Doctors Question Whether Rank-Based NEET-PG System Can Address Medical Education Challenges
Doctors have raised concerns over the proposed change in the NEET-PG and NEET-SS examination systems, stating that shifting from a percentile-based method to a rank-based system will not resolve the major structural problems affecting medical education in India. They have urged the government to focus on issues such as high medical college fees, compulsory service bonds, inadequate stipends and vacancies in less preferred specialities.
The concerns were highlighted by the United Doctors Front, which stated that changes in the merit-list preparation method alone cannot bring meaningful reforms to postgraduate medical education. According to the organisation, the government must address the financial, academic and professional challenges faced by medical students and doctors.
Dr Lakshya Mittal, chairperson of the United Doctors Front, who participated in a meeting convened by the Directorate General of Health Services on October 9, said stakeholders had raised several important concerns during the discussion.
He stated that changing the method used to prepare merit lists without addressing the existing problems would only change the approach to admissions rather than reform the medical education system.
Doctors Highlight High Fees and Compulsory Bonds
One of the major concerns raised by doctors is the high fee structure in private medical colleges and deemed universities. According to the stakeholders, excessive fees can create financial difficulties for postgraduate medical aspirants and make medical education less accessible.
Dr Mittal called for uniform fee regulation across medical institutions. He also suggested introducing bond-free admissions in pre-clinical and para-clinical specialities, where seats frequently remain vacant.
Service bonds are among the issues that vary across states. Doctors have argued that compulsory service requirements should be reviewed, particularly in specialities where vacant seats remain a concern.
Participants at the October 9 meeting, including Dr Raj Shekhar and Dr Ankit, also highlighted the high fees charged by deemed universities. They called for fee regulatory committees to ensure that medical education costs remain reasonable.
Stipend Differences and Vacant Speciality Seats
Inadequate stipends and differences in payments between clinical and non-clinical branches were also raised during the discussion.
Doctors called for uniform stipends across clinical and non-clinical specialities to ensure fair treatment of postgraduate medical students. They also suggested providing incentives for doctors who take up postings in rural areas.
Stakeholders said improving working conditions and financial support could help make less preferred specialities more attractive to medical graduates. This could also help address the problem of vacant postgraduate seats.
Dr Mittal further emphasised the need to improve faculty recruitment, career progression and research opportunities. According to him, strengthening these areas is important to address vacancies and improve the overall quality of medical education.
He also raised concerns about relying on zero or negative qualifying cut-offs to fill vacant seats, suggesting that the underlying reasons for unfilled seats should be addressed instead.
Government Response on Earlier Recommendations
An expert committee report submitted to the Supreme Court on Tuesday reproduced the government's responses to earlier recommendations made by stakeholders on medical education reforms.
Regarding fee regulation, the government referred to guidelines issued by the National Medical Commission in February 2022. These guidelines concern the determination of fees for 50 per cent of seats in private medical colleges and deemed universities.
However, the government stated that the guidelines were under litigation. It also explained that fee structures were governed by state regulatory authorities.
On compulsory service bonds, the government said the matter fell under the jurisdiction of individual states. This means that policies relating to service bonds may differ depending on the state.
Regarding stipends, the government stated that stipends in institutions under the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences were at par with those provided for MD, MS, DM and MCh seats in state institutions.
The government also indicated that public-sector recruitment and job placements came under state jurisdiction.
These responses were related to earlier stakeholder recommendations reproduced in the expert committee report. They were not direct responses to the concerns raised during the October 9 DGHS meeting.
Questions Raised Over Qualifying Percentile Reductions
Another important issue discussed at the meeting was the reduction of qualifying percentiles for postgraduate and super-speciality medical courses.
Dr Nikhil questioned the basis on which qualifying percentiles were being reduced. He sought clarity on who made these decisions and whether such reductions should be permitted only during the final round of counselling.
He also proposed independent audits of medical education costs to improve transparency and provide a clearer understanding of the expenses involved in medical training.
The discussion highlighted concerns about the relationship between admission policies, affordability and the availability of postgraduate seats across different specialities.
Doctors Seek Broader Reforms in Medical Education
Doctors have maintained that changes to the NEET-PG and NEET-SS ranking systems should not be treated as a complete solution to the challenges facing medical education.
They believe that reforms must address the reasons behind vacant seats, particularly in less preferred specialities. Affordable fees, fair stipends, transparent admission policies and better career opportunities are among the measures they have recommended.
Improving faculty recruitment, research facilities and professional development opportunities could also help strengthen medical institutions and encourage doctors to pursue a wider range of specialities.
The concerns raised by stakeholders indicate that medical education reform involves more than changing examination procedures. Doctors have called for a broader approach that considers the financial burden on students, working conditions during postgraduate training and future employment opportunities.
As discussions continue over the NEET-PG and NEET-SS admission systems, doctors are urging policymakers to consider these structural challenges while framing future reforms. They argue that meaningful improvements will require coordinated action on fees, bonds, stipends, faculty availability and career development, rather than focusing only on the method used to prepare merit lists.
