Is there a difference between DOs and MDs?

The New York Times recently published a piece on DOs versus MDs. In it, they describe the history and evolution of the Doctor of osteopathy, which is much less understood compared to it’s better known cousin, the MD. Indeed, there are differences in the way they train, and some of the things they do, but their training and responsibilities largely overlap today. Here are some of the highlights:

Osteopathic medicine is rapidly growing in the U.S., with the number of Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.s) increasing 70% over the last decade. Over a quarter of U.S. medical students are training to become D.O.s, aided by limited M.D. school slots and expanding osteopathic programs.

Despite this growth, public awareness of what D.O.s are remains low. Many patients confuse them with chiropractors or alternative healers, and even question if they are “real” doctors—despite D.O.s having full medical practice rights since 1973.

Historically, osteopathy began as a distinct, holistic alternative to mainstream medicine, founded in 1874 by Dr. Andrew Still. Over time, the gap between D.O.s and M.D.s has narrowed, with both now undergoing similar training and often working in the same residencies.

Today, the differences are minimal, though D.O.s still receive training in osteopathic manipulative treatment and are more likely to work in primary care and rural areas. Research shows no significant differences in patient outcomes between D.O.s and M.D.s.

The profession faces an identity crisis, as its distinctiveness fades and its institutions integrate with M.D. programs. Some worry that osteopathic medicine may lose its separate identity entirely, while others are content to blend into the broader medical field.

Have you seen a D.O.? What was your experience?