative, we find ourselves held hostage, unable to move forward. Meanwhile, our societal challenges continue to grow: a loss of control and agency in our civic lives, widespread mistrust, and too much hatred and bigotry. Furthermore, many of us can no longer discuss certain topics with one another, especially with our close friends and family. We live and work in fragmented and siloed ways. Our civic culture is atrophied, making it much harder to accomplish things together. The trend lines on all these pain points date back decades. They aren't new. But they are accelerating. And they are amplified. Meanwhile, the issues people care deeply about — and which animate the agenda I outlined above — get pushed aside. Moreover, no national or statewide legislation alone can address these issues. They demand local action. People intuitively know that. It's why I'm traveling the country this year on a civic campaign to show community after community how getting on a new civic path can help us reclaim these issues from a political frame and instead focus on what matters to people in their daily lives. This new civic path — not more divisive politics — is a practical and more hopeful way to activate this new American agenda, repair our broken civic culture, and restore our belief in one another and our nation. In just the past month, I've visited a booming suburb in Florida, one of the poorest communities in North Carolina, a working-class community in Connecticut, one of the most diverse communities in all of New England, and multiple communities across Northern California, where literal militias still exist. I'm heading to Selma, AL, and communities throughout Maryland, Virginia, Georgia, and Ohio over the coming weeks.
Gulf Today
a day ago
- Gulf Today
Abraham Lincoln's empathy is what our divided nation needs
Christi Parsons, Tribune News Service In our era, they might seem like performative gestures for the president. A quiet visit with the wife of a wounded soldier. A conversation with a battlefield nurse or a kitchen worker. A hand extended to a Black woman who had once been enslaved. Abraham Lincoln didn't publicise these moments, though. He prioritised them for personal reasons. Because even as he held the Union together with the force of his will — even as he buried his own child and bore the weight of a nation at war — he made time for mercy. He listened to the voices of those without power, a practice that steeled him for wielding his own. Empathy is getting a bad rap these days. Elon Musk recently declared it the 'fundamental weakness' of Western civilisation, summing up the ethos of the administration he just left. Even those who defend empathy speak of it mainly as a private virtue, not one that compels any particular action by public figures. But in the hands of a great leader, empathy can become a powerful political force. Whenever America has begun to fray — during war, depression, civil upheaval — the country has rallied behind a president who focused on the disenfranchised. If we're to survive our current crisis of division, our civic leaders need to do the same thing. And, as citizens, so do we. Maybe that's why Lincoln's name keeps rising in our conversations, as historians and storytellers nudge us in this direction. Lincoln is a figure in exhibits, podcasts and intellectual festivals this summer. The Metropolitan Opera is working to produce George Saunders' moving novel 'Lincoln in the Bardo,' a deeply empathetic portrayal of the 16th president. New scholarship further reveals a deeply sensitive and heartfelt man. In this modern moment of anxiety, they're showing the way to a better place — or at least the first step toward it. How did Lincoln cultivate the trait of empathy? Partly by surrounding himself with compassionate people. That's according to 'Loving Lincoln,' a new biography examining his story through the lives of the women who, despite their lack of franchise, were his key influencers. By his female relatives, Lincoln was nurtured into what his stepmother called 'the best boy I ever saw,' historian Stacy Lynn writes. Their stories 'offer evidence of Lincoln's kindness and sensitivity, his patience, his moral center, his social and political virtues, the breadth of his compassion, and his inspirational legacy.' By far, the deepest relationship of his life was with his wife, Mary, whose steely resolve helped bolster his commitment to freeing enslaved people. She was in favor of emancipation very early on, and she pressed her husband on the issue. The Lincoln White House became a place of mercy and goodwill, in no small part because of the compassion the president showed for his wife in her grief. He welcomed Black people to the White House. Mary Dines, who worked in the kitchen, urged Lincoln to visit the camps where newly freed families lived, and he went. Elizabeth Keckley, a formerly enslaved woman who became Mary Lincoln's dressmaker and confidante, called him 'kind and generous by nature.' Lincoln also welcomed Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth. 'I never was treated by any one with more kindness and cordiality than were shown to me by that great and good man, Abraham Lincoln,' Truth said later. To meet the gaze of all these people, to shake their hands, to give them audience — these were not symbolic gestures. They were radical acts of inclusion by the leader who kept the Union intact. This is meaningful for us today, in our moment of deep national division. For those in office, the life of Lincoln is a guideline. He spoke publicly of the need for love and compassion. He surrounded himself with confidantes who embraced it. And he took action on it, ultimately assisting the emancipation of 4 million people from bondage. Elected officials today can do likewise. They can reject the dogma of hatred in discussing immigration. They can surround themselves with advisers who, even if they favor downsising government, hold respect for public service and public servants. They can vote and act with care for those on the margins of society. But the work of public compassion isn't all on their shoulders. Each of us can train ourselves individually for compassion. A good first step is the one Lincoln modeled all his life. We can start today by using compassionate language, a practice that can lead to feeling it in the heart. Research shows language doesn't just express emotion — it can help shape it. Certain practices can actually increase activity in the neural networks that enhance empathy and emotional regulation. Showing empathy to others feels good, too. Compassion, as with charity, begins at home. Ultimately, though, we have a compassionate responsibility to one another. So what can we as individuals do to fulfill it? We can reach out to friends and family members with differing perspectives. We can try to talk, understand and share. We can reward kindness in those who seek our votes — this fall, next year and the two after that. We can help change the national tenor by changing our own.
