I've spoken about this before on this forum...
I have a good many colleagues, in anesthesiology, who are osteopathically trained. They do not believe in, nor do they (can they) incorporate in daily practice, the priniciples of OMM. There's just no role for it in anesthesiology, as it is currently practiced in the U.S. They are competent, adequately trained, and equal clinicians in every respect to their M.D. colleagues.
The "explosion" of osteopathic schools (and doctors) in the U.S. is mostly a political one. The schools are typically less rigorous to secure an admission to than a standard Doctor of Medicine (MD) granting program in the U.S. Many students apply to both when seeking an admission to medical school. The Osteopathic school is often the "back-up" plan.
Why is this?
Starting in the early 1990's, the Council of Graduate Medical Education (COGME) affirmed what many wanted to believe by telling the public that there was a surplus of medical doctors in the U.S., and that the 125 (at the time, now 126) M.D.-granting schools should cap and curtail admissions. This created a "cartel", if you will, and imposed both a false commodity on gaining acceptance to a medical school and a subsequent degree. The M.D.-granting schools have always prided themselves in high quality selection, and subsequent high rate of retention, of candidates.
Within the past few years, people began to realize that the COGME was wrong. And, by the year 2020, there is now estimated to be a 200,000 doctor shortage in the U.S. The COGME has since reversed itself with its prior "doctor surplus" rhetoric. Recently, the number of spots available at M.D.-granting schools has been increased to help meet that demand.
The result?
Osteopathy schools are not regulated, recognized, or accredited by the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC). They have their own independent boards and accreditation councils, and navigate their own way through state recognition and licensure processes. Recognizing the above, the AAMC has sort of turned a blind eye to these schools being quietly opened and expanding. And, while they have separate boards, their graduates are allowed to train in graduate medical programs (residency) alongside of M.D. graduates. The Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) recognizes D.O.'s as legitimate and adequately trained medical graduates if they've matriculated through a osteopathic program recognized by their governing boards and have passed their licensure exams.
So, the number of D.O. schools has grown mainly not because of interest in the osteopathic principles taught there, but as a "second pathway" to candidates who were unable to secure a spot in a traditional U.S. school of medicine. That's a potentially controversial statement for many D.O. graduates, but those who are honest with themselves will agree with recognize it as being factual. Sure, there are still the die-hard "osteopathy is superior" types, and actively incorporate OMM in their daily practice, but these represent the small minority of current graduates.
The whole issue of COGME's shortsidedness is a frustrating one for me. The shortage of physicians, something I feel and see everyday, has allowed a toe-hold for mid-level practitioners who are currently seeking independent practice. (But, that's a separate discussion...)
So, in summary, the only thing you can tell by someone who is legally carrying the "M.D." or "D.O." title behind their name is that they have passed rigorous medical licensure exams, they have completed (or are completing) an accredited internship or residency program, and that they have, at the very least, met the minimum standards for medical practice in the U.S. The other things you can check for are board-certification in their specialty, an additional quality marker, and whether or not they have any infractions on their license (which most state medical boards will list online if you search that state's medical board records).
~Dr. Imago, M.D.
