Medscape Salary Survey 2012: Radiology goes from $350k to $315k in 1 year

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

http://www.medscape.com/features/sli...2012/radiology

Did anyone else see this and nearly poop their pants??

Look at the percentage who responded. The angry are always willing to write more than the happy folks.

any idea where i can find such information?

At the end of the report that I saw today, it stated <10% of physicians responded to the survey.

Salary surveys are notoriously inaccurate. And I'd be willing to bet that a radiologist is much more likely to (accurately) divulge their salary to the RSNA, ACR, or ARRS as compared to Medscape. I'm not saying that Medscape has it wrong, only that I'll withhold judgment until I see more (read: better) data.

Ortho was also down ~10% according to the survey.

idno if you guys have looked at the Derm forum, but they are gonna get cut next yr when all of their procedural codes are going to be reviewed by the RVU committee:

http://infoviewer.biz/infodisplay/st...P=7&CU=imn5804

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n57951637/

Rad Onc also had 10% cut in the Medicare 2012 fee schedule:

https://www.astro.org/Practice-Manag...-Schedule.aspx

The way I see it, everyone is goin to be cut and no one is immune, at least we are at the top of a sinking ship.......

Don't want to argue whether it is correct or not or even the cut is more than these numbers.
But it has not been the first time and is not going to be the last time. If you choose your career based on these numbers and especially compare 10% in radiology to for example 8% in Ob-Gyn, your odds of being happy in the future will be next to nothing. You will always be miserable.

Originally Posted by Green Grass

Look at the percentage who responded. The angry are always willing to write more than the happy folks.

I wouldn't ignore these numbers. The same sample was used as the year before. Salaries are down across the board in medicine, and they will continue to go down. The system is simply going broke (but at least we get to keep those 80 year old braindead patients in the ICU on Dialysis alive for 3 more months--YAY!!). I would expect our salaries to end up somewhere in the 200-300K by the time this is all done.

Not surprised considering the imaging reimbursement cuts over the past two years or so.

Originally Posted by cowme

I wouldn't ignore these numbers. The same sample was used as the year before. Salaries are down across the board in medicine, and they will continue to go down. The system is simply going broke (but at least we get to keep those 80 year old braindead patients in the ICU on Dialysis alive for 3 more months--YAY!!). I would expect our salaries to end up somewhere in the 200-300K by the time this is all done.

I still don't see why doctors are not more up in arms about this. Who gets their salary CUT vs. getting at least a cost of living raise yearly? In what world do people make less as the years go by?

Unless people become more involved, this is not going to be good. If we make the same as PAs, it doesn't make any sense. I don't know why we just basically let the gov say oh sure, just pay us nothing, we are cool with that! Oh and you also want to sue us for 40 million dollars for that bad outcome, when that 40 year old, diabetic, 400 lb person's cardiac stenting didn't work out well and they got a PE? Oh that's cool too. Here you want my license as well?
Seriously people.

I also don't really understand the whole statement made about "when this all ends we are going to be at 200-300k"-do you mean that as a beginning salary, or at the end of a 30 year career? Because if you are suggesting the latter, then no one will be going into medicine. When engineers hit the 100k mark by the time they are 25, no one will go into 200k of debt, 12+ years of education, enormous stress/risk to begin at the same salary they could have been making with a PA/engineering/MBA degree.

You also see what happens when medical professionals truly stand up for their profession/skills. Look at dentists, many say hey we are going to charge this exhorbitant amount, we are not going to take paltry Medicare reimbursement. If anything, their rates have gone up, as well as their salaries.

I also don't understand where all the $$ is going in healthcare. If premiums are rising, and costs are rising, while physician salaries are declining, where is the difference going?

Originally Posted by Medstudentquest

I still don't see why doctors are not more up in arms about this. Who gets their salary CUT vs. getting at least a cost of living raise yearly? In what world do people make less as the years go by?

Unless people become more involved, this is not going to be good. If we make the same as PAs, it doesn't make any sense. I don't know why we just basically let the gov say oh sure, just pay us nothing, we are cool with that! Oh and you also want to sue us for 40 million dollars for that bad outcome, when that 40 year old, diabetic, 400 lb person's cardiac stenting didn't work out well and they got a PE? Oh that's cool too. Here you want my license as well?
Seriously people.

I also don't really understand the whole statement made about "when this all ends we are going to be at 200-300k"-do you mean that as a beginning salary, or at the end of a 30 year career? Because if you are suggesting the latter, then no one will be going into medicine. When engineers hit the 100k mark by the time they are 25, no one will go into 200k of debt, 12+ years of education, enormous stress/risk to begin at the same salary they could have been making with a PA/engineering/MBA degree.

You also see what happens when medical professionals truly stand up for their profession/skills. Look at dentists, many say hey we are going to charge this exhorbitant amount, we are not going to take paltry Medicare reimbursement. If anything, their rates have gone up, as well as their salaries.

I also don't understand where all the $$ is going in healthcare. If premiums are rising, and costs are rising, while physician salaries are declining, where is the difference going?

I agree, but I don't think everybody who goes into medicine has this same mindset.

Originally Posted by Green Grass

I agree, but I don't think everybody who goes into medicine has this same mindset.

Not quite sure what you mean? I'm all up for patient care and doing the best for our patients, and going the extra mile when it's needed. I like others who think the same way in this regards too and have good work ethic. I doubt that anyone goes into medicine thinking oh ya, that's ok if I get paid crap, get sued every other day, and each year I make less. I think there is a reason why even in the same survey referenced the highest dissatisfaction was with primary care docs, because they are overworked and underpaid-big time and always going the extra mile and not getting financially rewarded appropriately gets old quick.

Why are people ok with paying dentists outrageous fees? Because they don't settle for pennies on the dollar. I was told that Medicare pays hospitals 32 cents on the dollar. Really? That's what we are worth.

salaries are going to continue to go down. If making money is the most important thing for you, go get an MBA and join big biotech/pharma.

Originally Posted by cowme

salaries are going to continue to go down. If making money is the most important thing for you, go get an MBA and join big biotech/pharma.

Money is important regardless of the specialty. It is asinine to think otherwise. I'm not expecting to make millions being a doctor but I do expect to be compensated fairly. If you have that attitude, then you are part of the problem imo. I have not met one doctor who's told me, hey it's cool if I make nothing.

If you think hey my salary is not important, why not work for free?

Originally Posted by Medstudentquest

Money is important regardless of the specialty. It is asinine to think otherwise. I'm not expecting to make millions being a doctor but I do expect to be compensated fairly. If you have that attitude, then you are part of the problem imo. I have not met one doctor who's told me, hey it's cool if I make nothing.

If you think hey my salary is not important, why not work for free?

Complain about it all you want on SDN. It isn't going to do anything. Try talking to the average joe, see how much sympathy they have for you when you are making only 300K now versus 350K. Just saying...

i, too, was scared by the graphic showing radiologists as having the highest average salary in all of medicine

Originally Posted by badasshairday

Complain about it all you want on SDN. It isn't going to do anything. Try talking to the average joe, see how much sympathy they have for you when you are making only 300K now versus 350K. Just saying...

That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm not saying that making 300k vs. 350k is the end of the world. I am suggesting that it's important to be compensated fairly. Or are you saying you don't care at all how much you get paid? what if they decide that radiologists should only be making 70k? Are you ok with that?

Also, I realize the job market is said to be terrible. I just simply googled radiology jobs, and a ton of them came up. Is the job market "terrible" because people cannot get their preferred job in NY/LA/Chicago/whatever big city at 400k from the bat or is it that people truly are not finding any jobs?

Originally Posted by meister

i, too, was scared by the graphic showing radiologists as having the highest average salary in all of medicine

Yup. Puts a huge target on our back... or actually just keeps the large target that has been on the specialty's back over the past 5 years or so.

Originally Posted by Medstudentquest

That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm not saying that making 300k vs. 350k is the end of the world. I am suggesting that it's important to be compensated fairly. Or are you saying you don't care at all how much you get paid? what if they decide that radiologists should only be making 70k? Are you ok with that?

I'm with you man. I'm just saying that venting on SDN won't change a damn thing unfortunately.

Originally Posted by badasshairday

I'm with you man. I'm just saying that venting on SDN won't change a damn thing unfortunately.

Well it's not like I'm going to go out tonight in front of my condo with my dog and vent to the neighbors and people who pass by. So SDN is the right place to "vent" currently. I plan to get involved for sure.

Originally Posted by Medstudentquest

Well it's not like I'm going to go out tonight in front of my condo with my dog and vent to the neighbors and people who pass by. So SDN is the right place to "vent" currently. I plan to get involved for sure.

What exactly do you plan to do? How are you going to get involved? I don't really see us being able to stop the decline in reimbursements. I want to be compensated fairly and I think we deserve our salaries, but I don't see how we can stop the downhill slide.

Originally Posted by Medstudentquest

That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm not saying that making 300k vs. 350k is the end of the world. I am suggesting that it's important to be compensated fairly. Or are you saying you don't care at all how much you get paid? what if they decide that radiologists should only be making 70k? Are you ok with that?

Radiologists are compensated fairly, within the scope of medicine. Whether doctors as a whole are compensated fairly is up for debate, but I'm sorry, we have no power to do anything about it. The government doesn't give a crap about doctors complaining about their 6 figure incomes when 50% of college grads can't even get a job at starbucks. We don't have enough money to influence politicians, and we make too much for them to feel bad for us. We aren't capable of holding services from people (Doctors aren't going to organize a massive strike and kill thousands of patients left without treatment.)

Originally Posted by Medstudentquest

Also, I realize the job market is said to be terrible. I just simply googled radiology jobs, and a ton of them came up. Is the job market "terrible" because people cannot get their preferred job in NY/LA/Chicago/whatever big city at 400k from the bat or is it that people truly are not finding any jobs?

There are 3 big factors in choosing a job: Money, location, lifestyle.

8 years ago, you could pick a job with all 3.

Today, you can pick one. If you get two, you are in the minority. And if you are trying to break into those big markets (Manhattan/cali), you are out of luck unless you trained in those markets or at a top 5 program.

Originally Posted by cowme

There are 3 big factors in choosing a job: Money, location, lifestyle.

8 years ago, you could pick a job with all 3.

Today, you can pick one. If you get two, you are in the minority. And if you are trying to break into those big markets (Manhattan/cali), you are out of luck unless you trained in those markets or at a top 5 program.

I like this breakdown. I wonder how long it'll take for the job market to correct itself, as many PDs I have spoken to said they will be downsizing their resident numbers in the next 5-10 year time frame. If history is any indicator, by the time the current MS4's graduate from residency and fellowship, the market will have responded (decreased rads grads and increased retirees).

Originally Posted by Dumb

I like this breakdown. I wonder how long it'll take for the job market to correct itself, as many PDs I have spoken to said they will be downsizing their resident numbers in the next 5-10 year time frame. If history is any indicator, by the time the current MS4's graduate from residency and fellowship, the market will have responded (decreased rads grads and increased retirees).

This is what I hope. It seems that the downsizing is starting to happen already; there were 24 less spots this year than in last year's match if I saw the info correctly. The Medscape survey also said that women docs make a whopping 41% less than their male counterparts. Me, being a woman and all, did not like that figure. Is this in general, or is it because most women pick primary care type specialties, or because some work part time?

Or does it mean that if me and say you, Dumb, interview for the same position post residency you'll be offered 300k or so and I'll be offered 177K?

Originally Posted by Medstudentquest

This is what I hope. It seems that the downsizing is starting to happen already; there were 24 less spots this year than in last year's match if I saw the info correctly. The Medscape survey also said that women docs make a whopping 41% less than their male counterparts. Me, being a woman and all, did not like that figure. Is this in general, or is it because most women pick primary care type specialties, or because some work part time?

Or does it mean that if me and say you, Dumb, interview for the same position post residency you'll be offered 300k or so and I'll be offered 177K?

Not a chance. But I'm sure Dumb will get the job because he has a cool name.

Originally Posted by Medstudentquest

This is what I hope. It seems that the downsizing is starting to happen already; there were 24 less spots this year than in last year's match if I saw the info correctly. The Medscape survey also said that women docs make a whopping 41% less than their male counterparts. Me, being a woman and all, did not like that figure. Is this in general, or is it because most women pick primary care type specialties, or because some work part time?

Straight from the horse's mouth:
"The gap in earnings between male and female radiologists still exists, although the gap is less than with physicians overall. While male physicians overall earned 40% more than their female counterparts, male radiologists reported mean compensation of $330,000, compared with $278,000 mean earnings for women – only a19% difference. The gap was slightly less in Medscape's 2011 survey. Both genders reported declines in mean income over the previous year."

Or does it mean that if me and say you, Dumb, interview for the same position post residency you'll be offered 300k or so and I'll be offered 177K?

Nope.

Originally Posted by Green Grass

Not a chance. But I'm sure Dumb will get the job because he has a cool name.

I have an awsome name in real life!

[QUOTE=Dumb;12446723]Straight from the horse's mouth:
"The gap in earnings between male and female radiologists still exists, although the gap is less than with physicians overall. While male physicians overall earned 40% more than their female counterparts, male radiologists reported mean compensation of $330,000, compared with $278,000 mean earnings for women – only a19% difference. The gap was slightly less in Medscape's 2011 survey. Both genders reported declines in mean income over the previous year."


That still sucks though, if same hours are worked. In the scenario you posted, 52k is still a big difference. Why would there be lower compensation for women? I realize that women tend to work more primary care type specialties so that for sure will have an impact, but 40% is a huge gap!

Originally Posted by Medstudentquest

That still sucks though, if same hours are worked. In the scenario you posted, 52k is still a big difference. Why would there be lower compensation for women?

Hours worked are not the same. Medscape is just reporting annual income. And the analysis is fairly rudimentary considering the elegant regression analyses they could run with the data available to them.

Men are more likely to sacrifice lifestyle for financial and scientific interests. IR is a great example: lucrative, innovative and procedural, but not the most family-friend sub-specialty.

Originally Posted by Dumb

Hours worked are not the same. Medscape is just reporting annual income. And the analysis is fairly rudimentary considering the elegant regression analyses they could run with the data available to them.

Men are more likely to sacrifice lifestyle for financial and scientific interests. IR is a great example: lucrative, innovative and procedural, but not the most family-friend sub-specialty.

Agree. My experience tells me that women are more likely to be pediatric radiologists or breast imagers, both of which are at the lower end of the radiology pay scale. I'm not sure that accounts for the whole story, but I'm guessing it contributes.

As far as getting involved, there are ways. Just this week, the Diagnostic Imaging Services Access Protection Act was introduced in the Senate. I'm skeptical that the bill will progress, but the point remains that radiology professional organizations have PACs that require support from its constituents. Support those, as best as we can, and we at least have a seat at a table, rather than being on the menu, as the saying goes. There's a big difference between being realistic and simply rolling over.

Originally Posted by colbgw02

Agree. My experience tells me that women are more likely to be pediatric radiologists or breast imagers, both of which are at the lower end of the radiology pay scale. I'm not sure that accounts for the whole story, but I'm guessing it contributes.

As far as getting involved, there are ways. Just this week, the Diagnostic Imaging Services Access Protection Act was introduced in the Senate. I'm skeptical that the bill will progress, but the point remains that radiology professional organizations have PACs that require support from its constituents. Support those, as best as we can, and we at least have a seat at a table, rather than being on the menu, as the saying goes. There's a big difference between being realistic and simply rolling over.

Typically women go for academic jobs, VA jobs or part time jobs. That is the reason they make less.
Regarding type of subspecialty, probably Peds makes less. But for IR vs DR and different subspecialties of DR still many groups are compensating their partners the same. So an IR makes the same as a Neuro, MSK, body, Mammo, .... And in real world most pp groups are not as subspecialized as acadmics. Usually they read 30-40 % subspecialty and the rest is done by everybody unless it is a huge multispecialty group.

Originally Posted by Medstudentquest

This is what I hope. It seems that the downsizing is starting to happen already; there were 24 less spots this year than in last year's match if I saw the info correctly. The Medscape survey also said that women docs make a whopping 41% less than their male counterparts. Me, being a woman and all, did not like that figure. Is this in general, or is it because most women pick primary care type specialties, or because some work part time?

Or does it mean that if me and say you, Dumb, interview for the same position post residency you'll be offered 300k or so and I'll be offered 177K?

Women in general pick less well compensated specialties, and within specific specialities they often pick less well compensated positions and work fewer hours.

It's a little bit annoying seeing surveys commenting on pay disparity without clarification that a large part of it is voluntary.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

Women in general pick less well compensated specialties, and within specific specialities they often pick less well compensated positions and work fewer hours.

It's a little bit annoying seeing surveys commenting on pay disparity without clarification that a large part of it is voluntary.

there's hope -- I can see it from here.

Here's the rub, folks -- "salary" surveys are nonsensical as most physicians do not occupy truly salaried positions... and even for those whose contract reads that way -- how do you think their salary is calculated? We live in a revenue / cost environment, plain and simple.

The conclusions found in these articles are for the weak minded incapable of critical thought. Don't be that person. (not directed at you, johnny)

Originally Posted by MOHS_01

Here's the rub, folks -- "salary" surveys are nonsensical as most physicians do not occupy truly salaried positions... and even for those whose contract reads that way -- how do you think their salary is calculated? We live in a revenue / cost environment, plain and simple.

I have no idea what you're talking about but the Medscape survey is consistent with every other physician salary survey I've encountered. It is also consistent (within 15%) with the rads job postings in my desired areas. If I take the Medscape geographic variation graph into account, the job postings in my current region are within 5-10%.

Originally Posted by Dumb

I have no idea what you're talking about but the Medscape survey is consistent with every other physician salary survey I've encountered. It is also consistent (within 15%) with the rads job postings in my desired areas. If I take the Medscape geographic variation graph into account, the job postings in my current region are within 5-10%.

The quoted Medscape salaries are lower than the 2010 MGMA data I have seen. I know MGMA is a popular and trusted source for physician salaries.

Originally Posted by Dumb

I have no idea what you're talking about but the Medscape survey is consistent with every other physician salary survey I've encountered. It is also consistent (within 15%) with the rads job postings in my desired areas. If I take the Medscape geographic variation graph into account, the job postings in my current region are within 5-10%.

Let me help you then. Physician incomes are not "salaries" in the way of the common vernacular (i.e. executive compensation plans do not determine their salary based upon the computed additional revenue said exec would provide to an organization minus the additional costs his/her addition would incur). Clinical physician incomes are based almost exclusively upon the amount of revenue that the physician and his/her ancillary services are expected to produce minus the cost associated with his/her addition. What you have represented in these surveys is the amount of net revenue that in the form of a distribution curve that can reasonably be expected based upon previous work patterns and revenue / cost paradigms for both the specialty in question and their respective employment arrangement mix.

Single specialty vs multispecialty vs solo vs hospital employed are all different beasts with regards to expected compensation models. If you are entering a specialty dominated by workaholics in their prime working years, heavy in demand, and servicing a population predominantly represented by commercial carriers, with the capacity to tailor payer mix you will be sorely disappointed with your pay should you happen to desire a four day work week employed by a hospital with a contractual agreement to accept all comers.

Like many things in life, what you think you see is not always how it really is.

Originally Posted by MOHS_01

(i.e. executive compensation plans do not determine their salary based upon the computed additional revenue said exec would provide to an organization minus the additional costs his/her addition would incur).

Yes, they do. The idea of "income minus expenses = profits" is not unique to medical compensation. In fact, because of heavy stock options and performance bonuses for CEOs, they are more likely to have performance-based salary variation. Steve Jobs, for example, had an annual salary of $1.

Clinical physician incomes are based almost exclusively upon the amount of revenue that the physician and his/her ancillary services are expected to produce minus the cost associated with his/her addition. What you have represented in these surveys is the amount of net revenue that in the form of a distribution curve that can reasonably be expected based upon previous work patterns and revenue / cost paradigms for both the specialty in question and their respective employment arrangement mix.

Stating the obvious.

Single specialty vs multispecialty vs solo vs hospital employed are all different beasts with regards to expected compensation models. If you are entering a specialty dominated by workaholics in their prime working years, heavy in demand, and servicing a population predominantly represented by commercial carriers, with the capacity to tailor payer mix you will be sorely disappointed with your pay should you happen to desire a four day work week employed by a hospital with a contractual agreement to accept all comers.

Again, stating the obvious.

Medscape:
"Radiologists in office-based, single-specialty group practices earned the most, with a mean income of $373,000; this value has declined since Medscape's 2011 survey. Radiologists employed by healthcare organizations came in second, at $332,000, followed by those in solo practice, at $331,000. Radiologists working for outpatient clinics and in academic settings earned considerably less."

Originally Posted by Dumb

Yes, they do. The idea of "income minus expenses = profits" is not unique to medical compensation. In fact, because of heavy stock options and performance bonuses for CEOs, they are more likely to have performance-based salary variation. Steve Jobs, for example, had an annual salary of $1.

Examples of exceptions =/= the rule. The fact of the matter is that the vast, vast majority of executive compensation packages are based upon what the enterprise has to pay to secure a talent of sufficient quality to fill the position. Some specialties are lucky that this is not the case in medicine. Some would benefit if it were. I, for one, am happy with the current construct -- only because I understood the process and chose accordingly.

Originally Posted by Dumb

Stating the obvious.



Again, stating the obvious.

Apparently that is sometimes required. I'll reiterate: MD's predominant compensation model is not salary. It is production based. If you use these salary surveys as anything other than a snapshot of how folks were able to do last year or whatever, you are setting yourself up for economic pain and disappointment when you have your sweet *** handed to you in your first job. Why do you think the rate of turnover approaches 50% for first time positions? Setting reimbursement policy off of them is even more foolhardy... yet that's what is currently happening. I swear to Pete, the inability to see anything other than the rear view mirror will destroy this profession.

Originally Posted by Green Grass

The quoted Medscape salaries are lower than the 2010 MGMA data I have seen. I know MGMA is a popular and trusted source for physician salaries.

Of course the 2012 Medscape salaries are lower than the 2010 MGMA data. This is especially true for rads, which faced steep cuts starting in 2010.

Originally Posted by Dumb

I like this breakdown. I wonder how long it'll take for the job market to correct itself, as many PDs I have spoken to said they will be downsizing their resident numbers in the next 5-10 year time frame. If history is any indicator, by the time the current MS4's graduate from residency and fellowship, the market will have responded (decreased rads grads and increased retirees).

Who knows.

The job market looks to be getting a little better. The ACR (the only reliable website to see radiology job ads) has 180 job postings over the past 3 months. Six months ago, there were barely over 100 postings. The postings include some major cities, and some good academic positions (NYU, Penn, Jefferson). This is still a far cry from where it once was, but things certainly look a bit better. The job offers are crap compared to what they used to be for graduating residents, but they are jobs nonetheless.

One of the main reasons cited on AM for the bad job market is that a lot of older radiologists lost their pensions in the stock market crash, so are sticking around longer to save up money they needed to retire (thus leaving hundreds of positions unavailable that would normally have opened up). The comibnation of this, decreasing reimbursements, increasing supply of residents, and fear of not being able to pay for a new employee during the recession led to a perfect storm that really screwed the recent grads. But the older rads have to retire eventually though, and radiologists cannot physically take on more studies than they already are without hiring new members. Hopefully that will be enough to correct for the market.

Originally Posted by cowme

Who knows.
The job market looks to be getting a little better. The ACR (the only reliable website to see radiology job ads) has 180 job postings over the past 3 months. Six months ago, there were barely over 100 postings. The postings include some major cities, and some good academic positions (NYU, Penn, Jefferson). This is still a far cry from where it once was, but things certainly look a bit better. The job offers are crap compared to what they used to be for graduating residents, but they are jobs nonetheless.

http://jobs.acr.org/jobseeker/search/results/

Just got a chance to scroll through these. It seems that the 180 (now 178) postings includes fellowships! lol

One of the main reasons cited on AM for the bad job market is that a lot of older radiologists lost their pensions in the stock market crash, so are sticking around longer to save up money they needed to retire (thus leaving hundreds of positions unavailable that would normally have opened up). The comibnation of this, decreasing reimbursements, increasing supply of residents, and fear of not being able to pay for a new employee during the recession led to a perfect storm that really screwed the recent grads. But the older rads have to retire eventually though, and radiologists cannot physically take on more studies than they already are without hiring new members. Hopefully that will be enough to correct for the market.

Yes, this is my understanding of the job market collapse. It's a classic example of why being contrarian is often correct, as far as market dynamics go. Rads was hypercompetitive when it was perceived to be in a "boom" phase, as otherwise smart applicants were trying to time the market. Now that rads seems to be in a bust, applicants are wary, not realizing that by the time they finish training, market corrections will likely have occurred.

Originally Posted by Dumb

Of course the 2012 Medscape salaries are lower than the 2010 MGMA data. This is especially true for rads, which faced steep cuts starting in 2010.

The quoted "mean" for both sexes for the entire U.S. in the MGMA data for 2010 was $515,354. It was more in some areas of the country and less in others. Plus, although the MGMA data is used to negotiate physician contracts, it is notoriously on the low end of reimbursement rates. Now, Medscape is claiming males making roughly $330,000? That is a 36% drop in pay over the last two years. The fact that everyone on this thread is shocked by a 10% drop in pay over the past year makes it very hard to believe that pay dropped 26% the previous year. I have no doubt that Medscape surveyed these doctors and got their salaries, but I don't think the data they accumulated is accurately displaying the salary for most radiologists.

MGMA is definitely not notoriously on the low end. Radiologists are not averaging half a million per year. Those figures are inflated.

Originally Posted by Dumb

http://jobs.acr.org/jobseeker/search/results/

Just got a chance to scroll through these. It seems that the 180 (now 178) postings includes fellowships! lol




Yes, this is my understanding of the job market collapse. It's a classic example of why being contrarian is often correct, as far as market dynamics go. Rads was hypercompetitive when it was perceived to be in a "boom" phase, as otherwise smart applicants were trying to time the market. Now that rads seems to be in a bust, applicants are wary, not realizing that by the time they finish training, market corrections will likely have occurred.

This is only true insofar as the older folks retire en masse and there aren't too many people in the pipeline waiting to take their place.

Pathology has been in a bust phase for 40 years. Even in the 70s, the career guides were stating that the job market is bad, but optimistically stated that the older people will retire and open it up. But given the glut of paths, many of whom are incompetent FMGs, this hasn't happened, and will not in the foreseeable future.

If radiology keeps filling its ranks with FMGs through the direct stream, it will meet the same fate.

Originally Posted by cowme

MGMA is definitely not notoriously on the low end. Radiologists are not averaging half a million per year. Those figures are inflated.

Agree. That said, it's always good to look at more data. Here's what I cared to look up:

190k - PPCIS 1988 [3]
354k - allied phy 2006* [1]
466k - AMGA 2009? [2]
490k - MGMA 2010
427k - ? 2010 [3]
? k - MGMA 2011
350k - medscape 2011 (negative skew due to non-full timers)
315k - medscape 2012 (negative skew due to non-full timers)
400k - salary.com 2012 (updated monthly, incl bonus) [4]

*years 1-2 201k
>3 354k
max 911k

1. http://www.alliedphysicians.com/sala...ys/physicians/
2. http://www.cejkasearch.com/compensat...ensation-data/
3. http://mdsalaries.blogspot.com/
4. http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/r...waboutyou=true

Originally Posted by cowme

MGMA is definitely not notoriously on the low end. Radiologists are not averaging half a million per year. Those figures are inflated.

MGMA data includes all bonuses, profit sharing, retirement matching, and other benefits. Maybe that skews the data in relation to the other sites.

2010 MGMA for Academic Radiologists: $351,950 (significantly lower than the $515,354 for all radiologists).

2011 MGMA for All Radiologists: $471,253 (vs. $515,354 in 2010 - this is a 9% decrease in pay between 2010 and 2011)

Projected 2012 MGMA for All Radiologists: $428,840 (based on another 9% decrease from the 2011 data)

Originally Posted by Green Grass

MGMA data includes all bonuses, profit sharing, retirement matching, and other benefits. Maybe that skews the data in relation to the other sites.

Here's salary.com's breakdown:

Averages for Physician - Radiology

Core Compensation Median % of Total Base Salary $385,377 77.6%
Bonuses $14,709 3.0%

Value of Benefits Social Security $12,627 2.5%
401K/403B $9,500 1.9%
Disability $2,801 0.6%
Healthcare $6,507 1.3%
Pension $16,000 3.2%
Time Off $49,241 9.9%
Total Compensation $496,762 100%

Originally Posted by Dumb

Here's salary.com's breakdown:

Averages for Physician - Radiology

Core Compensation Median % of Total Base Salary $385,377 77.6%
Bonuses $14,709 3.0%

Value of Benefits Social Security $12,627 2.5%
401K/403B $9,500 1.9%
Disability $2,801 0.6%
Healthcare $6,507 1.3%
Pension $16,000 3.2%
Time Off $49,241 9.9%
Total Compensation $496,762 100%

So that explains it then...MGMA appears exaggerated because it includes more the "perks" of physician reimbursement....