ophthalmology in chicago

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
How is the Job market in Chicago? I was looking at a job Ad was was really humbled by the starting salary

https://secure3.aao.org/professionalchoices/jobdetails.cfm?jid=24686&

Not unusual. Premium location--north shore--in a major city with lots of other doctors training there and interested in working there.

On one hand, it is supply and demand. On the other hand, underpaying a candidate in a city with costly living expenses places a great deal of pressure on the relationship between the employer and associate. If this person is the family breadwinner, quality of life issues arise when there is uncertainty about bonus and total income. Getting a satisfactory living arrangement depends on income and all that is obviously affected by the contract. There is also the issue of the amount of salary revealing the practice's priorities and expectations. If they pay poorly because they can, is the associate seen as a temporary hire whose welfare is secondary to the interests of the owners? Are the owners indifferent to whom they hire, as long as the price is right? Do they anticipate a collegial and mutually respectful relationship when they could be seen as extracting an unfair and under-compensating package? Are they a poorly-managed practice whose owners are unable to pay better? All those issues come into play when a practice seeks to hire at bottom dollar.

Not just a few ophthalmology practices are happy to hire a secondary breadwinner they can keep indefinitely in an employee status and replace at their convenience.

With lowball offers, the other features of the contract particularly come into play: restrictive covenant, benefits, professional expenses, vacation time, bonus threshold and percentage and so forth.
 
.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
i heard the starting salary for general ophtho in the SF bay area is around $120k.

is this a joke? why is optho such a competitive field for med students to enter? i believe last year the average usmle was 235!
 
is this a joke? why is optho such a competitive field for med students to enter? i believe last year the average usmle was 235!

Probably no joke. Crap economy, lots of grads looking every year, SFO is a perennially popular location due to culture/weather appeal of coastal Northern California. They can lowball and frequently do. That isn't true everywhere, though.
 
Why is ophtho residency so competitive? I have been asking myself the same question and so far I have not been able to find an answer.

If you look at the AAO website, most of the starting salaries posted there fall in the $125K - $150K range. This is LOWER than primary care starting average. I have many friends who finished internal medicine or family practice and started in local clinics or as hospitalists

Based on current statistics (e.g. average USMLE Step 1 score) ophthalmology seems to be as competitive to get into as radiology. The residency has a similar level of intensity, similar working hours. Both fields offer similar lifestyles. Now, check the radworking.com website. The average starting salary falls in the $350K - $450 range. 8 - 10 weeks of vacation is standard.

So can anyone explain why is ophthalmology so competitive???
 
is this a joke? why is optho such a competitive field for med students to enter? i believe last year the average usmle was 235!

Hate to tell you, but it's not just ophthalmology, my friend. All fields of medicine suffer financially in such areas. The more demand there is to live there, the lower your starting salary will be. Unfortunately, it doesn't get much better down the road. When you make partner, you also likely see less volume (due to saturation) and bring less in collections than you would in other areas. Then there's the inflated standard of living, so your hard-earned dollars don't go nearly as far. It's all about your priorities. If you want to be a doctor in these high-demand areas, you're going to have to pay for it.
 
Why is ophtho residency so competitive? I have been asking myself the same question and so far I have not been able to find an answer.

If you look at the AAO website, most of the starting salaries posted there fall in the $125K - $150K range. This is LOWER than primary care starting average. I have many friends who finished internal medicine or family practice and started in local clinics or as hospitalists

Based on current statistics (e.g. average USMLE Step 1 score) ophthalmology seems to be as competitive to get into as radiology. The residency has a similar level of intensity, similar working hours. Both fields offer similar lifestyles. Now, check the radworking.com website. The average starting salary falls in the $350K - $450 range. 8 - 10 weeks of vacation is standard.

So can anyone explain why is ophthalmology so competitive???

There is not a perfectly rational reason for this, except that there is a sufficient supply of ophthalmologists to allow it to happen.

The field is very pleasant, with predictable working hours and not overly burdensome call responsibilities (except in remote areas, that can be very different.) There is flexibility in choice of practice specialization but also a very robust generalist practice available in most places. If you like surgery and medicine, a mix of OR and office, not too much hospital work, ophthalmology has all that. Patients generally are very appreciative of how you can help them.

Historically, it paid extraordinarily well, almost ridiculously so, which made it a ripe, early and ultimately perennial target for reductions in third-party payment, now to about one sixth of the former rate for the most common procedures, in constant dollars. Most people have heard about how well ophthalmology used to pay, forgetting about the tense and don't realize that the heyday passed almost a generation ago. Even the boom echo of LASIK has long passed.

I am not trying to sell ophthalmology. It is a great specialty, but you have to want it for the right reasons. Earning big bucks is not the right reason now, and it probably never was. Dermatology it seems has captured that distinction, and good luck to them with all that.
 
It has been shown that income is the most important determinant of competitiveness among medical specialties. The most highly paying specialties (ortho, rads, neurosurgery, derm, plastics) are also most competitive. Ophtho appears to be an outlier: it is extremely competitive, however the income it offers is on the level of (or even less than) the least competitive specialties (FP, IM, Peds, Psych) .


I understand why ophthalmologists have seen a precipitous drop in salaries over time (decreased reimbursements, oversupply and fierce competition from ODs), but I still can't understand why ophthalmology residency is so competitive to get into. It appears that the myth of fabulously wealthy ophthalmologists still lives on among medical students
 
Now, check the radworking.com website. The average starting salary falls in the $350K - $450 range. 8 - 10 weeks of vacation is standard.

Reading stuff like this makes me significantly depressed. Jobs available in EVERY major city in the country, 4 day work week, 8-10 week vacation, nominal buy-ins into groups, no job start with less then 350K... I am such an idiot...
 
Reading stuff like this makes me significantly depressed. Jobs available in EVERY major city in the country, 4 day work week, 8-10 week vacation, nominal buy-ins into groups, no job start with less then 350K... I am such an idiot...


Can someone PLEASE write a letter to Obama asking to redistribute the funds from Rads to Ophtho?

I remember when I applied to Ophtho, it was significantly more competitive to get into a program. Rads has so many more spots compared to Ophtho.

I just can't understand why Rads gets paid 2-3x more than Ophtho!! I mean spine surgery I can understand...but c'mon... it's sitting on your ass reading a scan. And 12 weeks of vacation?!? Can someone please send me back in time so that I can choose Rads instead?
 
Why is ophtho residency so competitive? I have been asking myself the same question and so far I have not been able to find an answer.

If you look at the AAO website, most of the starting salaries posted there fall in the $125K - $150K range. This is LOWER than primary care starting average. I have many friends who finished internal medicine or family practice and started in local clinics or as hospitalists

Based on current statistics (e.g. average USMLE Step 1 score) ophthalmology seems to be as competitive to get into as radiology. The residency has a similar level of intensity, similar working hours. Both fields offer similar lifestyles. Now, check the radworking.com website. The average starting salary falls in the $350K - $450 range. 8 - 10 weeks of vacation is standard.

So can anyone explain why is ophthalmology so competitive???

Alright, you're comparing apples and oranges. You can't compare starting salaries of private practice ophthalmologists with those of hospitalists and especially not with those of radiologists. The setups are completely different! If you really want to compare, you need to look at the setups and consider the median salaries, not just starting. This is a career you're talking about. Starting salaries don't tell the whole story. After that, you have something to talk about.

Hospitalists are hospital employees, not private practitioners. They are fed patients from the hospital system, and can start with quite a load. They also lose income to those same hospitals. Internists and family practitioners in private practice often start out at under 100k, as they have to build up a practice (see below, as per ophthalmologists). Income potential in private practice is (almost) always superior, but you have to deal with the business aspect of medicine. With the complexities and red tape in that arena nowadays, more docs are opting for less pay and fewer headaches. The median salary for internal medicine physicians in Nov 2009 was about 165k (about 5k less for FP), and this averages over employees and private practitioners.

Radiologists sit in front of a computer, sometimes from home, and look at films all day. If you enjoy that, more power to you. You don't usually have to build a practice. You're hooked up to a hospital and just let the films come to you. You can pour over a pretty high volume of films in a day, and unless you own the scanners (less common than it used to be), the overhead is low. Medicare is catching on to this; thus, the recent slashing in radiology reimbursements with the last CMS realignment (median salary in Nov 2009--prior to realignment--was about 360k).

As an ophthalmologist starting private practice, you usually have to build a patient base, which can take a few years. Even when taking over for a retiring doc, you never start with a complete and functional practice. Most practices will actually lose money on a new associate, at least in the 1st year. You will eventually buy in to that practice. Once you are a partner, the income is usually 2-3 times what you make to start (median salary in Nov 2009 was about 260k; note that ophthalmology actually got an increase with the CMS realignment).

Bottom line is this: don't go into medicine (any specialty) to make money. You'll do okay, but the pay isn't what it used to be and will only be getting worse.

While money may have been a factor in the past, ophthalmology is competitive now because there are only about 23k of us in the US and it offers a good mix of clinic and surgery, has manageable call, as well as better than average earning potential. Likewise, there are about 30k radiologists. There are over 160k primary care docs, just counting internists and family practitioners.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
http://www.cejkasearch.com/compensation/amga_physician_compensation_survey.htm


<sigh> No... money isn't the reason to go into Medicine...but geez, 12 weeks of paid vacation for 350K a year! That's a pretty nice deal!

Does anyone have a link to the changes in fees that occurred during the last CMS realignment?

I remember seeing a table of these changes (eg. nuclear med took a big hit). Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
http://www.cejkasearch.com/compensation/amga_physician_compensation_survey.htm


<sigh> No... money isn't the reason to go into Medicine...but geez, 12 weeks of paid vacation for 350K a year! That's a pretty nice deal!

That is a great deal. Currently, rads is an outlier in both starting and partner salaries. In my city, the largest general surgeon group in town pays 120 starting. It isn't just ophthalmologists that are taking big pay cuts.

I think you need to look toward the future when you are trying to figure out what the various specialties will be making. All outliers are eventually cut. Look at cards over the past couple of years. Those guys got killed.
 
Last edited:
http://www.cejkasearch.com/compensation/amga_physician_compensation_survey.htm


<sigh> No... money isn't the reason to go into Medicine...but geez, 12 weeks of paid vacation for 350K a year! That's a pretty nice deal!

Does anyone have a link to the changes in fees that occurred during the last CMS realignment?

I remember seeing a table of these changes (eg. nuclear med took a big hit). Thanks!

Here's a past discussion on SDN:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=646465&highlight=cms

Here's the CMS final rule:
http://www.acponline.org/advocacy/where_we_stand/medicare/impact_table.pdf

Note the full impact of the scheduled reductions (which are to be transitioned to over a 4-year period) are -16% for radiology and +13% for ophthalmology.
 
http://www.cejkasearch.com/compensation/amga_physician_compensation_survey.htm


<sigh> No... money isn't the reason to go into Medicine...but geez, 12 weeks of paid vacation for 350K a year! That's a pretty nice deal!

Does anyone have a link to the changes in fees that occurred during the last CMS realignment?

I remember seeing a table of these changes (eg. nuclear med took a big hit). Thanks!

Back in the day, well before my time, ophthalmologists got paid $2500+ per cataract. Doing say, five procedures a week, working in the office three and a half days, taking 8 weeks off, you still were able to clear $1M in collections per year, back when overhead was low enough to be covering everything at 20% of receipts or less. That schedule meant usually seeing less than 20 patients in the office per full workday. If you worked harder, you could really get rich. People retired set for life in their early 50s. That was the reputation of ophthalmology from the 70s through the 80s. In the early 90s, Medicare got wise and pulled out the knives.

It is never very good to draw too much attention. Radiology is doing that now.
 
Looks like my question has just been answered indirectly. One poster wants to be sent back in time so that she/he could choose radiology instead. Another poster says "I am such an idiot"....
This simply implies that ophthalmology is so competitive because many med students make their career choices based on limited information. Sure, there are people that wouldn't do anything but ophtho even if someone offered them 2 - 3 x $$. But it's hard to believe that there is so many of them to keep ophtho so competitive.

When I went into ophtho (and for a long time I couldn't decide between ophtho and rads) I knew that radiology pays more, but I didn't know that the difference is so huge. Seeing the majority of offers at $125K - $150K and nicer metro areas paying even less than that I now know that my decision was also not fully informed. I also came to realize that this way I made my own contribution to keeping ophthalmology so competitive. I can only hope that by the time I finish my residency Obama Care will make the income difference disappear. So far rads salaries continue to rise and their vacation time stays at 10 - 12 weeks or more despite the realignment in CMS fee schedule. I also read recently that a new OD school will be opening soon... or was it just a bad dream I had...
 
Here's the CMS final rule:
http://www.acponline.org/advocacy/where_we_stand/medicare/impact_table.pdf

Note the full impact of the scheduled reductions (which are to be transitioned to over a 4-year period) are -16% for radiology and +13% for ophthalmology.[/QUOTE]


Even with the 16% reductions, radiologists will still have it pretty sweet. Based on the 2009 AMGA compensation survey, the median starting salary for diagnostic radiology (IR is even higher) is $390K. $390K - 16% = $327.6K.
 
eyerat said:
Even with the 16% reductions, radiologists will still have it pretty sweet. Based on the 2009 AMGA compensation survey, the median starting salary for diagnostic radiology (IR is even higher) is $390K. $390K - 16% = $327.6K.

Yes, they are paid more (at least for now), but you can't look only at starting salaries (see my prior post). Personally, you couldn't pay me enough to do radiology. :sleep: Everyone's entitled to an opinion, though.

If you're in it for money, try ortho spine. I hear they average close to 700k.
 
Alright, you're comparing apples and oranges. You can't compare starting salaries of private practice ophthalmologists with those of hospitalists and especially not with those of radiologists. The setups are completely different! If you really want to compare, you need to look at the setups and consider the median salaries, not just starting. This is a career you're talking about. Starting salaries don't tell the whole story. After that, you have something to talk about.

Hospitalists are hospital employees, not private practitioners. They are fed patients from the hospital system, and can start with quite a load. They also lose income to those same hospitals. Internists and family practitioners in private practice often start out at under 100k, as they have to build up a practice (see below, as per ophthalmologists). Income potential in private practice is (almost) always superior, but you have to deal with the business aspect of medicine. With the complexities and red tape in that arena nowadays, more docs are opting for less pay and fewer headaches. The median salary for internal medicine physicians in Nov 2009 was about 165k (about 5k less for FP), and this averages over employees and private practitioners.

Radiologists sit in front of a computer, sometimes from home, and look at films all day. If you enjoy that, more power to you. You don't usually have to build a practice. You're hooked up to a hospital and just let the films come to you. You can pour over a pretty high volume of films in a day, and unless you own the scanners (less common than it used to be), the overhead is low. Medicare is catching on to this; thus, the recent slashing in radiology reimbursements with the last CMS realignment (median salary in Nov 2009--prior to realignment--was about 360k).

As an ophthalmologist starting private practice, you usually have to build a patient base, which can take a few years. Even when taking over for a retiring doc, you never start with a complete and functional practice. Most practices will actually lose money on a new associate, at least in the 1st year. You will eventually buy in to that practice. Once you are a partner, the income is usually 2-3 times what you make to start (median salary in Nov 2009 was about 260k; note that ophthalmology actually got an increase with the CMS realignment).

Bottom line is this: don't go into medicine (any specialty) to make money. You'll do okay, but the pay isn't what it used to be and will only be getting worse.

While money may have been a factor in the past, ophthalmology is competitive now because there are only about 23k of us in the US and it offers a good mix of clinic and surgery, has manageable call, as well as better than average earning potential. Likewise, there are about 30k radiologists. There are over 160k primary care docs, just counting internists and family practitioners.


This is one of the best explanations I've read of why starting salaries in ophtho are so low. Radiologists, anesthesiologists, etc. don't have to go out and schmmoze with other physicians to get patients. As surgeons we do. And like any business it takes time to build a practice. But once you're partner, which is pretty much 2 years standard, your income double or triples. It depends on what salary survey you read but at the Academy meeting a couple of years ago they quoted the median general ophtho salary at about $340k. Retina is much higher. So while this is not quite up to par with radiology salaries, it's closer than you think. One more point to remember is that ophthalmologists in general work fewer hours per week than radiologists. If you worked 25% more hours per week as an ophthalmologist I'm sure you would make more too.
 
Last edited:
Radiologists sit in front of a computer, sometimes from home, and look at films all day. If you enjoy that, more power to you. You don't usually have to build a practice. You're hooked up to a hospital and just let the films come to you.

I have always seen that as a vulnerability in radiology. With NightHawks and other remote reader services now, it is only a matter of time before automated reading becomes commonplace with only selected studies meeting the eyes of a living, breathing radiologist somewhere.

And somewhere could be anywhere a high-capacity digital image could be sent. The protections of state laws requiring readouts by licensed radiologists are paper protections, sooner or later someone will show in a statistically-significant and powerful study that there is no difference between a reader in Walnut Creek and Warsaw. At least for non-interventional work, radiology will be first to fall to globalization facilitated by the web. Once that happens, cost pressures will drive down reimbursements to a lower, global level. Insurers will see to that. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that they would seek to fund such a study.
 
I also read recently that a new OD school will be opening soon... or was it just a bad dream I had...

Unfortunately, no, not a bad dream. Three new OD schools opened last year (one in Texas, one in Arizona, and one in California) and North Carolina has been trying to start one for the past 6 years.:eek: Very oversaturated market in most places, but the schools make money so more doors keep opening.
 
I want to thank everyone who contributed to this thread! I know money isn't everything, but I do think it is reasonable to expect a certain income based on your level of education. I'm not sure if I will be applying to optho anymore, in fact i'm not sure what i'm interested in anymore :(

I have 2 optho publications and a couple of solid connections.. hopefully i can translate this into a different field. Please PM me if you'd like to share your insights with me. thank you!
 
speyeder said:
One more point to remember is that ophthalmologists in general work fewer hours per week than radiologists. If you worked 25% more hours per week as an ophthalmologist I'm sure you would make more too.

Yes, excellent point. You'd have to ask a radiologist about their hours, but I work 4.5 days per week, no weekends, share call Q6wk (went in on weekends less than 5 times over the past year; most issues can be handled by phone). I'd say that's a pretty nice lifestyle for the pay. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I want to thank everyone who contributed to this thread! I know money isn't everything, but I do think it is reasonable to expect a certain income based on your level of education. I'm not sure if I will be applying to optho anymore, in fact i'm not sure what i'm interested in anymore :(

I have 2 optho publications and a couple of solid connections.. hopefully i can translate this into a different field. Please PM me if you'd like to share your insights with me. thank you!

You should definitely get as much information as possible before making a decision. While money is a factor to be considered, perhaps more important are lifestyle and job market. Regarding the former, a friend once told me that no matter how much you may love your chosen specialty right now, after 10 years or so, it's more like a job. Sad, but usually true (with most any career, not just medicine). Regarding the latter, if you have a geographic restriction, you need to make sure you aren't going to have trouble finding solid employment in your chosen specialty. Some areas are more saturated with certain specialties than others. Do a little checking. It's unlikely the job landscape will change markedly between now and when you finish residency +/- fellowship. Best of luck to you.
 
Yes, excellent point. You'd have to ask a radiologist about their hours, but I work 4.5 days per week, no weekends, share call Q6wk (went in on weekends less than 5 times over the past year; most issues can be handled by phone). I'd say that's a pretty nice lifestyle for the pay. :D

The radiologists I know usually work 8 - 10 hours a day. Call varies depending on the size of the group and many other factors. Some groups don't use nighthawk services which mans that they have to provide night coverage themselves. They work hard but they also make more. Most groups use nighthawk to cover nights and share evening (usually from 5 p.m. to 8 or 10 p.m.) and weekend call. This means 50 - 55 hour weeks on average. One important lifestyle factor is that vacation is 8 weeks minimum.

I'm curious how it compares with a schedule of an average private practice ophthalmologist?
 
The radiologists I know usually work 8 - 10 hours a day. Call varies depending on the size of the group and many other factors. Some groups don't use nighthawk services which mans that they have to provide night coverage themselves. They work hard but they also make more. Most groups use nighthawk to cover nights and share evening (usually from 5 p.m. to 8 or 10 p.m.) and weekend call. This means 50 - 55 hour weeks on average. One important lifestyle factor is that vacation is 8 weeks minimum.

I'm curious how it compares with a schedule of an average private practice ophthalmologist?

Ugh, 8-10 hours a day looking at films? No way I could do that. Maybe interventional radiology, but forget diagnostic. As they say: different colored jelly beans.

Here we go...

Disclaimer: I'm only a year into my practice (but we have been talking starting statistics, yes?).

Here are more details about my schedule: my full days are roughly 8:30-5pm. Sometimes, I finish closer to 4:30, but I've worked past 5:30 on rare occasions. About 30 min for lunch, primarily because of staff breaks (I usually eat at my computer). That's about 37-40 hrs/wk of actual work. Again, no weekends. My 1/2 day off is Thurs am. Occasionally get in a round of golf before clinic, if the weather's nice. I have 3 weeks of vacation a year, plus a week of CME, and another 8 days of paid holidays. I can also take 5 paid sick days and 2 personal days. Haven't used much leave at all though, as I'm still in practice-building mode (enabled me to exceed my 1st year productivity goal by 30%, making for a nice bonus). I don't expect my hours to change much as my practice builds, however. I have scattered gaps in my days currently, as my schedule doesn't fill every day.

Numbers will vary depending on the source, but those I listed in a prior post work out to radiologists making about 38% more median salary (pre-realignment) than ophthalmologists. Don't know if this 8 weeks minimum vacation you mentioned includes holidays. I assume radiologists have to work some holidays. If I used all of my days, that would be 7 weeks (using 5 day weeks). I'm also working 10-15 hours less a week. That works out to about a week (40-60 hours) less per month compared to the radiology hours you provided. I think I have it pretty darn good. :D
 
Last edited:
Ugh, 8-10 hours a day looking at films? No way I could do that. Maybe interventional radiology, but forget diagnostic. As they say: different colored jelly beans.

Here we go...

Disclaimer: I'm only a year into my practice (but we have been talking starting statistics, yes?).

Here are more details about my schedule: my full days are roughly 8:30-5pm. Sometimes, I finish closer to 4:30, but I've worked past 5:30 on rare occasions. About 30 min for lunch, primarily because of staff breaks (I usually eat at my computer). That's about 37-40 hrs/wk of actual work. Again, no weekends. My 1/2 day off is Thurs am. Occasionally get in a round of golf before clinic, if the weather's nice. I have 3 weeks of vacation a year, plus a week of CME, and another 8 days of paid holidays. I can also take 5 paid sick days and 2 personal days. Haven't used much leave at all though, as I'm still in practice-building mode. I don't expect my hours to change much as my practice builds, however. I have scattered gaps in my days currently, as my schedule doesn't fill every day.

Numbers will vary depending on the source, but those I listed in a prior post work out to radiologists making about 38% more median salary (pre-realignment) than ophthalmologists. Don't know if this 8 weeks minimum vacation you mentioned includes holidays. I assume radiologists have to work some holidays. If I used all of my days, that would be 7 weeks (using 5 day weeks). I'm also working 10-15 hours less a week. That works out to about a week (40-60 hours) less per month compared to the radiology hours you provided. I think I have it pretty darn good. :D


I wouldn't mind a 38% pay raise right now. Or maybe a 50% pay raise if I did IR.

To the med student who is considering which specialty to choose: no matter what you choose, your specialty will be just a "job". The "coolness" of Ophtho has already worn off for me. Yes, it's fun improving people's vision with cataract surgery, etc... but after awhile it gets very routine. For me, that "coolness" factor doesn't outweigh the aggravation of taking care of 40-50 other patients during the day that are complaining about seeing only 20/30 or some foreign body sensation, etc.

At least radiologists don't have to deal with those people and make 40-50% more money starting off. Trust me, money *is* a big deal especially after you escape med school (where money is sometimes considered a taboo subject).

I think we should all write Congress and tell them to shift more of that 38% from Rads over to Ophtho. C'mon, we are talking about one of the most intricate parts of the body! Anyone else agree with me? :D
 
racheleye said:
I wouldn't mind a 38% pay raise right now. Or maybe a 50% pay raise if I did IR.

To the med student who is considering which specialty to choose: no matter what you choose, your specialty will be just a "job". The "coolness" of Ophtho has already worn off for me. Yes, it's fun improving people's vision with cataract surgery, etc... but after awhile it gets very routine. For me, that "coolness" factor doesn't outweigh the aggravation of taking care of 40-50 other patients during the day that are complaining about seeing only 20/30 or some foreign body sensation, etc.

At least radiologists don't have to deal with those people and make 40-50% more money starting off. Trust me, money *is* a big deal especially after you escape med school (where money is sometimes considered a taboo subject).

I think we should all write Congress and tell them to shift more of that 38% from Rads over to Ophtho. C'mon, we are talking about one of the most intricate parts of the body! Anyone else agree with me? :D

Radiology definitely has the edge on patient contact issues, but it's too far to the other extreme for my taste. Unless you're an interventionalist, you don't interact with patients at all. It's just you, the film caddy/computer, and your dictaphone. Couldn't pay me enough to do that. I'd rather deal with some difficult patients. I expected that going into med school.
 
Visionary said:
Don't know if this 8 weeks minimum vacation you mentioned includes holidays. I assume radiologists have to work some holidays. If I used all of my days, that would be 7 weeks (using 5 day weeks). I'm also working 10-15 hours less a week. That works out to about a week (40-60 hours) less per month compared to the radiology hours you provided. I think I have it pretty darn good. :D

Calculated it out. Between holidays and leave, I only took about 3 weeks off last year. Even if a radiologist, with the above hours (let's go low at 50 hours/week), took 10 weeks of vacation over the same period, I (going high at 40 hours/week) still worked about 100 hours less. It's all relative.
 
Last edited:
Calculated it out. Between holidays and leave, I only took about 3 weeks off last year. Even if a radiologist, with the above hours (let's go low at 50 hours/week), took 10 weeks of vacation over the same period, I (going high at 40 hours/week) still worked about 100 hours less. It's all relative.


That's great, but the question is if that's average for an ophthalmologist. If you work less than average, your salary is likely less that ophthalmology average although I truly hope it is not the case. The radiologist I know have the 8 - 10 weeks of vacation IN ADDITION to holidays and sick leave. Their salaries fall close to radiology average which for 2009 was $438K for diagnostic. The $360K you referred to must be some old data. Just browsing the radworking listings it seems like $360K is more like the starting average.
 
It would be interesting to compare ACADEMIC salaries. Salary data are public for some universities (e.g. U of Missouri Columbia, U of Michigan, U of Illinois). You can find how much a specific person earned last year.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/nov/22/university-employees-who-earn-100000-or-more/

At U of Missouri Columbia assistant professor level positions seem to pay $215K - $225K for radiology. It is depressing to see ophthalmology assistant professor getting $112,5K. Rads seem to make 2x at each rank (assistant prof., associate prof. and full prof.) I am pretty sure that academic rads also get 8 weeks of vacation standard. I know for sure that is not the case for ophtho.
 
It would be interesting to compare ACADEMIC salaries. Salary data are public for some universities (e.g. U of Missouri Columbia, U of Michigan, U of Illinois). You can find how much a specific person earned last year.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/nov/22/university-employees-who-earn-100000-or-more/

At U of Missouri Columbia assistant professor level positions seem to pay $215K - $225K for radiology. It is depressing to see ophthalmology assistant professor getting $112,5K. Rads seem to make 2x at each rank (assistant prof., associate prof. and full prof.) I am pretty sure that academic rads also get 8 weeks of vacation standard. I know for sure that is not the case for ophtho.


Are you sure the $112.5k is for full time though? Could be that this person is part time academic, part time private. I've seen similar arrangements to this. Or maybe it's part time clinical, part time research. You only get paid for the clinical portion. The research portion is funded by grants.
 
Are you sure the $112.5k is for full time though? Could be that this person is part time academic, part time private. I've seen similar arrangements to this. Or maybe it's part time clinical, part time research. You only get paid for the clinical portion. The research portion is funded by grants.


I sure hope it is part-time; however I've seen salaries like this one at other institutions that make their lists public.
 
eyerat said:
That's great, but the question is if that's average for an ophthalmologist. If you work less than average, your salary is likely less that ophthalmology average although I truly hope it is not the case. The radiologist I know have the 8 - 10 weeks of vacation IN ADDITION to holidays and sick leave. Their salaries fall close to radiology average which for 2009 was $438K for diagnostic. The $360K you referred to must be some old data. Just browsing the radworking listings it seems like $360K is more like the starting average.

I doubt you'll find a true average, but I'll tell you that my stats are comparable to the other six docs in my group (though years in practice vary considerably). My point was that if you are going to tout the vacation, you also need to look at total hours worked. Only then can you appreciate the relative value of the vacation time.

As for the salary estimates, they will vary depending on the source, but my data were median career salaries from Nov 2009 (salary.com).

Hey, I'm not trying to sell you on ophthalmology. I've made my choice, and I'm perfectly happy. Others may not be. If you want to do radiology, go do it. Just don't do it based on average salary and vacation numbers, without knowing what they truly reflect. I'm sure there are also radiologists out there who wish they'd done something else. For some, the grass is always greener.
 
It would be interesting to compare ACADEMIC salaries. Salary data are public for some universities (e.g. U of Missouri Columbia, U of Michigan, U of Illinois). You can find how much a specific person earned last year.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/nov/22/university-employees-who-earn-100000-or-more/

At U of Missouri Columbia assistant professor level positions seem to pay $215K - $225K for radiology. It is depressing to see ophthalmology assistant professor getting $112,5K. Rads seem to make 2x at each rank (assistant prof., associate prof. and full prof.) I am pretty sure that academic rads also get 8 weeks of vacation standard. I know for sure that is not the case for ophtho.

Now you really are comparing apples and oranges. You have to know the relative clinical/research components, and they vary widely. I know some academic docs who have 75% buy-outs for research. That means most of their "salary" is paid for by grant funding. They only spend about 1.5 days/week in clinic. Others are primarily clinical. The numbers you're looking at are useless for purposes of comparison. One thing you should know, though, is that academic pay, on the whole, is significantly less than private practice, regardless of specialty.
 
As a current ophtho resident this thread is quite painful to read. I have friends that are attendings in both ophtho and rads, and the 2-3 fold salary difference is definitely there. And yes, it's not fair. And infuriating.

The reality is that as physicians we are paid what we are because of a myriad of factors, none of which have to do with what we might deserve. To me, the most disturbing aspect of medical reimbursement is how pediatricians/pediatric specialists get paid. IMHO, they should be paid MORE than adult practitioners. General peds starting salaries are often under $100k in large cities, with specialists making much less than their adult counterparts. Chew on that, and maybe things won't seem as bad anymore.

Also, I think radiology is in for some MAJOR cuts in the next 5 years. Imaging was the fastest growing expenditure in medicine the last decade, and will be the hardest hit as the government looks for where to skim the fat.
 
This thread has become a little rediculous, but it seems that we have come to the conclusion that ophthalmologists are either being under-paid or radiologist are over-paid.

Not to add fuel to the fire, but it requires about 10 minutes in a neuro-ophthalmology clinic with much pathology to come to the conclusion that one of these must be the case. In my experience about 50% of neuro-ophthalmology is re-interpreting "normal" MRI studies of the CNS. I am not sure what a radiologists gets paid to read and MRI study with the summary "clinical correlation required", but I am sure it is more than the $150 the neuro-ophthalmologists gets for actually making the diagnoses and finding the actual lesion on the scan.
 
I am not sure what a radiologists gets paid to read and MRI study with the summary "clinical correlation required", but I am sure it is more than the $150 the neuro-ophthalmologists gets for actually making the diagnoses and finding the actual lesion on the scan.

No need to make this into a radiologist-bashing thread. While I couldn't see myself as a radiologist, I hold no ill will toward them.
 
Rads has been one of the most over-paid specialties in medicine for awhile now. We all knew that when we were med students, but still didn't chose it.

Ophtho has definitley been hit very hard by reimbursement reductions. But our main problem is over-saturation. Radiologists haven't over-produced radiologists. Likewise, smart professions like urology and derm haven't over-produced the number of specialists needed in their fields. But then again, the threat of optometrists encroaching on our turf hasn't allowed us the luxury of keeping our numbers small like urologists and dermatologists do.
 
I actually feel there is a shortage of ophthalmologists in the non- Chicago/LA/San Fran/ New Yorks of the country. This will only get worse in the coming 10 years. The rise in the numbers of optometrists has helped in the delivery of eye care in the not so sexy parts of the country. However, I do not feel the over-saturation in larger cities has had any role in the drop in re-imbursements. This occurred because we became better and more efficient at the surgeries (some became very, very good - these were the folks that cause the re-imbursement reductions as medicare did not feel it was right that someone would be making such a salary no matter how hard they worked).

The true reason for low STARTING salaries in Chicago is 1) there may be too many docs in the area -therefore some may struggle to get patients/surgeries, but MORE IMPORTANTLY 2) With reimbursements where they are, one must do many cases quickly and have low complications to earn a decent salary.

In other words, for an ophthalmologist at any stage of his/her career to make what a radiologists can make out of training, the ophthalmologist has to be very, very, very, very busy in the clinic and O.R. Not all ophthalmology graduates will be able to produce at a level to justify a salary of $300,000 - $400,000 at any point in their career. Therefore, it would be strange for an ophthalmologist to request such a salary - especially during their first year of practice.
 
You guys are only looking at STARTING salaries. Most of these offers are from private groups. They lose money when they hire an associate at first. Meaning they take home less money. Most will have a structured bonus where when you meet 2.5-3 x your base salary you start getting paid well. Other fields start with a built in patient base so you are busy from day one, hence higher starting salaries.
I spent more time driving around taking to primary care doctors and OD's my first 2-3 years in practice. I actually started my own and didn't pay myself at first.
But now I'm making multiples of that. Well more than what anesthesia and radiologist make and on par with what top ortho surgeons make.

You will never make great money as a salaried associate. You need to be an owner, invested in surgery centers, and take good care of your patients so they send their friends and family to you. Find a practice that wants a partner not someone to make money off of. Or start your own. I did it. It's a lot of work but I promise you lots of ophthalmologists are making 7 figures.

It's a great field, it's just hard to get established. And more so in "desirable" areas. Move somewhere else. Your quality of life will be better and you won't be surrounded by unproductive people your tax dollars are supporting.
 
Top