The AMA Just Published a DPC Guide for Residents. Here Are the 5 Pros and 5 Cons It Listed.

The American Medical Association published a direct primary care guide for residents this week, right as its annual meeting was getting underway in Chicago. The piece, titled “Pondering direct primary care? 10 potential benefits and drawbacks,” lays out five reasons a resident might choose DPC and five reasons to think hard before doing it.

Three months ago, the AAFP published something similar.

Two of the most influential organizations in American medicine are now actively distributing DPC guidance to physicians in training. That’s a different situation than it was a year ago.

What the AMA Published

The guide ran in the AMA’s “Transition to Attending” series on June 2, timed to the organization’s annual meeting June 5-10 in Chicago. It’s written for residents weighing their practice options, not for physicians already committed to DPC.

The five potential benefits: fewer time restrictions with patients, more professional satisfaction, less back-and-forth with insurers, better work-life balance and a smaller patient panel.

The five potential drawbacks: a possible income dip at the start, the risk of feeling professionally isolated, a smaller total number of patients to see, the work of building a patient base from scratch and the complications that come from operating outside traditional payment structures.

None of this surprises anyone already familiar with DPC. The audience is the point. These are residents who’ve spent their entire training inside insurance-based medicine and may never have seen a balanced accounting of what DPC actually involves.

The piece includes current data: more than 3,000 DPC practices in the US now, monthly fees typically ranging from $20-50 for children and $50-100 for adults per 2024 AAFP figures. It also flags the January 2026 HSA update, which lets patients use Health Savings Account funds for DPC memberships up to $150 per month individually and $300 per month for families under limits set in last year’s federal tax law.

An AMA research manager quoted in the article raises the equity concern directly. Some patients, particularly those on Medicare and Medicaid, can’t substitute DPC for traditional coverage, and a monthly membership fee puts access out of reach for many who can’t afford it.

The AAFP Got There First

In March, the American Academy of Family Physicians published a DPC guide for residents in its practice management journal, written by two physicians who launched DPC practices straight out of residency training. DPC Insider covered it at the time. That piece leaned practical: what setup costs look like, how to build a patient base, what the first year actually involves.

The AMA’s version reads more like an evaluation framework. Pros and cons, evenly listed.

Earlier in the spring, the AMA also ran a first-person piece titled “What I wish I knew in residency about direct primary care,” featuring Philip Eskew, DO, a well-known DPC advocate. That one was warmer in tone, more personal, more encouraging.

The difference matters: the AAFP piece said “here’s how.” The Eskew piece said “here’s why I don’t regret it.” The new guide says “here are the tradeoffs — now you decide.”

Three different pieces, two organizations, three months. The volume alone signals something.

Why the Audience Matters

Residents are the physicians most important to DPC’s long-term growth. By PGY-3, many have already signed employment contracts with health systems. The window to consider a different path is narrow, and for a lot of residents, it’s a window they don’t know exists.

Most of them haven’t encountered DPC in their training. Their attendings practice in fee-for-service settings. Their residency programs run through hospital systems. The model they’ve been immersed in for three to seven years becomes the default unless something breaks through.

A publication from the AMA breaks through in ways a DPC podcast or a specialty conference doesn’t. Residents trust the AMA. Their program directors trust the AMA. If DPC appears in a place they already read, the conversation can happen inside an institution rather than outside it.

That’s a different kind of legitimacy than DPC has had access to.

What This Means

For residents reading this: the AMA’s list of drawbacks is honest and worth taking seriously. Year one of a DPC practice can run lean on cash. The isolation concern has teeth for physicians who’ve spent their training surrounded by colleagues in busy academic departments. The guide is a starting point. The AAFP’s March piece, with its practical setup guidance, fills in more of the actual detail.

For physicians already in DPC: the recruitment pipeline is changing. Residents finishing training over the next few years are the first cohort seeing DPC discussed not just in community forums and at specialty conferences but in publications they’ve read since medical school. Some of them will start practices. Some will reach out about joining yours.

That equity concern is real. Monthly fees, even modest ones, are a barrier for patients who can’t afford them. The 2026 HSA expansion helps some. It doesn’t reach Medicare or Medicaid patients, and that limitation isn’t going away.

The model has spent years building credibility through growth data, employer adoption numbers and conference keynotes. Two organizations that shape how tens of thousands of physicians train are now saying the model is worth a serious look. That’s a different kind of signal.