Doctor's Salaries Actually Going Up!!!

[wanabdoc]

I have read on several boards including SDN, that physician salaries are on the decline or will be shortly over the past years for various factors such as HMOs. In our med school's library, we had the AMA data and it seems to indicated that since 1982, physician salaries have actually increased 10-40%!

Physician Salaries Trend

Please note, these figures are pre-tax, POST-expense which from my understanding includes malpractice.

Also, they are inflation adjusted, as shown in the chart.

Is everyone on these boards doomsayers and hopelessly neurotic about their future?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Law2Doc]

I have read on several boards including SDN, that physician salaries are on the decline or will be shortly over the past years for various factors such as HMOs. In our med school's library, we had the AMA data and it seems to indicated that since 1982, physician salaries have actually increased 10-40%!

Physician Salaries Trend

Please note, these figures are pre-tax, POST-expense which from my understanding includes malpractice.

Also, they are inflation adjusted, as shown in the chart.

Is everyone on these boards doomsayers and hopelessly neurotic about their future?

Um, The NY Times and other publications (repeated in AMSA's The New Physician), last year (2006) published reports of an 8 year salary study which clearly showed physician salaries dropping an average of 7% over the period (which BTW would be the latter half of your data years), while other professions increased about 7% during the same interval. And objectively, many specialties (esp primary care) will tell you they are earning less today than they were a decade ago. So I tend to doubt your data. Or perhaps your data goes back 20 years because the latter ten were dismal.

 

[wanabdoc]

Um, I don't know what you think you are linking but it doesn't appear to be salary data. But even if it were, it is irrelevant (and/or likely not inflation adjusted). The NY Times and other publications (repeated in AMSA's The New Physician), last year (2006) published reports of a 10 year salary study which clearly showed physician salaries dropping an average of 7% over the decade (which BTW would be the latter half of your data years), while other professions increased about 7% during the same interval. You of course could go back decades to a time when a dollar wasn't worth a dollar and show an increase (which is, I suspect, what you were trying to do if your link posted). But that is not a realistic approach.

1) It IS inflation adjusted, according to the Consumer Price Index (standard measure of inflation for those who were not business majors) published by the goverment website.

2) The data does end in 2000 because I could not find a reliable across the board data source (AMGA is only for groups, Salary-Wiz is not scientific, etc) but I am still looking into this

3) I listed the sources, I think they are in most med school libraries.

4) The New York Times is not a reliable data source.

5) These are after-expense incomes, so it takes into account that overhead expenses have increased.

 

[wanabdoc]

Disclaimer: I am not trying to be arrogant, and if someone shows me with reliable data I am wrong, then I stand corrected. Most of the information I have found on the web is either anecdotal (my friends wife earns 350k as a new OB/GYN or I know a guy who started at 65k in peds), unscientific (Salary-Wiz), or not applicable to all physicians (such as AMGA.)

I just want to get a real idea of what is happening, not everyones biased opinion (the doomsdayers quoting the lost possible number and moneymongers quoting the highest.)

peace

 

[Law2Doc]

1) It IS inflation adjusted, according to the Consumer Price Index (standard measure of inflation for those who were not business majors) published by the goverment website.

2) The data does end in 2000 because I could not find a reliable across the board data source (AMGA is only for groups, Salary-Wiz is not scientific, etc) but I am still looking into this

3) I listed the sources, I think they are in most med school libraries.

4) The New York Times is not a reliable data source.

5) These are after-expense incomes, so it takes into account that overhead expenses have increased.

See my revised post once your link came up. I suspect that either the latter years of your data were not as good as the former, or the expenses are a lot higher now than then, so in real dollars, the trend is down, not up, over the last decade. As for #4, the NYTimes and other articles cited a study which was a reliable data source. I'm sure skilled computer folks can find the article since the times archives stuff online.

You can believe what you want, but the trend over the last decade is down, not up. This is due largely to insurance reimbursement issues - the big change in the profession in this time period.

 

[wanabdoc]

Or perhaps your data goes back 20 years because the latter ten were dismal.

That could be true, I'm going to check it out tonight to see

 

[Law2Doc]

That could be true, I'm going to check it out tonight to see

Here's a link to one of the Times articles - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/b...gin&adxnnlx=1196542865-DDQ7laJbXmKGjh4Qv7kkXA

I thought there was another as well.
Anyhow, the Chairman of the AMA in that article seems to confirm that the trend is down, which makes your AMA data a bit suspect, don't you think?

 

[Taurus]

Isn't it rather short-sighted to be relying just on a Google spreadsheet for your information?

 

[SanDiegoSOD]

I have read on several boards including SDN, that physician salaries are on the decline or will be shortly over the past years for various factors such as HMOs. In our med school's library, we had the AMA data and it seems to indicated that since 1982, physician salaries have actually increased 10-40%!
\

So physician reimbursement per patient or per procedure has gone done significantly over the past few decades, but average physician income hasnt... why is this? Because doctors have made up for declining reimbursement by massively increasing the volume of procedures done on patients. Most doctors are rewarded on a fee-for-service basis and are therefore paid for the volume of procedures/appointments, regardless of quality (and even sometimes necessity of procedures). This is a simplification of the situation, but its easy to see where this trend has led us: doctors spending less time with their patients and doing an excessive number of procedures on each one, while both doctor and patient satisfaction has declined. It pretty much sucks for everyone involved.

 

[SnowTown]

...
It pretty much sucks for everyone involved.

Except for the insurance company!!!

 

[Law2Doc]

This is a simplification of the situation, but its easy to see where this trend has led us: doctors spending less time with their patients and doing an excessive number of procedures on each one, while both doctor and patient satisfaction has declined. It pretty much sucks for everyone involved.

Some FPs will probably tell you that the time per patient hasn't gone down as much as the hours per their day have gone up. However you do it, you have to now see more patients per day to earn the same income as you did a few years ago. It's all about throughput. And that's not the kind of adjustment you can keep making as reimbursements continue to decline though -- there are only so many hours in the day and only so short an interval you can spend with a patient without creating big liability for missing things.
So while this 7-10% decline cited in the above Times article was already buffered by increased patient load (and would have been much greater if the doctors hadn't adjusted their practices), the next decade of declines probably can't be. If this trend continues, expect some hard hits.

 

[TMP-SMX]

Many primary care physicians are adding urgent care jobs to add some easier income.

 

[H_Caulfield]

OP, I decided your link was useless as soon as I saw the figures for "surgury."

 

[TRAMD]

OP, I decided your link was useless as soon as I saw the figures for "surgury."

What do you have against surgury? This is a new and exciting field and med students in-the-know are applying in record numbers!

 

[wanabdoc]

OP, I decided your link was useless as soon as I saw the figures for "surgury."

Ahh yes, the spelling nerds attack,

Even Jim spells it "Surgury"
Jim


BTW, any med student who idolizes House is going to end up like Becker

 

[TRAMD]

Ahh yes, the spelling nerds attack,

Even Jim spells it "Surgury"
Jim


BTW, any med student who idolizes House is going to end up like Becker

I can forgive misspelling but that is pretty bad . . .

Who the heck is Jim? The world's greatest speller? Obviously not. I just learned about a new website and I also just learned a new website to ignore.

I think House is a stupid show. I have no idea who Becker is.

Man, I am getting crabby and REALLY sarcastic. Time for bed.

 

[wanabdoc]

I can forgive misspelling but that is pretty bad . . .

Who the heck is Jim? The world's greatest speller? Obviously not. I just learned about a new website and I also just learned a new website to ignore.

I think House is a stupid show. I have no idea who Becker is.

Man, I am getting crabby and REALLY sarcastic. Time for bed.

lol, I wasn't quoting you, your avatar isn't House. Obviously I was joking about Jim, and yes Surgury is a terrible misspelling! Chill dude.

 

[deleted77919]

Same thing with "Phychiatry" is that someone who completes a dual residency in PM&R and Psychiatry?

 

[TRAMD]

lol, I wasn't quoting you, your avatar isn't House. Obviously I was joking about Jim, and yes Surgury is a terrible misspelling! Chill dude.

Oh, it was late and I was tired. I wasn't "hot" though so no need to "chill".

 

[popbirch]

The data I have seen seem to agree with the fact that physician salaries are going up, but they aren't keeping pace with inflation. So in proportion to other professions increases in salary physicians aren't increasing like other professions. Which is often misinterpretted as physicians salaries are decreasing, but in reality its just that physicians just aren't increasing at the same rate as inflation or other professions.

 

[Drogba]

The data I have seen seem to agree with the fact that physician salaries are going up, but they aren't keeping pace with inflation. So in proportion to other professions increases in salary physicians aren't increasing like other professions. Which is often misinterpretted as physicians salaries are decreasing, but in reality its just that physicians just aren't increasing at the same rate as inflation or other professions.

If physician salaries aren't increasing as fast as inflation then the real wages are decreasing...

 

[wanabdoc]

The data I have seen seem to agree with the fact that physician salaries are going up, but they aren't keeping pace with inflation. So in proportion to other professions increases in salary physicians aren't increasing like other professions. Which is often misinterpretted as physicians salaries are decreasing, but in reality its just that physicians just aren't increasing at the same rate as inflation or other professions.

Where did you see this data?

 

[osli]

I'd be happy if salaries just stayed reasonably close to covering inflation over the next decade. If that happens, they my ginormous student debt will be all the more manageable.

 

[deleted77919]

I'd be happy if salaries just stayed reasonably close to covering inflation over the next decade. If that happens, they my ginormous student debt will be all the more manageable.

I suppose you could cross your fingers for a complete financial meltdown. Say, 50% inflation per year for a couple of years, hope physician income keeps pace with inflation, and then your student debt will be nothing!

 

[Law2Doc]

The data I have seen seem to agree with the fact that physician salaries are going up, but they aren't keeping pace with inflation. So in proportion to other professions increases in salary physicians aren't increasing like other professions. Which is often misinterpretted as physicians salaries are decreasing, but in reality its just that physicians just aren't increasing at the same rate as inflation or other professions.

Losing ground to inflation is considered a declining salary in real terms. You have the same money but it buys less. So you have to work longer hours to maintain the same buying power.

However I think the data actually goes beyond a mere lag behind inflation -- reimbursements are, in fact, going down, and more and more of physician income is dependant on reimbursements each year. Given that landscape, anyone can do the math, either hours must go up, or salaries go down. Up to now the hours in things like FP have been increased over the last few years, so the loss of salary dollars has been, to some extent, buffered on the backs of doctors working longer days. This cannot continue (nobody is going to work beyond a certain number of hours/day) and so if the trend continues, the buffer will be lost and the real decline will be more visible.

 

[popbirch]

I understand that not keeping up with inflation equates to less buying power per dollar you make. The point I was trying to make is that the actual wages aren't decreasing, ie from 100,000/yr to 90,000/yr. But the 100,000/yr doesn't buy as much anymore.


http://www.hschange.com/CONTENT/851/

for example this report shows avg. surgeon salary going from 245k to 271K/yr from '95 to '03. which when adjusted for inflation equates to -8.2% change over that time period.

One major flaw with all of the way these things are reported though is through surveys. Which are frequently unreliable especially in the arena of a persons salary.

There are studies like this that show similar data all over the place.

 

[Law2Doc]

One major flaw with all of the way these things are reported though is through surveys. Which are frequently unreliable especially in the arena of a persons salary.

Actually, while I agree survey data is imperfect data, it more often than not overestimates salaries. Folks who are proud of their salaries are more likely to respond than folks who are ashamed of them. I certainly saw this to be the case in my prior career. The response rate of big firm lawyers in annual salary surveys pretty consistently tended to be higher than less well compensated small firm employees. Kind of the way on sites like MDApplicants.com, you'd think everyone has a 3.8/38. Self selecting data tends to be skewed high.

In terms of the hours, while some data in your link suggests that the hours stayed pretty similar but the time per patient decreased (which is possible), this too would be an unsustainable buffer, and if the trends continue, you will see real declines in salaries in the subsequent periods.

 

[JacobSilge]

Actually, while I agree survey data is imperfect data, it more often than not overestimates salaries. Folks who are proud of their salaries are more likely to respond than folks who are ashamed of them. I certainly saw this to be the case in my prior career. The response rate of big firm lawyers in annual salary surveys pretty consistently tended to be higher than less well compensated small firm employees. Kind of the way on sites like MDApplicants.com, you'd think everyone has a 3.8/38. Self selecting data tends to be skewed high.

In terms of the hours, while some data in your link suggests that the hours stayed pretty similar but the time per patient decreased (which is possible), this too would be an unsustainable buffer, and if the trends continue, you will see real declines in salaries in the subsequent periods.

Hmm. While this does make perfect sense for Lawyers or any other professional who is being paid via market value, I would think that physicians would have have an incentive to underestimate since they would want to reduce the public perception of the "rich doctor" since payments for physician services are largely set by the government. People would be more likely to blame physicians for health care costs if they see them all making $500,000 per year than if they see $100,000 per year. This is probably also why the JAMA survey would show an underestimate while the recruiting surveys would be showing overestimates.

 

[wanabdoc]

Hmm. While this does make perfect sense for Lawyers or any other professional who is being paid via market value, I would think that physicians would have have an incentive to underestimate since they would want to reduce the public perception of the "rich doctor" since payments for physician services are largely set by the government. People would be more likely to blame physicians for health care costs if they see them all making $500,000 per year than if they see $100,000 per year. This is probably also why the JAMA survey would show an underestimate while the recruiting surveys would be showing overestimates.

I have wondered about this also, if all doctors start crying about how there salaries are so low, this would reduce that image.

Every time I read a story about doctors leaving Illinois because of malpractice or medical students with $700k debt, I cheer it on! By underreporting salaries and compensation it can only help physicians in the future.

 

[DrBubbles]

Hi, there. I don't doubt the data from 1982-2000--it's probably pretty credible. However,

1) I am under the impression that salary increases have recently not been increasing at the same rate as inflation, and

2) Does it specify what fields are seeing salary increases? I'm wondering if more and more MDs are going into fields which see higher pay. For example, internists, who are considered primary care, can do fellowships and specialize (e.g. cardiology) and are also more and more often becoming hospitalists, and instead of doing outpatient primary care work are part of a bigger hospital or even academic health center system.

3) Also, more and more doctors seem to me to be taking only patients with private insurance, or at least reducing their numbers of patients on Medicare or Medicaid. So doctors can make more that way.

The expense of doctors salaries going up right now seems to me to be at the expense of people who have less access to efficient and effective care. Doctors are smart enough to work the system, but unless we change the system, I believe our would-be patients will continue to suffer for it.

Just my $0.02

P.S. Sorry for the soapbox...

 

[wanabdoc]

http://www.hschange.com/CONTENT/851/

Thanks for the link, this has the kind of data I was looking for.

You can access the data with a simple interface found here:

http://ctsonline.s-3.com/psurvey.asp

 

[TRAMD]

Hmm. While this does make perfect sense for Lawyers or any other professional who is being paid via market value, I would think that physicians would have have an incentive to underestimate since they would want to reduce the public perception of the "rich doctor" since payments for physician services are largely set by the government. People would be more likely to blame physicians for health care costs if they see them all making $500,000 per year than if they see $100,000 per year. This is probably also why the JAMA survey would show an underestimate while the recruiting surveys would be showing overestimates.

I believe this is what happens. Salary information that I see for physicians always seems low.

 

[Law2Doc]

I believe this is what happens. Salary information that I see for physicians always seems low.

Perhaps because current salaries are in fact worse than what you believe they ought to be.

I disagree with what you guys are suggesting in the last 5 posts. Doctors as a group may want to downplay salaries. But individually they want to keep up with the Joneses. And in most cases it's less frequent that someone misrepresents salary up or down, it's that only part of the data pool ever provides info. We aren't talking about folks making decisions as to whether to skew their own salary high or low, just whether they are willing to give out that data or not. If someone from a reputable data gathering entity called you up and asked you for your salary info you would be more likely to tell them if you felt you were being paid adequately, and more likely to decline to answer if you felt it inadequate. So the low paid crowd falls out of the data. And so the data tends to be skewed high. So if the provided data shows a decline, then the real numbers are probably worse than that.

 

[JacobSilge]

Perhaps because current salaries are in fact worse than what you believe they ought to be.

I disagree with what you guys are suggesting in the last 5 posts. Doctors as a group may want to downplay salaries. But individually they want to keep up with the Joneses. And in most cases it's less frequent that someone misrepresents salary up or down, it's that only part of the data pool ever provides info. We aren't talking about folks making decisions as to whether to skew their own salary high or low, just whether they are willing to give out that data or not. If someone from a reputable data gathering entity called you up and asked you for your salary info you would be more likely to tell them if you felt you were being paid adequately, and more likely to decline to answer if you felt it inadequate. So the low paid crowd falls out of the data. And so the data tends to be skewed high. So if the provided data shows a decline, then the real numbers are probably worse than that.

Alternate Scenario: You're feeling disenchanted by the fact that due to no fault of your own, the government/insurance company just gave you a pay cut but lay people still view you as a "rich doctor." I'd be complaining about my salary to anybody who'd listen!

Besides, your last sentence (if the data shows a decline, reality has to be much worse) just sounds like you're trying to make an already bad situation seem worse. If you're saying that physicians, because they want to seem cool, will only report their salaries if they're happy with them then wouldn't any decline data really be the difference between TWO data points that are both elevated, therefore the actual decline would be right about what the data says?

 

[osli]

Actually, while I agree survey data is imperfect data, it more often than not overestimates salaries. Folks who are proud of their salaries are more likely to respond than folks who are ashamed of them. I certainly saw this to be the case in my prior career. The response rate of big firm lawyers in annual salary surveys pretty consistently tended to be higher than less well compensated small firm employees. Kind of the way on sites like MDApplicants.com, you'd think everyone has a 3.8/38. Self selecting data tends to be skewed high.

I can't agree with that logic either. First, many of these surveys are net incomes, after malpractice and expenses. Second, many include residents in their population. Third, every single time I ask a practicing physician, residency program director, hospital administrator, etc. about realistic physician salaries, a number always comes back that when all factors are considered are still higher than almost all surveys you find. Well, a caveat... that isn't necessarily true in all specialties. Surveys tend to be much closer to the real average in primary care areas. But there are some specialties that on all the common surveys are simply undervaluing that position. It is blatant underreporting or bad population samples, or both.

 

[wanabdoc]

Also, in a specialty where you are in private practice / self-employed, there are the tax benefits to not pay yourself a large salary. I knew a dentist who drove the "company car" (a BMW) to work everyday, and ate out as a business expense.

If you work for yourself, its better not to pay yourself a large salary, and on the survey you would just report your "take-home" money.

 

[notdeadyet]

This is probably also why the JAMA survey would show an underestimate while the recruiting surveys would be showing overestimates.

No, the reason recruiting surveys show overestimates is because they are recruiting surveys. These surveys skew high in any industry.

 

[notdeadyet]

Also, in a specialty where you are in private practice / self-employed, there are the tax benefits to not pay yourself a large salary. I knew a dentist who drove the "company car" (a BMW) to work everyday, and ate out as a business expense.

If you work for yourself, its better not to pay yourself a large salary, and on the survey you would just report your "take-home" money.

What percentage of doctors are in solo practice? I don't have a figure, but I'll bet it is a very small fraction of physicians out there.

Don't take any salary survey done ad hoc by a private company as anything at all serious. Look at actual studies done by peer-reviewed journals and you have some degree of authenticity. Most of the hard studies done have not indicated that the sky is falling, but they sure don't paint a rosy picture either.

 

[Cirrus83]

Actually, I'm fairly certain that doctor's salaries did in fact go up. I think the salaries of most people with a graduate education have all gone up over the last decade or so, and people with college educations just about break even after adjusting for inflation, and people with less than a college degree make less money.

That said, there was an article in the Wall Street Journal today about an economic downturn that's first hitting Plastic Surgery and Lasik
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119707327901017729.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news

 

[Law2Doc]

Second, many include residents in their population.

I don't believe residents are included in the data shown above. However, actually I suspect this really would skew any trends up, not down. While residents earn well below average, they are perhaps the group whose income has increased fastest (by percentage) over the past decade (from an income in the $30 thousands to one in the $40k range average) and thanks to 80 hour work limits, their hours have decreased most significantly. Thus if residents were consistently included in the data, this probably would hint at a false increase in salary over the interval, not pull the trend down.

 

[Law2Doc]

Actually, I'm fairly certain that doctor's salaries did in fact go up. I think the salaries of most people with a graduate education have all gone up over the last decade or so

The study described in the Times agrees with your second sentence above but not the first. Which is why doctors are losing ground as compared with the professional world. Whether it is real dollars or inflation adjusted dollars, or in fact being buffered by a change in per patient time (for now) is not critical -- doing worse is doing worse.

 

[Law2Doc]

Alternate Scenario: You're feeling disenchanted by the fact that due to no fault of your own, the government/insurance company just gave you a pay cut but lay people still view you as a "rich doctor." I'd be complaining about my salary to anybody who'd listen!

Besides, your last sentence (if the data shows a decline, reality has to be much worse) just sounds like you're trying to make an already bad situation seem worse. If you're saying that physicians, because they want to seem cool, will only report their salaries if they're happy with them then wouldn't any decline data really be the difference between TWO data points that are both elevated, therefore the actual decline would be right about what the data says?

All I can tell you is that folks generally aren't thought to misreport their salaries, but they do choose whether to report at all. In my prior profession, it was concluded in a number of surveys that higher earners were more apt to report. I see no reason that doctors would do otherwise. I promise you that the negative public perception of rich, money-hungry lawyers isn't less troubling to that profession than rich doctors. Yet the well paid sect of that profession was still found to be more likely to report. I see no reason doctors aren't doing the same.

I'm not "trying to make an already bad situation seem worse". I would like nothing better than to see doctor salaries skyrocket. However the OP has posted in multiple threads on multiple boards about the significant rise in doctor salaries, citing data of an organization (AMA) which actually, based on statements of it's chair, apparently doesn't think salaries are going up, and so folks are better served with a reality check.

 

[TRAMD]

All I can tell you is that folks generally aren't thought to misreport their salaries, but they do choose whether to report at all. In my prior profession, it was concluded in a number of surveys that higher earners were more apt to report. I see no reason that doctors would do otherwise. I promise you that the negative public perception of rich, money-hungry lawyers isn't less troubling to that profession than rich doctors. Yet the well paid sect of that profession was still found to be more likely to report. I see no reason doctors aren't doing the same.

I'm not "trying to make an already bad situation seem worse". I would like nothing better than to see doctor salaries skyrocket. However the OP has posted in multiple threads on multiple boards about the significant rise in doctor salaries, citing data of an organization (AMA) which actually, based on statements of it's chair, apparently doesn't think salaries are going up, and so folks are better served with a reality check.

Rich laywers are seen as successful and as the guy/girl that you want on your side. Making a lot of money as a lawyer and having people know it is good for business. We want our lawyers to be hungry bulldogs. The same is not true for physicians. The ideal physician is seen as a magnanimous individual that would only ask for very little in return for their services as the good deed should be reward enough.

Residents being part of the data is a silly thought.

I believe that the reason that the surveys are skewed low is because most of the data is coming from employed physicians. Docs employed by HMOs, the government and hospitals are generally paid less. There are many docs in private group and solo practices that are making much more and are not being included as much as employed physicians. It also seems that the data gets more off the higher paying the specialty. Family practice numbers just seem a little low while derm and radiology numbers seem way low.

That said I believe that absolute salary numbers for physicians are going up but that they are not keeping up with inflation and should therefore be considered to be going down.

 

[Law2Doc]

Rich laywers are seen as successful and as the guy/girl that you want on your side. Making a lot of money as a lawyer and having people know it is good for business. We want our lawyers to be hungry bulldogs. The same is not true for physicians.

No way. The public hates rich people. And hates lawyers even more. Nobody wants to be the combo. The public believes that lawyers, more than doctors, tend to fleece them financially. No lawyer wants to be perceived as making too much, given that landscape. So no, the stigma is pretty much the same, or even worse, here. No profession has the kind of public relations problem that lawyers do (deserved, perhaps). And since lawyer salary data still has been found to skew high, I'm just not buying that somehow doctors runs the reverse. People happy with their salaries respond to these surveys, people who aren't don't.

 

[wanabdoc]

However the OP has posted in multiple threads on multiple boards about the significant rise in doctor salaries, citing data of an organization (AMA) which actually, based on statements of it's chair, apparently doesn't think salaries are going up, and so folks are better served with a reality check.

I never said "significant," I said 10%-40%, 40% being the extreme for one specialty. Also, my data was from the AMAs salary report, and ends in 2000 when they stopped publishing it, a fact I also noted. Since I don't have any reliable information since 2000, things could have changed significantly in the last 6 years. However, I would like someone to show me some DATA from a reliable source.

I have downloaded the data the New York Times article is based on, and it

1) does not distinguish between different specialties, only Primary Care and Specialties.

2) Does not provide real salary figures, only ranges such as 50-100k, 100-150k, 150k-200k etc. On the survey, the physicians only responded which compensation category they fell into, not their actual figure. Obviously this can be a problem for determining actual salary changes.

3)However it does distinguish between HMOs and self-employed.


*I used Kirix Strata to analyze the 2004 survey from the Center for Studying Health Systems Change. It can also be accessed online at http://ctsonline.s-3.com/psurvey.asp

 

[osli]

I don't believe residents are included in the data shown above.

I'm referring to surveys in general, not any specific survey mentioned in this thread. There are several out there that often come up in searches and discussions. Some of them do include resident data, and for most of the others the sample is not representative of the population.

However, actually I suspect this really would skew any trends up, not down.

I'm not talking about trends, I'm talking about absolute levels in any one year. That was very clear in my post. If you include residents in any one year, the average will be lower than is actually the case for attending level physicians. Other factors, such as "after-expenses" reporting, self-employment, bonuses not included, etc. likewise have a similar effect. Whether such factors cause salaries to trend up or down over the years is beyond the scope of my point... I was simply responding to your assumption that the popular surveys overestimate physician income. They do not.

 

[osli]

Residents being part of the data is a silly thought.

Residents being part of the data is silly, yes, but some surveys do include them. You need to read the fine print. Some are just bulk reports from employers (hospitals) about the salaries paid to everyone with "xx" in their title.

 

[wanabdoc]

I could not find any consistent data source, so I used the AMGA surveys for years 2006 and 2002 to see if they reported a salary decrease.

I know that there are lots of people who do not believe that AMGA is representative of all physician compensation (including myself) but the point here is to show that the salaries are increasing not decreasing, at least according to their surveys.

Here is the updated chart (They didn't have surgury so I went with general surgery)

Physician Salary Trends

I know that the figures are not consistent with the AMA data, ie, it looks like surgery took a big hit between 2000 and 2002, but this is because in the AMA data, all surgical sub-specialties are included under surgery, while the AMGA has separate categories for each one (I just used general surgery.)

 

[Law2Doc]

I know that there are lots of people who do not believe that AMGA is representative of all physician compensation (including myself) but the point here is to show that the salaries are increasing not decreasing, at least according to their surveys.

See, I don't know that you can pick a nonrepresentative organization's salary survey and use it to show much of anything. AMGA surveys practitioners at very large group practices, and does not even include all practitioners in all 50 states. I think we can all agree that FPs did not average anything close to the $186k that survey suggested for last year. So you can't really extrapolate it to a national average. It appears we are getting further and further away from a useful data set. Too bad some federal agency can't just compile real data from income tax records -- that would be far more useful than speculating about results of phone and mail surveys.

 

[wanabdoc]

See, I don't know that you can pick a nonrepresentative organization's salary survey and use it to show much of anything.

Right, I am not using it to show physician's salaries, just to see if salaries are falling or rising. In this particular demographic of physicians, their compensation has risen over the last several years (adjusted for inflation.)

This means they are either following the trend for all other physicians or that all other physician's salaries are decreasing and only group practices are increasing.