Radiologists say Senate budget changes ‘threaten’ access to medical education
Radiologists and other physicians are warning congress that proposed changes to federal programs potentially “threaten” access to medical education.
The American College of Radiology, Society of Interventional Radiology and over 50 other medical societies expressed their concern to Senate committee leaders in a letter sent June 24. While they appreciate lawmakers’ desire to curb the rising cost of education, they believe provisions could unintentionally make medical education less accessible to many qualified individuals.
ACR and SIR said this is likely to exacerbate existing workforce shortages while jeopardizing patient access to radiology services.
“While we support efforts to make higher education more affordable, several provisions in the current legislative draft would unintentionally create significant barriers for aspiring medical and dental professionals,” the doc groups wrote to Sens. Bill Cassidy, MD, R-La., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. “We urge lawmakers to reconsider these provisions to ensure that efforts to lower costs do not inadvertently restrict the pipeline of future healthcare providers,” they added later.
Radiologists and other docs said they’re “pleased” the budget proposal retains undergraduates’ ability to receive subsidized loans, unlike the House version of the bill. However, elimination of the GradPLUS loan program and other limits present a sizable barrier for students. Average tuition for first-year medical students is about $49,512 at public institutions and $61,528 at private schools. Effective July 1, 2026, the HELP Committee’s draft text would establish a $257,500 lifetime cap on federal borrowing, which includes graduate education.
“As a result, these provisions will force many future medical and dental students to rely on high-interest private loans—which often offer fewer borrower protections—to finance a portion of their education,” the groups wrote. “This will significantly increase their debt burden and influence critical career decisions, such as whether to practice in underserved communities or to open up their own small-business dental or medical practice. Alternatively, some may find the cost of education prohibitive and decide against a career in medicine or dentistry altogether.”
In addition, the proposal also would exclude physicians from counting their residency training years toward eligibility for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. This would represent a “significant setback” for young healthcare professionals who rely on it to manage their “substantial” debt loads while serving in nonprofit or academic settings. ACR and SIR also said they’re disappointed that language reinstating the ability for physicians to defer a portion of their federal student loans, interest free, while in residency was excluded from the proposal. This despite being included in the House-passed bill (a version of the previously introduced Resident Education Deferred Interest (REDI) Act).
“Although the House-passed bill limits interest-free deferment to four years—falling short for those in medical and dental residencies that exceed four years—it would still offer meaningful relief and help make practice in underserved or academic settings more attainable,” the groups wrote.
Others signing the message included the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, American College of Cardiology and the American College of Emergency Physicians, among numerous others. ACR highlighted the letter-writing campaign in a news update published Friday.
Marty Stempniak has covered healthcare since 2012, with his byline appearing in the American Hospital Association's member magazine, Modern Healthcare and McKnight's. Prior to that, he wrote about village government and local business for his hometown newspaper in Oak Park, Illinois. He won a Peter Lisagor and Gold EXCEL awards in 2017 for his coverage of the opioid epidemic.