- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
- Messages
- 494
- Reaction score
- 34
Just wondering.....when i look it up on the internet it gives me some Bull **** number like 100k-1000k....not really helpful =/
How much does an average radiologist make after taxes?
- Thread starter Plue00
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2004
- Messages
- 929
- Reaction score
- 17
Just wondering.....or maybe cause im studying to be one....Not really in it for the money, but its a motivation.
Not in it for the money, but also not motivated enough to google it?
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,285
- Reaction score
- 3
One of our 3rd year clerkship directors gave us a printout of this pdf file. It provides a pretty good general idea of salaries out there without breaking down all of the demographics and variables.
http://www.merritthawkins.com/pdf/2007_Review_of_Physician_and_CRNA_Recruiting_Incentives.pdf
http://www.merritthawkins.com/pdf/2007_Review_of_Physician_and_CRNA_Recruiting_Incentives.pdf
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2007
- Messages
- 167
- Reaction score
- 1
Just wondering.....or maybe cause im studying to be one....Not really in it for the money, but its a motivation.
I keep hearing rumors about significant reductions in salary in the future so perhaps it's for the best you "aren't in it for the money"
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2005
- Messages
- 1,279
- Reaction score
- 7
To add something completely random and useless to this thread (why not?), does it bug any of you that many people believe physicians routinely make "in the millions?"
On a radio talk show yesterday, some bozo called in from south Texas, and insisted that "his cousin is a doctor, and he personally doesn't know anyone making less than half a mil, and most are making one to two million." When the host presented him with the fact that many (most?) in family practice, pediatrics, and internal medicine often make roughly around 150K, his response was pretty much "not down here, they are all making bank!$"
I suspect one reason that physicians continue to face difficulties with things like malpractice suit magnitudes and frequency, malpractice insurance rates, repayment legislation, service reimbursment rates, etc. is because the general public actually thinks they typically make a million a year or more. Maybe in the 80's some family practice docs were able to pull this off and this has left a lasting impression on the public? I dunno.
On a radio talk show yesterday, some bozo called in from south Texas, and insisted that "his cousin is a doctor, and he personally doesn't know anyone making less than half a mil, and most are making one to two million." When the host presented him with the fact that many (most?) in family practice, pediatrics, and internal medicine often make roughly around 150K, his response was pretty much "not down here, they are all making bank!$"
I suspect one reason that physicians continue to face difficulties with things like malpractice suit magnitudes and frequency, malpractice insurance rates, repayment legislation, service reimbursment rates, etc. is because the general public actually thinks they typically make a million a year or more. Maybe in the 80's some family practice docs were able to pull this off and this has left a lasting impression on the public? I dunno.
- Joined
- May 25, 2007
- Messages
- 110
- Reaction score
- 1
Does it really matter?
I mean if you got paid 200k a year to shove garbage into a ditch would you do it, because of the pay?
I can't imagine basing my life's work on SOLELY a paycheck.
E
I mean if you got paid 200k a year to shove garbage into a ditch would you do it, because of the pay?
I can't imagine basing my life's work on SOLELY a paycheck.
E
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 3,079
- Reaction score
- 52
Just wondering.....or maybe cause im studying to be one....Not really in it for the money, but its a motivation.
1 MILLION DOLLARS *Dr. Evil Voice*
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2005
- Messages
- 1,279
- Reaction score
- 7
Erm, maybe not as a career, but I'd sure as hell look into the availability of part time positions to finance these astronomical education expenses!
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 112
- Reaction score
- 0
They make about a billion dollars a year.... but no seriously, probably starting salary is around 200-250 for diagnostic and perhaps 300+ for interventional, give or take depending on where you are practicing.
Although who knows what the future of medicine holds for us all......
Although who knows what the future of medicine holds for us all......
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2007
- Messages
- 167
- Reaction score
- 1
Add one more zero to the end of that number and we have a deal.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,728
- Reaction score
- 11
You keep talking about how bleak the surgical fields are and how great radiology is, but the numbers don't support your arguments. In the PDF posted above on this very thread, it states that the average income for radiologists and general surgeons are $380k & $301k, respectively.
Obviously, $79k is not a trivial amount, but hardly "more than double."
All of the surgical subspecialties (ortho, uro, neurosurgery), except ENT, make more, on average, than the average radiologist.
- Joined
- May 18, 2007
- Messages
- 124
- Reaction score
- 0
I take it the weekend is over and you're sober. Trust me, you make much more sense like this, even though your sense of humor is making this board very entertaining.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2002
- Messages
- 6,517
- Reaction score
- 3,074
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2006
- Messages
- 445
- Reaction score
- 4
Goose, I dont know where u got ur survey. But that's what it is...A SURVEY. I have another for you with different numbers
http://www.cejkasearch.com/compensation/amga_physician_compensation_survey.htm
In this case, u'll see that Rads is basically at the top and then consider their hours. I'm just saying surveys are generally just a gross approximation, common knowledge knows Rads salary is within the top 5 guaranteed right now.
And no way urology, opthal , vascular make more. Ortho and neurosurg can but they work way too much.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,728
- Reaction score
- 11
As I stated previously, the survey was from this very thread:
http://www.merritthawkins.com/pdf/2007_Review_of_Physician_and_CRNA_Recruiting_Incentives.pdf
I never said that rads beats surgery on an $/hrs basis. But gross pay is comparable (even general surgery). According to the Merritt Hawkins pdf, urologists make more than radiologists (and have a decent lifestyle to boot). If you enjoy surgery, then working a few more hours per week shouldn't be that big of a deal.
The bigger question is who gives a ****? Radiology & surgery are such different fields (outside of Vascular surgery vs IR, which many on this board agree is dying) that you should be able to figure out where you belong.
As an undecided medical student, I find rads pretty interesting from a technological standpoint. I want to do procedures. Money is nice, but nothing is guaranteed with the looming changes in healthcare. It seems to me that the future of radiology is somewhat uncertain (other fields pushing for their own reading rights; outsourcing being cited as something all radiologists are going to have to deal with, according a recent editorial in one of the major Radiology journals; reimbursement cuts all across the board in medicine). Pick what you will be happy doing for the next 30+ years.
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Messages
- 20,522
- Reaction score
- 29,548
The "money" is in this comment right here. Medicine is a field which is changing all the time, and a field that was "hot" twenty years ago may be extremely unpopular now. Likewise, many once "dead-end" fields are now very competitive because of changes in technology, practice patterns, and demand.
All things being equal, salary *is* a pretty big deal. However, all things are NOT equal and when all is said and done you have to get up and go to work every day. You'd better make sure you enjoy what you do. Radiology is a fantastic field, but it's definitely not for everyone, and though people seem generally very happy in it I have met my share of attendings who were once radiologists and switched fields, sometimes to careers that probably didn't pay nearly as well.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2002
- Messages
- 6,517
- Reaction score
- 3,074
apache you are such an dingus you just made me spit all over my newly cleaned computer monitor with laughter.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2006
- Messages
- 445
- Reaction score
- 4
In general i dont think ANY field is 100% certain. Just look at the reimbursement cuts with opthal the past 5 yrs. Ortho and cardio reimbursements are likely to come down as well. I dont think general surg can be cut anymore, that'd just be messed up, they already work so hard for their salary. Dam...i'm making myself depressed. Healthcare system sux
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2004
- Messages
- 929
- Reaction score
- 17
In general i dont think ANY field is 100% certain. Just look at the reimbursement cuts with opthal the past 5 yrs. Ortho and cardio reimbursements are likely to come down as well. I dont think general surg can be cut anymore, that'd just be messed up, they already work so hard for their salary. Dam...i'm making myself depressed. Healthcare system sux
Thats something we can all agree on.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2006
- Messages
- 445
- Reaction score
- 4
Only thing is, does anyone really know where IR is headed? I know that they will always have enough procedures and good pay because of drains, biopsies, etc. But I think in many places vasc surg is taking over all the "cool" procedures like for aortic aneurysms. Either that or the IR is in a vascular team which means lots of call and crap hours. I think it may be risky to go into radiology only liking IR and knowing you may not get the big procedures in the future. (Risky as in not satisfied with work, not risky as in money)
I think Goose should go into surgery and leave more radiology spots for the rest of us....lol
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,728
- Reaction score
- 11
Only thing is, does anyone really know where IR is headed? I know that they will always have enough procedures and good pay because of drains, biopsies, etc. But I think in many places vasc surg is taking over all the "cool" procedures like for aortic aneurysms. Either that or the IR is in a vascular team which means lots of call and crap hours. I think it may be risky to go into radiology only liking IR and knowing you may not get the big procedures in the future. (Risky as in not satisfied with work, not risky as in money)
I think Goose should go into surgery and leave more radiology spots for the rest of us....lol
Spoken like a true gunner.
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2004
- Messages
- 929
- Reaction score
- 17
The future of IR is oncological interventions. There will always be a need for biopsies, abcess drainages, lines, but you can build a whole practice around the oncology patient. From diagnosis- biopsy, to locoregional control such as RFA, cryoablation, chemoembolization, radioembolization, chemotherapy infusion ports, G-tubes in those with advanced head and neck cancer, PCN/stents s in those with pelvic cancers, pleurodesis in those with malignant effusions, vertebroplasty/kyphoplasty in radiation or pathologic fractures. Celiac plexus blocks for intractable cancer related pain. esophageal dilatation and tracheal stents, biliary stents.
Thats not to mention all the work you can do related to the dialysis patient, from shunt maintanence, venoplasty, temporary and tunneled dialysis catheters.
Fibroids are quite common and if given a choice, most women would take UFE over surgery.
Then there are cosmetic cash-only vein procedures. There are minor pain procedures involving the spine such as epidural and facet injections which don't take much time and reimburse well.
In select environments, you can still do peripheral vascular interventions, though the reimbursement for that has fallen quite a bit. That represents the earliest work done by IR. I say let the cardiologists and vascular surgeons fight it out. The newest, coolest procedures involve oncology, with plenty of bread and butter procedures to more than pay the bills.
Even without the vascular interventions there is more than enough work for IRs.
Not to mention that, but IR generates also work for the diagnostic side such as with MR of the liver for survellaince of HCC, and pre and post pelvic MRI's for UFE.
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2007
- Messages
- 12
- Reaction score
- 0
Isn't that what radiation oncologists do?
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2001
- Messages
- 1,785
- Reaction score
- 23
No. Radiation oncologists treat patients with external radiation and occasional brachytherapy with implanted radiation sources. The procedures mentioned above are all radiology procedures.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,900
- Reaction score
- 8
And then there are a couple of procedures where IR and rad-onc work together. E.g. after-loading therapy for malignant biliary strictures or radio-embolization of chemo-refractive colorectal mets and HCC.
To quote the ever articulate Patrick Ewing -
"We make a lot of money, but spend a lot of money too."
I just put in my order for the new 08 BMW M3. Nice ride.... private practice rocks baby!!
I live a dream life - yes I work hard, but I make a ton of money and have a pretty good lifestyle. I get a lot of job satisfaction and can bang hot chicks on the side at free will.
I plan to ride this semi-socialist medical care system to the best of my ability until it collapses.
BTW - I can't count how many times I have DIRECTLY impacted patient care - picking up an early breast cancer, lung cancer, preventing an unnecessary surgery, calling an early septic joint in a child, etc.
Anyone who doesn't know the impact of a good radiologist is basically an insecure idiot - and not a very good clinician to his or her patients.
"We make a lot of money, but spend a lot of money too."
I just put in my order for the new 08 BMW M3. Nice ride.... private practice rocks baby!!
I live a dream life - yes I work hard, but I make a ton of money and have a pretty good lifestyle. I get a lot of job satisfaction and can bang hot chicks on the side at free will.
I plan to ride this semi-socialist medical care system to the best of my ability until it collapses.
BTW - I can't count how many times I have DIRECTLY impacted patient care - picking up an early breast cancer, lung cancer, preventing an unnecessary surgery, calling an early septic joint in a child, etc.
Anyone who doesn't know the impact of a good radiologist is basically an insecure idiot - and not a very good clinician to his or her patients.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2003
- Messages
- 2,962
- Reaction score
- 79
I commend your medical school for providing that information. It is ridiculous that you can spend 7 years becoming a pediatrician versus 8 becoming an anesthesiologist and not know that an anesthesiologist will make almost three times as much. People should have access to that kind of information before making choices. The idea that you should only "go into what you love" is a silly approach to life. One can love multiple things and it might be worth to go into something you simply enjoy that pays three times as much versus something you love.
All that being said, I'm going into academic pathology because I love it, and that means a low salary to start. But still, I am happy to know your medical school gives you some real dope about your future and not some rose colored glasses view of the world where everyone does what they love. If all doctors made about the same amount of money and worked about the same amount of hours, then you should do what you love. But in a world where a pediatrician on the west coast makes 150k and a neurosurgeon in the midwest can make 2,000,000, one should know exactly what they are passing up on before selecting their path.
And remember those salaries are offers to new trainees. No one knows what those in private practice really make. It is safe to assume that if the average radiologist starting offer is 300-400K, than a radiologists a few years out in a well run group is making at least double that.
