SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads) I have heard that FM docs can make a nice living doing rural medicine. I recently came across this article that basically refuted every benefit that I have heard about FM in a rural setting. "A recent article (April 2008) by William B. Weeks, MD, MBA and Amy E. Wallace, MD, MPH, that appeared in the Journal Of Rural Health compares the practice patterns and incomes of primary care physicians in rural versus urban areas and these were the findings: "Rural primary care physicians' unadjusted annual incomes were similar to their urban counterparts, but they tended to work longer hours, complete more patient visits, and have a much greater proportion of Medicaid patients." "After adjusting for work effort, physician characteristics, and practice characteristics, primary care physicians who practiced in rural settings made $9,585 (5%) less than their urban counterparts" "In particular, rural practicing general internists and pediatricians experienced lower incomes than did their urban counterparts." , possibly mostly due to the fact that the rural docs accept more of the low-paying Medicaid and Medicare patients..." Abstract/article here: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1748-0361.2008.00153.x What do you guys think? I know some will come on here to defend rural FM since that is what they want to go into. I am also interested in rural FM, but I would like some more objective data rather than the usual "I have heard" comments. This is the most objective study that I have read, just not sure if it answers all the questions.