SWGMDI’s “Increasing Forensic Supply in the United States” Page 1

 Published December 5, 2012

Increasing the Supply of Forensic Pathologists in the United States

Scientific Working Group on Medicolegal Death Investigation (SWGMDI)

Executive Summary

The National Research Council’s (NRC) Strengthening Forensic Science in the United

States: A Path Forward identified a shortage of forensic pathologists in the United States and 

made recommendations to encourage physicians to enter the subspecialty of forensic pathology 

(1). This report reviews the reasons for the shortage of forensic pathologists and makes 

recommendations to increase their supply in the United States. The recommendations are as 

follows: 

• The specialty of forensic pathology and death investigation needs to be made more 

visible in medical school (as does exposure to general pathology) and pathology 

residency curricula

• The exposure to autopsy, forensic pathology, and death investigation needs to be 

improved and made more positive in pathology residency programs, and non-forensic 

pathology faculty need to be more supportive of forensic pathology as a legitimate 

medical and academic discipline

• Financial incentives need to be provided to attract medical students and pathology 

residents into the field of forensic pathology

• The salaries of forensic pathologists need to be made competitive with other medical 

specialties requiring similar years of training 

• State-centered initiatives need to be developed to attract forensic pathologists to selected 

states

• Forensic pathology training programs need to be increased in number along with an 

increase in funded forensic pathology fellowship positions

• Forensic pathology training programs need to be proactive in teaching their fellows about 

the profession and factors such as burnout that may cause dropout from the specialty

• The ACGME requirements for training programs in forensic pathology need to be revised 

to reflect better the unique aspects of forensic pathology training and practice

• Forensic pathology training programs need to have more formal relationships with 

medical schools and pathology departments

• Novel mechanisms of death investigation system funding need to be developed

Increasing the Supply of Forensic Pathologist in the United States includes background 

information and data to support the above recommendations, and expands upon the various 

recommendations to provide a path forward. 
 SWGMDI’s “Increasing Forensic Supply in the United States” Page 2

 Published December 5, 2012

Increasing the Supply of Forensic Pathologists in the United States

A Report and Recommendations 

Prepared by the System Infrastructure Committee of the 

Scientific Working Group on Medicolegal Death Investigation (SWGMDI)

Introduction

The National Research Council’s (NRC) Strengthening Forensic Science in the United

States: A Path Forward identified a shortage of forensic pathologists in the United States and 

made recommendations to encourage physicians to enter the subspecialty of forensic pathology 

(1). This report reviews the reasons for the shortage of forensic pathologists and makes 

recommendations to increase their supply in the United States. 

Methods

The Scientific Working Group on Medicolegal Death Investigation (SWGMDI) System 

Infrastructure Committee reviewed available literature on forensic pathology training and 

manpower. The Committee prepared a draft report which was then reviewed, revised, and 

approved for public comment by the SWGMDI Board of Directors. Following an initial public 

comment period of 60 days which began June 22, 2012, the comment period was extended an 

additional 30 days at the request of two pathology organizations. After the comment period 

ended on September 22, 2012, all comments were reviewed and addressed by the SWGMDI 

Board of Directors. Appropriate revisions were made to the draft document and the SWGMDI 

approved this final version for publication on November 29, 2012. The public comments and 

SWGMDI responses to the comments were summarized in a report which is available on the 

SWGMDI website at www.swgmdi.org

Background

In order to make recommendations to improve the supply of forensic pathologists, the first 

question which must be addressed is why there is shortage of forensic pathologists in the United 

States. There are many reasons, and each of these is discussed below.

Although there are 131 medical schools in the United States, there are only 37 Accreditation 

Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited forensic pathology training 

programs, and many of these have only loose affiliations with medical schools (2,3). One or 

more medical schools exist in 45 of the states and the District of Columbia, but accredited 

forensic pathology training programs exist in only 27 states and in Puerto Rico. Thus, for many 

medical students, there is no direct path for forensic pathology training in the state where the 

student attended medical school. Of the more than 17,000 medical school graduates each year, 

only 30 to 40 ultimately become forensic pathologists, although about 600 will train in pathology 
 SWGMDI’s “Increasing Forensic Supply in the United States” Page 3

 Published December 5, 2012

(2,3). These facts signify a problem with recruitment of medical students into pathology and 

especially into forensic pathology.

Most medical schools have little or no exposure to forensic pathology in the medical school 

curriculum. Forty-three states have accredited training programs in anatomical pathology, which 

is a pre-requisite for forensic pathology training. However, many of these programs do not offer 

forensic pathology fellowships, and the exposure to forensic pathology in the basic anatomical

pathology training programs may be minimal. In fact, some report that faculty actually 

discourage forensic pathology as a career (4). Further, many who selected forensic pathology as 

a career report that they did so because of a very positive autopsy experience in pathology 

training and/or they had an admirable mentor in forensic pathology. Thus, a lack of exposure to 

forensic pathology in medical school and basic pathology training (or a bad experience during 

exposure) creates a situation in which forensic pathology is not recognized by students and 

residents as a goal worthy of pursuit. 

More and more medical schools are moving away from traditional pathology courses. This 

reduced exposure to pathology may result in fewer medical students selecting pathology as their 

choice for residency, which is a pre-requisite for going on to forensic pathology. 

Another problem is the small number and incomplete funding of ACGME approved forensic 

pathology fellowship positions. A recent survey showed that among the 37 training programs in 

the United States, there were a total of 78 approved positions, but only 53 were funded and 42 

were filled (5). Thus, there are not only unfunded positions, but funded positions which could be 

filled, but remain vacant. In recent years, between 30 and 40 board certified forensic pathologists 

are trained per year in the United States (6). In comparison, there are more than 10,000 residents 

per year who train in internal medicine and family practice (7). Since 1959, there have been 

slightly fewer than 2000 people who have trained in forensic pathology, and a total of about 

1400 board certified forensic pathologists have been produced since 1959 (8). There are an 

estimated 500 full-time forensic pathologists in the United States, and projections suggest that 

1000 are needed to provide adequate coverage in the United States (9).

Compounding the problems cited above is the fact that ACGME requirements for accredited 

training programs have become cumbersome, which has discouraged some training program 

directors’ interest in training because of the large time commitment and seemingly excessive 

documentation requirements imposed upon them (10). In recent years, the number of forensic 

pathology training programs has decreased (3). 

Dropout of forensic pathologists poses another problem. Only two-thirds of forensic pathology 

fellowship graduates practice forensic pathology full time, and 21% end up not practicing 

forensic pathology at all (5). Continued exposure to violence, challenging cases with media 

exposure and confrontation in court, relatively low pay, and recent government cutbacks in 

employment have each been cited as possible reasons (5). Salaries of forensic pathologists for 

those who are not chiefs of offices usually range between $100,000 and $200,000 per year, with 

few Chiefs making more than $200,000 per year, which is much below average physician 

income even for those in other specialties who have just completed training. For example, in 

2010, primary care physicians received total median annual compensation of $202,392, and 
 SWGMDI’s “Increasing Forensic Supply in the United States” Page 4

 Published December 5, 2012

physicians practicing in other medical specialties received total median annual compensation of 

$356,885 (11). The College of American Pathologists’ practice characteristics survey shows that 

the total income of anatomic and clinical pathologists approaches $344,000 annually when base

salary, incentive pay, deferred compensation, and other income are considered (12). Forensic 

pathologists usually are not involved in practice settings in which there are incentive payments, 

bonuses, or fees for services paid by health care financing agencies such as Medicare. Forensic 

pathologists work full time none-the-less, and many are forced to work extra jobs outside of 

routine business hours and job duties to augment their salary. Salaries should be consummate 

with industry norms and the risks which are associated with forensic pathology practice. 

Rural areas face challenges regarding their ability to board certified forensic pathologists in all 

areas of the country. Many jurisdictions do not have the mortality rate or tax base to justify fully 

and fund a forensic pathology position (13). What this means is that some areas of the country 

cannot attract forensic pathologists, or if forensic pathologists are available, there is only enough 

work for a part-time effort and the forensic pathologist must travel or serve multiple areas to 

make a living. This is one reason why the NRC report has recommended the development of 

regional medical examiner centers, which will be the topic of another SWGMDI report (1). 

The salary of forensic pathology fellows varies considerably. Especially in training programs 

with tight medical school affiliations, salaries may be geared to Post Graduate Year (PGY) level 

which translates to a $50,000 to $60,000 annual salary for a PGY 5 or PGY 6 trainee. Other 

programs have broken away from the PGY levels and have raised salaries to approximately 

$100,000, a salary that is still not greatly attractive for a physician already having three or four 

years of residency training. Further, without medical school support, many government based 

medical examiner offices lack funds to pay satisfactory salaries, which precludes the 

establishment of a training program. Finally, recent federal deficit reduction proposals have 

suggested major cuts in the Medicare subsidies for teaching hospitals and residency programs, 

which would further aggravate the problem. 

The national autopsy rate is now miserably low at about 8.5%, with only about 4.3% of diseasecaused deaths undergoing autopsy (14). Many hospitals have basically abandoned the use of 

hospital autopsies as a method for assessing the quality of medical care and evaluation of 

possible adverse outcomes. This trend has continually worsened since the Joint Commission on 

Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) dropped its requirement for hospitals to 

maintain a minimum autopsy rate of 20%. As a result, the majority of autopsies performed on 

patients who die in hospitals are now being performed by forensic pathologists within the 

medicolegal death investigation system on such cases as post-traumatic deaths, post-surgical 

deaths, and other unusual or unexplained deaths, which occur in the hospital. Information 

obtained by such autopsies is useful for trauma death audits, medical care quality review, and 

other purposes, which can benefit the hospital and its caregivers, but healthcare system funding 

to support the contribution of the medicolegal death investigation system is virtually nonexistent. Further, many forensic pathologists are now testifying in more civil litigation resulting 

from such cases which pulls them further from primary forensic pathology practice.
 SWGMDI’s “Increasing Forensic Supply in the United States” Page 5

 Published December 5, 2012

There are no current incentives to encourage medical students to embark on a career in forensic 

pathology. There are no medical student or other loan forgiveness programs specific to the field 

of forensic pathology. In contrast, some law school graduates qualify for loan forgiveness if they 

work for certain government entities such as the district attorney’s office. Perhaps an analogous 

program could be developed for forensic pathologists, most of whom eventually work for 

government entities. 

Some have suggested that physician- or pathology assistants could help fill the existing void of 

forensic pathologists in some areas. However, the National Association of Medical Examiners 

has developed a position paper which limits the use of such professionals in the practice of 

forensic pathology (15).

The NRC forensic sciences report makes recommendations that all persons who practice in the 

forensic sciences and offer testimony be certified in their discipline. Achieving that goal will 

require the production of more board certified forensic pathologists. 

Finally, forensic pathologists are charged with investigating deaths involving possible terrorism, 

biohazards, emerging infectious diseases which result in unexplained death, mass fatality 

incidents, disaster-related deaths, and other types of deaths which could involve national 

security, public health, or public safety issues. The forensic pathologists involved in such death

investigations need to be adequately trained, board certified, and available in sufficient numbers 

to do quality work in all areas of the country. 

Meeting the Needs (Recommendations)

1. The specialty of forensic pathology and death investigation needs to be made more visible in 

medical school (as does exposure to general pathology) and pathology residency curricula. 

The College of American Pathologist’s (CAP) Forensic Pathology Committee and the National 

Association of Medical Examiner’s (NAME) Forensic Pathology Training Committee should 

develop a course on forensic pathology and medicolegal death investigation. This could be an 

on-line resource that medical schools could use in the classroom or require students to take and 

pass during their second year in medical school. The course would cover issues related to 

obtaining permission for hospital autopsies, general requirements for reporting cases to the 

medical examiner/coroner, medicolegal death investigation systems, introduction to the death 

certificate and completing it properly, the training path required to enter anatomic pathology and 

subsequently forensic pathology, and the types of jobs which are available to forensic 

pathologists. Specific forensic pathology subject matter would not be included. The Association 

of Pathology Chairs’ (APC) Undergraduate Medical Educators Section (UMEDS) could assist 

with the development and promulgation of the course, and has already taken a first step by 

developing a Forensic Interest Group. The American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC)

should not only endorse this project but should require medical schools to include this course in 

their curricula. The AAMC should also rethink its reduction in formal pathology course and lab 

work and reinstitute such exposure in medical school because pathology is a primary basis for 

understanding disease and injury relevant to all medical specialties. Further, the AAMC and 

organizations like NAME should work together on developing a forensic pathology mentoring 
 SWGMDI’s “Increasing Forensic Supply in the United States” Page 6

 Published December 5, 2012

program for medical students to introduce them to the field and encourage their pursuit of 

forensic pathology. One such program might be for medical students to use interesting forensic 

pathology cases as a basis for writing a case report for presentation or publication. The same 

approach could be used with pathology residents. 

New medical schools are opening to increase production of primary care physicians to serve 

areas in need. Perhaps such schools could also emphasize forensic pathology to foster the 

production of additional forensic pathologists to serve areas in need. 

Finally, recruitment into medical school, pathology, and forensic pathology needs to begin at the 

undergraduate level. Strategies should be developed to target college students in way that will 

attract them into the medical field with an early interest in pursuing forensic pathology as a 

career. 

2. The exposure to autopsy, forensic pathology, and death investigation needs to be improved 

and made more positive in pathology residency programs, and non-forensic pathology faculty 

need to be more supportive of forensic pathology as a legitimate medical and academic 

discipline.

The ACGME requires that anatomic pathology training programs provide exposure to forensic 

pathology. This requirement should be enforced. Pathology residency programs should ensure 

that their residents spend at least one month in a medical examiner/coroner office assisting 

forensic pathologists in the performance of medicolegal autopsies. The pathology department 

should provide a stipend to the mentors/forensic pathologists for their services if they are not on 

the regular pathology department faculty. If there are no such opportunities locally, formal

arrangements should be made with a medicolegal office to provide such a rotation. Pathology 

departments should ensure that the pathologists given responsibility for the supervision of the 

autopsy service do indeed have autopsy skills and are interested in autopsy performance and 

reporting. The same course developed for medical students should be available to pathology 

residents. In addition, the CAP and the NAME should develop an on-line tutorial in forensic 

pathology subject matter and the Association of Pathology Chairs should endorse its use and 

require pathology training programs to require it in their curriculum, in addition to any forensic 

pathology training or lectures provided by the pathology department. The specific locations 

available for forensic pathology training should also be provided in this course. The Association 

of Pathology Chairs (APC) needs to encourage faculty to be supportive of residents who are 

considering forensic pathology as a career. The ACGME and Residency Review Committee

(RRC) for pathology needs to enforce its requirement to have meaningful exposure to forensic 

pathology during pathology residency. At present, the forensic pathology rotation is often used 

simply as a way for pathology residents to attain the 50 autopsies required for anatomic 

pathology board qualification, and in some settings, this reason may be the only one that the 

forensic pathology rotation exists. Without these rotations, pathology residencies would not be 

able to operate, and the APC needs to recognize this fact and appropriately support the forensic 

pathology service and faculty. The Association of Pathology Chairs has recently established a 

Forensic Interest Group to begin addressing some of these issues. 
 SWGMDI’s “Increasing Forensic Supply in the United States” Page 7

 Published December 5, 2012

3. Financial incentives need to be provided to attract medical students and pathology residents 

into the field of forensic pathology. 

The American Association of Medical Colleges, in conjunction with the 131 medical schools, 

should develop a medical school loan forgiveness program for medical students who enter 

pathology and forensic pathology. Loans should be deferred for a period of 10 years following 

completion of forensic pathology training, and if the student remains in forensic pathology 

practice, his/her loan would be forgiven. Each medical school would provide one medical 

student position per year for the loan-forgiveness program. The AAMC and Medical School 

Deans should seek federal support for this program, perhaps through proposed legislation such as 

the Leahy Bill regarding the forensic sciences. More affordable loans should also be made 

available in addition to any loan forgiveness programs.

4. The salaries of forensic pathologists need to be made competitive with other medical 

specialties requiring similar years of training.

The CAP and NAME should develop relationships and liaison with the National Association of 

Counties (NACo), The National Governor’s Association (NGA), and the National Conference of 

State Legislatures (NCSL) to educate them on the important roles played by forensic pathologists 

and medicolegal death investigation systems regarding issues related to public health, vital 

statistics, criminal justice, the civil courts, public safety, homeland security, the medical 

profession, and the wide scope of state and federal agencies and programs which rely upon 

information generated through death investigations. At the same time, these organizations need 

to be educated on the difficulties in recruiting forensic pathologists into the field, a major factor 

being low salaries for persons with medical degrees and advanced postgraduate training. 

The numerous federal agencies which rely upon death investigation information, including but 

not limited to CDC, NIOSH, NHTSA, NCHS, FDA, CPSC, SAMHSA, NIJ, NIH, NDMS, NSF, 

FEMA, DHS, DoD, and NTSB1 should collectively develop a comprehensive plan to assist states 

and local jurisdictions in the funding of their forensic pathology positions. For example, NIH 

might shift some funding and support away from novel research and toward practical aspects of 

forensic pathology practice which could facilitate research. 

Medical Examiner and Coroner Offices should forge relationships with medical schools who 

could offer stipends and other benefits to forensic pathologists who are involved in medical 

student and pathology resident training. The ACGME, Medicare, and medical school Graduate 

Medical Education (GME) Departments should work to ensure that funding of forensic

pathologist positions in forensic pathology training programs have salaries which will attract 

well qualified individuals who also have teaching skills. 

 1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA), Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration (SAMHSA), National Institute of Justice (NIJ), National Institutes of Health (NIH), 

National Disaster Medical Services (NDMS), National Science Foundation (NSF), Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Defense (DoD), National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB). 
 SWGMDI’s “Increasing Forensic Supply in the United States” Page 8

 Published December 5, 2012

Finally, forensic pathology fellowships should not be tied to PGY level. Rather, salaries should 

be increased to attract pathology residents into the field. The state and federal governments 

should provide stipends which could augment fellow salary funding provided by medical 

schools, with strings attached to the funding to keep the fellow in forensic pathology practice, 

perhaps even within the state which provided the funding directly or with federal assistance. 

5. State-centered initiatives need to be developed to attract forensic pathologists to selected 

states.

Some states lack medical schools, pathology training programs, forensic pathology training 

programs, and an adequate number of fully qualified forensic pathologists working in the state. 

Such states should develop an incentive program to attract forensic pathologists to the state. For 

example, in a state which lacks a medical school, the state might provide a medical school 

scholarship to a person from the state who wishes to go to medical school (in another state) but 

who wishes to return to the state to practice forensic pathology. In nearly half the states, a 

medical student who ultimately wishes to train in forensic pathology would have to leave the 

state to do so. If forensic pathology training programs cannot be developed in the states which 

lack them, then an alternative needs to be developed to attract people to forensic pathology 

training and eventual practice back in the state from whence the trainee came. 

Efforts to improve and modernize the physical facilities at medicolegal death investigation 

centers may also assist in the recruitment of forensic pathologists and their willingness to remain

long-term employees. Another option might be one analogous to primary care practice for which 

special considerations and incentives to attract physicians to areas which are officially designated 

as “underserved.” 

6. Forensic pathology training programs need to be increased in number along with an increase 

in funded forensic pathology fellowship positions.

An excellent starting point would be federal assistance to fund the 25 ACGME-accredited 

forensic pathology training positions which currently lack funding. At a salary of $60,000 per 

year, including salaries and benefits, this would require approximately $2,100,000 per year. To 

make forensic pathology fellowship training positions more attractive, if federal support were 

provided to increase the salary of all 78 forensic pathology training positions to $100,000, 

approximately $5,180,000 would be needed per year to augment the salaries already provided by 

state and local governments and medical schools.

Medicolegal offices which could qualify for, but lack a forensic pathology training program 

should be provided with state and federal incentive funds for developing a program, especially in 

states which currently lack a forensic pathology training program or sufficient number of 

forensic pathologists. Because of the one-year recruitment and training cycle which does not 

correlate with most state and federal fiscal years, such assistance should not be provided though 

routine grant mechanisms. Rather, funding should be provided through longer term arrangements 

outside of the usual grant process and should be for multiple years. 
 SWGMDI’s “Increasing Forensic Supply in the United States” Page 9

 Published December 5, 2012

7. Forensic pathology training programs need to be proactive in teaching their fellows about the 

profession and factors such as burnout that may cause dropout from the specialty.

Because the number of forensic pathology training positions is small and there is a shortage of 

forensic pathologists, forensic pathology training program directors should ensure that their 

interviewing of potential trainees thoroughly evaluates the candidate’s intent to practice forensic 

pathology and, if so, to what extent (full-time, part-time, not at all?). Further, candidates and 

incumbent trainees should be educated on the various factors which tend to cause dropout from 

the specialty (5). If trainees are educated on how to deal with these issues, burnout and dropout 

may be lessened, which will help keep the forensic pathology work force at a maximum. 

8. The ACGME requirements for training programs in forensic pathology need to be revised to 

better reflect the unique aspects of forensic pathology training and practice.

The ACGME and Residency Review Committee (RRC) should revisit forensic pathology 

training requirements. These organizations need to understand that forensic pathology is 

somewhat unique, the qualities needed to practice successfully differ from many other 

specialties, and that the patient-care focused requirements are not particularly applicable to the 

discipline (8). Training needs to be focused primarily on learning forensic pathology subject 

matter and the skills needed to conduct medicolegal postmortem examinations and 

investigations. Requirements regarding the six basic competency areas should, for the most part, 

have already been monitored and evaluated during their pre-requisite training in basic pathology. 

During the training year, direct observation and supervision should enable supervisors to 

determine which trainees are capable of independent practice and which ones are not. 

Documentation and evaluations methods currently required by the ACGME should be optional 

methods and the fellowship year should only need to focus on subject matter and needed skills. 

9. Forensic pathology training programs need to have more formal relationships with medical 

schools and pathology departments.

Forensic pathologists are sometimes “orphans” who have no academic parent. Especially in 

medicolegal legal offices that do, or want to, have forensic pathology fellowship training 

programs, there needs to be a formal arrangement between the medical examiner/coroner office 

and a medical school and pathology department. In exchange for having pathology residents and 

medical students rotate through a medical examiner or coroner office, medical schools should 

fund forensic pathology training positions, and they should provide stipends to compensate the 

forensic pathology staff who supervise the trainees. These should be formal arrangements with 

well-defined terms and conditions. The medical schools and pathology departments should 

provide support services to the medical examiner/coroner office, such as consultations with 

experts, peer-support, research support and assistance, and specialized laboratory and diagnostic 

services that the medical examiner or coroner office lacks. Academic relationships can further 

the professionalism and professional development of the forensic pathologist. 

The SWGMDI is preparing another document which addresses the relationships between 

pathology departments and medical examiner/coroner offices, with recommendations concerning 

financial support and other factors (16). 
 SWGMDI’s “Increasing Forensic Supply in the United States”Page 10

 Published December 5, 2012

Although formal relationships with medical schools and pathology departments is beneficial to 

support forensic pathology practice, consideration should be given to revising the training path 

for forensic pathologists and looking at other models. The American Board of Pathology (ABP), 

ACGME, and RRC need to study this possibility.

Forensic pathology training programs affiliated with academic pathology departments need to 

take advantage of the graduate medical education office at the respective institution to assist in 

the management of forensic pathology fellowship programs. The time commitment is great and 

training centers without such affiliation and support may have difficulty in managing their 

training program, which is one reason that formal affiliations with academic pathology 

departments can be beneficial. 

10. Novel mechanisms of death investigation system funding need to be developed.

As an example of novel funding mechanisms, the JCAHO should work with medical care 

funding sources and hospitals to ensure that hospitals whose patients are autopsied by the 

medicolegal death investigation system provide funding to the death investigation system for 

these services. In essence, there needs to be a return to the former practice of using the autopsy 

as a quality review procedure regarding medical care for selected types of cases such a posttrauma deaths, possible medical misadventures or adverse outcomes, and in selected cases of 

persons whose health care is paid for by Medicare. Insurance companies should also financially 

contribute to the medicolegal death investigation system. It is in their best interest to have 

autopsies performed in quality settings by qualified personnel. 

Local or regional shortages of forensic pathologists should be made known in local media to 

encourage government authorities and legislators to act on remedying the shortage by providing 

adequate funding and support to correct the problem. 

Summary

The SWGMDI has analyzed the shortage of forensic pathologists, provided background 

information on the problem, and has offered ten recommendations which could help to increase 

the supply of forensic pathologists in the United States. 
 SWGMDI’s “Increasing Forensic Supply in the United States”Page 11

 Published December 5, 2012

References

1. National Research Council. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United

States: A Path Forward. Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences 

Community, National Research Council. National Academies Press. Washington, DC. 2009.

2. Barzansky B, Etzel SI. Medical Schools in the United States, 2010-2011. JAMA. 2011: 

306(9); 1007-1014. 

3. Hanzlick R. A concise history of forensic pathology fellowship training programs in the 

United States: 1961-2011. Acad Foensic Pathol. 2011:1(1); 112-120

4. Hanzlick R, Prahlow J, Denton S, Jentzen J, Quinton R, Sathyavagiswaran L, Utley S. 

Selecting Forensic Pathology as a Career: A Survey of the Past with an Eye on the Future. Am J 

Forensic Med Pathol 2008:29: 114-122.

5. Hanzlick R. Haden-Pinneri K. Forensic Pathology Fellowship Training Positions and 

Subseqent Forensic Pathology Work Effort of Past Forensic Pathology Fellows. Acad Forensic 

Pathol. Submitted August 31, 2011. 

6. American Board of Pathology. Tampa, FL. 

7. Brotherton SE, Etzel SI. Graduate Medical Education, 2010-2011. JAMA. 2011:36(9): 1015-

1030. 

8. Hanzlick R. Forensic pathologists who train forensic pathologists in the United States. Acad 

Foensir Pathol. 2011:1(1); 104-110.

9. Hanzlick R. Work location and effort of forensic pathology fellows who completed training in 

2012. Acad Forensic Pathol. 2012: 2(3); 290-293. 

10. Hanzlick R, Stauffenberg M. Forensic Pathology Fellowship Training Issues and 

Suggestions. Acad Forensic Pathol. 2011:4 (Nov);332-336. 

11. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Available at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/physicians-and-surgeons.htm

Accessed September 12, 2012

12. College of American Pathologists 2011 Practice Characteristics Survey. College of 

American Pathologists, Northfield, Illinois. 2011

13. Hanzlick R. The Conversion of Coroner Systems to Medical Examiners in the US: A Lull in 

the Action. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2007;28(4)279-83.

14. Hoyert DL. The changing profile of autopsied deaths in the United States, 1972-2007.

NCHS data brief, no 67. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2011
 SWGMDI’s “Increasing Forensic Supply in the United States”Page 12

 Published December 5, 2012

15. National Association of Medical Examiners Position Paper. Guidelines for the Untilzation of 

Pathology Assistants in Medical Examiner Offices. National Association of Medical Examiners, 

2010. Available at: https://netforum.avectra.com/temp/ClientImages/NAME/00e49606-4022-

466b-8874-2beff8223973.pdf

Accessed September 14, 2012

16. SWGMDI. Relationships between Pathology Departments and ME/Coroner Offices:

Report of Survey Results with Recommendations. Available at www.sgmdi.org
 SWGMDI’s “Increasing Forensic Supply in the United States”Page 13

 Published December 5, 2012

The SWGMDI System Infrastructure Committee members who participated in preparation of 

this report include:

Barbara Butcher

John Fudenberg

Randy Hanzlick, MD (Presiding Officer)

R. Gib Parrish, MD

Mary Ann Sens, MD

Lindsey Thomas, MD

Joe Prahlow, MD (Advisor)

J Scott Denton, MD (Advisor)

Read Quinton, MD (Advisor)

This document was approved for final publication by the SWGMDI Board on November 29, 

2012. At that time, the SWGMDI Board Members were:

Barbara Butcher

Steve Clark, PhD

Laura Crandall

Tim Davidson

John Fudenberg

Roberta Geiselhart

Laura Grimes

Randy Hanzlick, MD

Marie Herrmann, MD

Julie Howe

Bruce Hyma, MD

Hannah Kinney, MD, PhD

Donald Jason, MD, JD

David (Zeb) Johnson

Danielle McLeod-Henning

R. Gibson Parrish, MD

Keith Pinckard, MD

Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran, MD

Mary Ann Sens, MD

Lindsey Thomas, MD

Frederick Upchurch

Amy Wyman

Dawn Zulauf

This Report was initially made available for public review and comment as SWGMDI Document 

PRC5.