- Joined
- Aug 16, 2003
- Messages
- 35
- Reaction score
- 1
An interesting graph from this week's JAMA correlating medical student interest in various specialties, as judged from fill-rates, with average salaries.
Discuss.
Discuss.
Studies like this don't tell us anything we didn't already know. All they do is make the general public talk about how greedy doctors are.
I agree, what's actually interesting about the graph is not looking at it and say "Look, doctors all want money!" Newsflash genius: So does everybody.
What IS interesting is the what specialties buck the curve. Pediatrics has a lot of interest relative to its interest to its pay while Family Medicine has low, which I think reflects the satisfaction of people in those fields.
ER bucks the curve as well, but if you factor in lifestyle that might explain it - no call to speak of and scheduled shifts.
And I've always thought pathology is very underrated.
I think pathology is also underrated--keep an eye for it. I think pathology will be the next hot field. All these years of research and development into biosciences will pay off in molecular diagnostics, namely pathology.
I think pathology is also underrated--keep an eye for it. I think pathology will be the next hot field. All these years of research and development into biosciences will pay off in molecular diagnostics, namely pathology.
Even if there is a huge increase in demand for molecular diagnostics (which there likely will be) does it really take a pathologist to oversee and interpret each test? The increase utilization of medical imaging in the last 15 years has made radiology a great field in regards to income but interpretation of images is unlike a molecular test which is probably automated and very specific for what its is looking for. Interpretation of a CT/MRI or whatever new modality comes along in the next couple decades will always require a trained radiologist. Therefore despite the increase in molecular diagnostic pathologist income is less likely to increase the way it has for a radiologist. I'd be much more worried about computers replacing pathologist doing molecular test then I would be computers replacing radiologist or pathologist interpreting slides.I think pathology is also underrated--keep an eye for it. I think pathology will be the next hot field. All these years of research and development into biosciences will pay off in molecular diagnostics, namely pathology. 10-04-2008 12:50 PM
Radiology is probably due for a big cut due to the current imbalance which appears to reimburse radiologic tests at higher rates than other things in medicine.
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=7254566&postcount=13
This post sums up my feelings on the topic nicely.
I hear every year that Radiology is going to get cut big time. There's always some new bill. There's always some Medicare change. There's some election. Every year I get to listen to the academics rant about how the private guys are going to lose their asses for reasons that are patently false or don't end up happening/being a big deal.
The sky is falling Henny Penny! Yet somehow every year it doesn't happen. But we'll ignore the fact that it didn't fall last year, or the year before that, or the year before that, or even the year before that x10. IT'S FALLING THIS YEAR! THIS TIME IT'S OBAMA AND HE'S TOTALLY CEREAL.
😴
What do you think about the possibility of foreign radiologists diagnosing films streams over the internet?
Isn't radiology already the only specialty that grants US licenses w/o having to do a residency in the US?
Why exactly is teleradiology going to kill Radiology now anyways? The technology has existed for at least 10 years to do it.
I think it takes time. It's hard to imagine entrepreneurs wouldn't seize on an opportunity like this, especially given that the profits are so big. We think in 100s of thousands but they think in millions of Ks. It's easy to predict which side will win. I'm actually hoping to be proved wrong though.
The real threat to Radiology as I see it is encroachment from other medical specialties. One that is common to all medical specialties but more prevalent in others is the expansion of midlevels.
I think Telerads had a "peak" ~2 years ago. Just look at stocks for NHWK and etc. Now the stocks sunk. As another poster said, there is too much legal and regulation issues. Hence investors didnt see a significant return and they pulled out.
In truth, teleradiology works FOR radiologists in the states,. You pay them so ur group doesnt have to be on call at night. They can provide prelim read but a final read has to be done by a radiologist on US soil. So in other words the group is losing money since they can only bill medicare for the final read but they have to pay the telerad also. But hey i dont want to be on call at night when im 50. Also you can work for a Telerad company. I think the pay is pretty good in general but the hours suck unless u move to australia or asia.
Also to provide a prelim read u have to be US trained. No hospital will want a prelim read from a non-US trained radiologist. So ur taking workforce from US anyways. Thus the supply is still abuot the same.
You know, why can't the legal structure change on this? Why must someone be accountable on US soil for an image to be read. To me this seems like it could be worked around somehow. Also-the designation that a final has to be read by someone in the US also seems like it could be negotiated.
Perhaps everyone is right, and the legal aspects will prevent streams of films being sent to a radiologist reading films in a mud hut in indonesia, but I just am not convinced it couldnt be done.
I think this is exactly the biggest issue. It's cardiologists taking over cardiac imaging, neurologists over neurorads, etc...
It's already happening in the interventional field, these specialties are trying to take over rads. In fact, cardiologists already took a big piece. The advantage specialties like cardio and neuro have is that they have their own patients. So I think they're the real threat.
Pneumoencephalography and cerebral angiography was once in the domain of neurosurgeons, but with the advent of crosssectional neuroimaging those modalites fell into the realm of neuroradiology.
Don't know what that is, but it just flat out sounds unpleasant and risky.
YES, but its a dynamic process. IR developed and 'took' what was not originally in their 'turf'.
IE angioplasty and stenting developed by IR took away business from Vascular surgeons who then only knew how to do by pass and do open thrombolectomies.
There used to be a diagnostic component to general surgery. Remember before CT, and CT guided biopsies, diagnosis of cancer was made via open biopsies. The number of Ex-laps performed has drastically decreased. The biopsy / diagnostic aspect of medicine has fallen into the realm of radiology.
The same is true for abdominal abcess drainages.
Vascular access is a relatively easy and lucrative aspect of medicine once dominated by vascular surgery, which is now more easily done with image guidance.
Pneumoencephalography and cerebral angiography was once in the domain of neurosurgeons, but with the advent of crosssectional neuroimaging those modalites fell into the realm of neuroradiology.
Depending on how you look at it, the first 20 years of IRs history, IR had stolen lots of turf from other specialties.
What looks like 'loss' of turf from IR is the regain of turf from IR by other specialties.
Meanwhile turf is gained by IR as we speak. UFE is a great procedure which directly competes with myomectomy and hysterectomy for fibroids. In the field of oncology Chemoembolization and radioembolization as well as other loco-regional image guided ablations are giving viable and EFFECTIVE alternatives to the standbys of surgery (not everyone is a candidate), chemo (systemic side effects), radiation.
Maintanence of AV shunts and grafts mean that vascular surgeons are putting in less shunts and grafts than before.
Hardly anyone does surgical splenorenal shunts for portal hypertension anymore thanks to TIPS.
Yes IR is under attack, but in spite of this, IR continues to evolve and stay ahead of the curve, and according to salary figures from recent threads -- is doing this quite well I might add! 😀
Whats to stop some greedy US radiologist from setting up a "reading shop" in another country and have highly-trained foreginers read his films for him? In other words, the US radiologist "reads" the films by signing his name to it and in exchange for the millions and millions in extra revenue takes legal responsibility for the read?
I could imagine that working, especially if theres some shady setup like the US radiologist looking at each film real quick (like 5 seconds) and approving/editing the read the foreign doc did.
I hope this doesnt happen, just wondering why it couldnt?