2014 Medscape Pathologist Compensation Report

[Johnny Sunshine]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Apparently, the pathologists' portion of the data came from approximately 720 responders.

The only interesting thing I noted were the percentage of physicians who, if they started all over again, would not go into medicine.

http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2014/public/overview

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

Better take that link down. It gives away your name and email address when you click on it.

 

[Johnny Sunshine]

Whoops! Thanks. I've changed the original link to the public version.

 

[KluverB]

For all those advocating that residents go into IM or FM instead, this is a telling chart:
http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2014/public/overview#24

 

[malchik]

Wow that is dismal for IM. But note that does not include gastro, cards, onc, ID, rheum

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

Physicians are the biggest whiners out there. These surveys are worthless. I dont know one physician, in any speciality, who isnt saying the sky is falling.

Medicine used to be a calling. Now it is full of people that belong in business. Seems like I am seeing more and more disruptive physicians over the last few decades-starting their own hospitals, surgery centers, in-office pathology labs....

 

[scienceguy19]

Only 5 out of the 25 specialties had a salary which went down.

Pathology is in that group of specialties. Only one specialty (nephrology) did worse than us.

I wonder why that is??? could it be *cough* oversupply.....

 

[rollwithit]

Only 5 out of the 25 specialties had a salary which went down.

Pathology is in that group of specialties. Only one specialty (nephrology) did worse than us.

I wonder why that is??? could it be *cough* oversupply.....

No. Assuming the average was calculated from responses across the range of seniority (i.e. older folks with high salaries and rookies with low salaries), the decrease year over year would be more related to reimbursement cuts than oversupply. Rates are much more likely to have an affect in YoY than headcount.

A better indicator of oversupply would be income disparity bt those with little experience and those with a lot. You would always expect a disparity, but if it were particularly steep or is becoming steeper, that would be a better indicator of oversupply as the established practitioners care making up their income losses from reimbursement cuts by reducing inexperienced employee salaries,delaying partnership invitations, or hiring 2 on the cheap instead of 1 with a nice salary. Obviously, you could only get away with this in an labor oversupply market.

Find that historical data and unemployment rates and there's your evidence of oversupply or lack thereof.

 

[BlondeDocteur]

I read this with great fascination. Pathologists were more likely than the median physician to be happy in their specialty.

Since the data was for full-time employees only, do you think the gender gap in compensation is due primarily to seniority?

 

[yaah]

I would say the gender gap in compensation is primarily due to two things:
1) Seniority
2) Increased likelihood to be part-time, or otherwise reduced compensation in return for some lifestyle perk.

I know many women pathologists who are part time. I only know a couple of men, and they are the older, semi-retired men. "prime working age" men are almost never part time these days unless they are part time because they are doing research or something else the other part of the time.

 

[icpshootyz]

I would say the gender gap in compensation is primarily due to two things:
1) Seniority
2) Increased likelihood to be part-time, or otherwise reduced compensation in return for some lifestyle perk.

I know many women pathologists who are part time. I only know a couple of men, and they are the older, semi-retired men. "prime working age" men are almost never part time these days unless they are part time because they are doing research or something else the other part of the time.

Agreed. My group has several women, half of which are part time. We only have one man that is part time. Otherwise our pay structure is entirely equal and known by all partners in the group.

 

[Glass Pusher]

Agreed. My group has several women, half of which are part time. We only have one man that is part time. Otherwise our pay structure is entirely equal and known by all partners in the group.

I would say the gender gap in compensation is primarily due to two things:
1) Seniority
2) Increased likelihood to be part-time, or otherwise reduced compensation in return for some lifestyle perk.

I know many women pathologists who are part time. I only know a couple of men, and they are the older, semi-retired men. "prime working age" men are almost never part time these days unless they are part time because they are doing research or something else the other part of the time.

Don't tell Obama of this factual nonsense. It has to be discrimination...has to be. 😉

 

[scienceguy19]

"Hi, everybody. Earlier this week was Equal Pay Day. It marks the extra time the average woman has to work into a new year to earn what a man earned the year before. You see, the average woman who works full-time in America earns less than a man - even when she's in the same profession and has the same education. .." -Obama

 

[BlondeDocteur]

But the data were for full-time employees only, as I said.

 

[a runner]

But the data were for full-time employees only, as I said.

Just because the data only includes full-time workers does not mean there are not gender discrepancies between hours worked. After all, someone who works 45 hours per week would likely consider themselves full-time, whereas someone who works 65 hours per week would also consider themselves full-time.

 

[Euchromatin]

Just because the data only includes full-time workers does not mean there are not gender discrepancies between hours worked. After all, someone who works 45 hours per week would likely consider themselves full-time, whereas someone who works 65 hours per week would also consider themselves full-time.

Are the pay scales/salaries in most pathology departments adjusted to reflect these sorts of variations in "full time" though (I imagine this could vary a lot depending on the practice structure)? Presumably no one would think that someone who takes 65 hours to do the same amount of work that someone else can accomplish in 45 hours should get paid more. But if the person who works 65 hours does more with their time (more research, teaching, glass-pushing, whatever), would that cause their group to give them a relatively higher salary vs the other "full time" staff?

I appreciate and agree with the point yaah and icpshootyz made, i.e. more women than men tend to work less than full time. However, the data in the survey is limited to full time workers and I feel less confident that there is a significant difference between hours worked/duties performed by men and women who are both "full time." So, I, like BlondeDocteur, am also curious about whether the difference in average compensation between male and female pathologists is due to relative differences in hours worked at "full time," due to under-representation of female pathologists among the ranks of the most senior/highest earning, discrimination, some combination of factors, etc.

 

[rollwithit]

I'll have to dig a little for a good study I read not long ago. I believe it was the GAO or some other entity that attempts to maintain some sort of independent attitude.

Anyhow, the topic was gender pay discrepancy and their conclusion was, after taking into consideration lifestyle choices and other differences bt men and women, the discrepancy wasn't near as bad as the "women libbers" (Jerry Clower reference for any Southerners on the board) would have you believe and not small as the "it's all lifestyle, nothing is wrong" crowd would have you believe. I believe the unexplained variance was around 7%. That's not wildly alarming, but something I would want explained to be if I were a woman.

 

[a runner]

Are the pay scales/salaries in most pathology departments adjusted to reflect these sorts of variations in "full time" though (I imagine this could vary a lot depending on the practice structure)? Presumably no one would think that someone who takes 65 hours to do the same amount of work that someone else can accomplish in 45 hours should get paid more. But if the person who works 65 hours does more with their time (more research, teaching, glass-pushing, whatever), would that cause their group to give them a relatively higher salary vs the other "full time" staff?

I appreciate and agree with the point yaah and icpshootyz made, i.e. more women than men tend to work less than full time. However, the data in the survey is limited to full time workers and I feel less confident that there is a significant difference between hours worked/duties performed by men and women who are both "full time." So, I, like BlondeDocteur, am also curious about whether the difference in average compensation between male and female pathologists is due to relative differences in hours worked at "full time," due to under-representation of female pathologists among the ranks of the most senior/highest earning, discrimination, some combination of factors, etc.

First off, this Medscape survey did not break down the gender discrepancy by specialty. It is only broken down by physicians as a whole group, $267k for men vs. $204k for women, so there is no way to know if there is a discrepancy in pathology specifically or not, or if that discrepancy is less severe or more severe than the average.

Honestly, I have no idea how things work in pathology groups, I'm sure some of the pathologists around here would have a much better idea. One pathologist above identified their group's pay scheme as being gender neutral. In emergency medicine for example, most groups pay by the hour and there is no variance in hourly pay based on gender. Hospitalists often are paid based on their RVUs, and they get paid extra to take additional shifts. I think there is probably a range from some specialties which have virtually no discrimination (although a gender pay discrepancy exists due to other factors) to some specialties where at least a modest portion of the difference in pay may be attributed to discrimination.

 

[Johnny Sunshine]

"Hi, everybody. Earlier this week was Equal Pay Day. It marks the extra time the average woman has to work into a new year to earn what a man earned the year before. You see, the average woman who works full-time in America earns less than a man - even when she's in the same profession and has the same education. .." -Obama

From what I've heard, the average Caucasian also earns less than the average Asian. As a white male, I demand my equal opportunity!

 

[Thrombus]

"Hi, everybody. Earlier this week was Equal Pay Day. It marks the extra time the average woman has to work into a new year to earn what a man earned the year before. You see, the average woman who works full-time in America earns less than a man - even when she's in the same profession and has the same education. .." -Obama

This community organizer, whatever the hell that is, is about as dishonest a person I have ever seen. He takes the citizenry for a bunch of fools, which we must be, for electing him twice. He makes plaintiff litigators look like outstanding moralists.

 

[rollwithit]

First off, this Medscape survey did not break down the gender discrepancy by specialty. It is only broken down by physicians as a whole group, $267k for men vs. $204k for women, so there is no way to know if there is a discrepancy in pathology specifically or not, or if that discrepancy is less severe or more severe than the average.

Honestly, I have no idea how things work in pathology groups, I'm sure some of the pathologists around here would have a much better idea. One pathologist above identified their group's pay scheme as being gender neutral. In emergency medicine for example, most groups pay by the hour and there is no variance in hourly pay based on gender. Hospitalists often are paid based on their RVUs, and they get paid extra to take additional shifts. I think there is probably a range from some specialties which have virtually no discrimination (although a gender pay discrepancy exists due to other factors) to some specialties where at least a modest portion of the difference in pay may be attributed to discrimination.

Stats like that are a bit annoying. It's about as valuable as internet trolling.

As you said, it would be best to see if there are discrepancies within specialties, but that info is left out. If somebody wants to play with the numbers, they could assume equal pay within each specialty and then apply the average pay to the women/men physician count across specialties found here: https://www.aamc.org/download/313228/data/2012physicianspecialtydatabook.pdf

We all know there has to be some sort of discrepancy bt the genders within the specialties and overall, but at least this analysis would explain if a large chunk of the overall discrepancy is attributed to a higher percentage of women (of total women) working in lower paid fields like FM, IM, Peds, OB than the men ratio. I suspect that would be the case, but am too lazy to play with the numbers myself.

 

[a runner]

Here's the numbers for pathology for last year:

http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2013/pathology

Overall: $247k
Male: $255k
Female: $235k

Looks like pathology has much less of a gender discrepancy than most other specialties.

 

[BlondeDocteur]

1) What's up with Texas having the lowest salaries in the country? That defies all a prior assumptions.

2) What's a concierge practice in pathology?

 

[turtle1966]

2) What's a concierge practice in pathology?

Possibly a POL?

 

[yaah]

If you drill down on the gender-based compensation it really isn't as significant as a 77% ratio. The economist had a good article on this last week where they made the quite obvious point that if women truly made 77% of what men made for the same work, businesses would only hire women because it would be easier profit. But men do more "dangerous" jobs which tend to be more highly paid, and fewer men do jobs like teaching which are underpaid. This is in addition to the greater likelihood for women to be part time or taking more benefits, etc. And men are more likely to negotiate for higher pay or change jobs for better pay, etc. The actual ratio of full time man to full time woman was closer to 95% which, as they said, is less scandalous.

No doubt this is somewhat controversial and there remains huge amounts of gender discrimination and bias in the american workforce. Some of it is implicit, and probably less is explicit. IMHO making laws that equalize pay are not the solution and are just a way for lawyers to make money off of lawsuits, but I am not an employment expert. I also think the energy and anger focused on this is somewhat misplaced, it should be directed more towards making benefits and work conditions more conducive to everyone and not just the ones who are willing to forego home life benefits in order to get paid more. But this is capitalism, it's hard to regulate and rule without harming other areas. The other scandal is that important professions like teachers are woefully underpaid. But since this mostly comes from tax revenues, it ain't going to change in the near future.