AMGA/MGMA numbers in 2016
Started by ItsAboutThePatient
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
D
deleted564680
Cejka
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Is the answer not obvious to you?
To choose a specialty accordingly...
Because its an issue, Its not the glory days here you guys graduated with 4ok in loans. People are hitting 300k in debt nowadays
OP: recent AMGA
http://www.cejkasearch.com/physician-compensation-report/
These numbers seem ridiculously inflated...
The real utility in the MGMA data (which is protected behind a paywall) is the various charts of percentiles (10/25/50/75/90 or what have you) for various situations in each specialty. It breaks it down for newly minted residency grads, people in practice for X/Y/Z years, etc. it also offers variation by region (and possibly state/metro area?). Either way, it's much more useful data, specifically when negotiating a contract, than just saying "the average of all dermatologists in all states of all ages at all stages of their career in all setting practices is $X."
That's because they are total compensation numbers (salary plus benefits). A lot of people mistake MGMA compensation for salary because they don't understand the distinction.
I also believe these reports have different numbers for academics, which would otherwise generally bring the average down
also just throwing it out there this is 2015, based on 2014. not 2016 as the OP asked for
also just throwing it out there this is 2015, based on 2014. not 2016 as the OP asked for
What are average benefits worth?
Ah that would make sense. Although they still seem overinflated, unless there are docs receiving 100k in benefits
25-30% of salary
There are. Keep in mind these benefits often include malpractice, paid retirement funds, CME expenses, paid vacation, health insurance, dental, vision, etc. Taking a month and a half off if you make 480k a year, for instance, is worth 60k. A premium health plan for a family of four can run in the range of 30k. Malpractice can be 10-200k or more, depending on specialty. If you've got a group-funded retirement contribution, that can be 50k+. Only people that don't understand money look only at the salary of a position when determining how much they are "making," as your total compensation can include a lot of very, very valuable benefits.
Not really, FM residents graduating from here ( southeast) are starting at 240k. For whatever reason, med student still think people are accepting 180k like its 2009.
And MGMA and AMGA is not total compensation. Usually its pretax salary.
The MGMA chart is posted somewhere here on SDN and has similar numbers, just do a search for it.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I did not think these salaries were total compensation as well because they are in line with what a couple physicians (n=3) I know are making...
Here is the link for the MGMA data, this should probably be stickied or something, people keep asking for it.
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/mgma-2015-data.1150951/#post-17273604
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/mgma-2015-data.1150951/#post-17273604
These sample sizes are a joke! What kind of idiot would pay for this data? It is absolute garbage, unless I am very much misinterpreting "provider count."
Its the gold standard that most groups base salary off of. And its not an insignificant sample size, make sure you are reading the graph correctly. You bash every salary report that gets posted here, will you not be happy until some report shows you physicians are making 150k across the board? The only thing left is medscape, with has similar numbers and even smaller sample size.
I want to ask you, how much did you think physicians made? And where did you get your info?
that link if NOT the entire data. it is some summary type thing
the real MGMA report is much, much longer and contains tons of more cool things
the real MGMA report is much, much longer and contains tons of more cool things
Its the salary info, if yo want to pay $ 700 for the metrics and practice hours and other stuff go ahead.
Don't know which "groups" you're referring to, but the large hospitals that own medicine are not using the numbers, I assure you. 150K sounds about right for most non-procedural hospitalists. When we show grossly exaggerated numbers like this to the public, all it accomplishes is a guaranteed decrease in compensation. If people are truly making this much, then they must be really dumb to actually report that. This will absolutely attract public ire and Medicare slashes are all but guaranteed when you trumpet numbers like this. So yes, I think 150k is the compensation I will be using as the gold-standard to refer to physician reimbursement.
Additionally, these data suggest a large gap in compensation between specialists and primary care doctors, which would seem to drive medical students away from PCP. For these reasons, I declare this survey an absolute load of **** and a scorn upon our profession.
Like I said before, graduating residents here are signing for 220-240k for primary care and hospitalist jobs. Go to the IM forum and they talk about salary there all the time. Unless they are working in New York or in academics nobody is taking 150k nowadays. Sweetheart if you want to work for 150k t0 appease your appetite for self martyrdom, go ahead. As for me, I will have about 270k in loans to pay off so will ask for what Im worth. Also, a lot of people in the public are aware of the sacrifices and length of training it takes to be a doc and think they should get paid well.
We either have strong self hate going on here, or else paranoia. The MGMA and AMGA data exist; not mentioning it on SDN is not going to affect whether this data is used by "the powers that be" to cut our compensation. So either chill over stuff that is completely outside of your control, or else stop hating yourself and enjoy 'dem checks. Financiers, actors and professional athletes turn in their sleep at night over missed opportunities to make even more money, not over guilt at how much they did make.
Actually that is quite false. Around 2010-2011, radiology was the lucky recipient of insane compensation cuts. One of the many factors that lead to this was internet forums of people sharing the money they were making.
source: radiologists themselves who've been around for a while.
It's a big strange world out there so I'm not gonna say it definitely didn't happen, but I would love to know exactly how these radiologists knew that it was internet discussions that prompted their reimbursement cuts. I can't imagine CMS explicitly including forum chatter as part of their budgeting process. Sounds to me like the genesis of this most recent paranoia by FiveOclock was an original bout of paranoia by frustrated radiologists who had just received pay cuts. I'm open to being proven wrong by actual evidence, however.
Its obviously not just SDN. Its publication of the results in all forms. So yes there is very much reason to paranoid. If you believe you're going to receive compensation equal to what is on those charts for the next 30 years, then you have lost your mind. I would be extremely paranoid if I were you. I would also expect compensation to be halved in the near future.
You obviously don't understand the concept. It is less about internet forum discussion and more about discussion period. The less it is discussed, the less of an issue it will be. The more its discussed, the more likely that the axe will come sooner rather than later.
Will compensation be cut? Wouldn't doubt it.
Will we avoid some of these cuts if only we stop discussing MGMA salary data on SDN? lol no.
And by the way, third party payors can only cut so far before the third party payer system goes away. Dentists won't do a filling for under $100 and surgeons won't cut for less than $XXX. We are already close to $XXX for many physicians, and once we slip below $XXX only those who can pay >$XXX out of pocket will get care. To believe otherwise is to think that insurance companies and the government can provide universal healthcare while simultaneously lowering costs by 90% simply by setting the maximum reimbursement of any medical service, whether it be a night at the hospital or an 8hr spine surgery, at $100. The world doesn't work like that. If they could cut our salaries by half, they'd have done it already. Nobody leaves money on the table.
Last edited:
Woefully optimistic view. The government already owns healthcare and could make you work for free. It would not be called slavery, I assure you. If you are told by the government gods to cut for $100, you will cut for $100 or will not be practicing.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Maybe. But I can also assure you that nobody is going to cut for $100. What you are discussing now is not so much the ever tenuous topic of physician compensation, but a wholesale destruction of extremely basic constitutional (or even human) rights. It's one thing to be worried about salaries dropping from 450k to 420k, quite another to think they will drop to 150k through a multitude of completely unconstitutional government diktats. That is veering into hysteria.
If this ever happens, physician salaries will be the least of physicians' worries, and so this scenario doesn't even belong in a discussion of salaries but in a "what will you do when Nazis/Commies take power and bring back Gulags" thread. And all this for what, so that the measly 10% of total healthcare costs represented by physician salaries are cut in half, saving the system a breathtaking 5%? I'm not seeing it.
Last edited:
No its not a doomsday 20th century scenario. Have you ever heard of any of the following countries: Canada, Sweden, Germany, England? They all pay doctors nothing and they all essentially require you to accept whatever compensation is offered by the government. Docs in Germany make 50k. Why do you think they all move here? Anyway with our contingent of lazy malcontents that make up "the 47%" its only a matter of time.
Sure, anything could happen. We could get in a nuclear war tomorrow, making this whole discussion a moot point. The point I'm trying to make is, cutting physician salaries in half would not be possible by reducing reimbursement alone. You'd have to institute some pretty radical societal changes and dismantle numerous constitutional protections on top of reimbursement cuts to make it happen. Can the United States be forcefully turned into Germany within 10 years? Why not, no laws of physics forbid it. Is it likely? Not really. Is discussing MGMA salary figures going to be the thing to trigger this metamorphosis? Er...no.
But that's just my opinion. I don't want to hijack this thread further, so if you want to maintain that the opposite is true we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Thanks for the responses everybody! I didn't expect such a simple question to generate so much buzz. I can't decide between surgery and medicine... as in I really can't decide. I was thinking salary would be the coin that flips me but it looks like it's honestly kinda the same for medical specialists vs surgeons?
The fields are vastly different. Choose the one that suits you best
D
deleted564680
Those four countries all have different healthcare systems. England has a "true" socialist system where the government owns everything and thus salaries are lower for a specialist there but actually primary care doctors make just a bit less than primary care counterparts here. BUT, you have 0 debt and 0 malpractice insurance so the "lower" salary is justified.
Canada has a system of privately owned hospitals, but the rates and such are set by the provincial governments. Doctors in Canada are actually paid almost the same as in the US, maybe slightly less.
https://www.ontario.ca/page/public-sector-salary-disclosure (search a specialty such as "radiologist" and then pick Hospital and Health)
Now, I'm not advocating that we switch to these healthcare models but doctors are well paid in most countries (France and Japan being notable countries where they are paid a lot less)
I don't think you're correct. As I recall, MGMA data, which is not the same as above, but seems similar, doesn't include the value of all benefits, but does include all the financial compensation. For example, the $20k for my family health insurance or my disability insurance wouldn't be included, but the $52k retirement plan would, as well as all bonuses and call compensation.
It's not a big difference, but it's a difference, and those benefits can add up.
--
Il Destriero
Every practice is going to be set up differently regarding how benefits are paid out. Either they pay them for you, or you pay for them with increased income yourself. My group's contribution to my benefits, etc. are at least $100k, and include malpractice, disability, Heath/dental/vision, retirement, etc. there are advantages and disadvantages to different set ups, so every group is going to work differently, and probably think their way is the best. It's important to figure all this out so you can compare apples to apples when comparing offers, particularly if some are W2 and others are 1099. That complicates things even more and may require paying an accountant to explain some things to you.
It's nice to be able to look at total compensation for time worked and compare it that way. One of my friends was trying to lure me away from my great academic job and when we discussed total compensation, it was clear that his practice, which did pay more into your bank account every month, wasn't a great deal after all for me. Especially in light of their higher work load. Though they took more vacation, which is also valuable, but not enough for me to come on board.
--
Il Destriero
I remember reading somewhere a few years back that the average dentist in Japan was making about the equivalent of $60k USD annually
Have you seen Japanese girls' teeth? I'd say those dentists are overpaid.
So I hate to ask again but does anybody have any data from 2016? The data that was posted earlier was from 2015. Thanks,
MGMA includes salary, bonuses, research stipends, and honoraria. It does not include fringe benefits (eg health insurance) or employer contributions to a retirement plan. (Source: http://www.mgma.com/industry-data/all-data-resources/survey-faqs-data-calculations-and-glossary)
MGMA 2016 is not out yet.
MGMA 2016 is not out yet.
I'm really interested in hematology oncology and surgery; I just hear totally disparate things about salary in the two. When I look at medscape it says that heme oncs make more than general surgeons (and this is mirrored in Merrit Hawkins data), but when I talk to heme oncs in practice they say they make as much as general internists and that surgery is a way better career path. Can anybody straighten this out for me? Sheesh@!!
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Ugh. Please try and understand. I like them both. I have thought about this from every angle. I am agonizing over this and I can't make up my mind and my 4th year schedule has to be set like NOW. The heme oncs I talk to say to do surgery. The surgeons say to do medicine. How does compensation compare between surgery and medical specialists? Please somebody tell me?
For my internal medicine rotation I just did a bunch of hospitalist medicine. I didn't get to do cardiology service, hematology service, etc. I have to wait until 4th year to do that and I can't afford to waste precious months before the match applications are due. Please somebody just tell me what the f to do. I like them both!!
On average, the surgeon will make about $100,000 more per year than the oncologist. This is for academics anyway, not sure about private practice. This is also pretax.
However, you need to decide if you want to be a surgeon or a medicine doc. Take surgical oncology for instance, do you want to take out the tumor then send the patient to oncology for adjuvant therapy or do you want to send the patient to the surgeon and get the patient back when they are ready for adjuvant therapy.
Surgery or medicine. You must decide. Forget about the money. By the time you take taxes out, the difference won't mean a whole lot with regards to lifestyle. Plus, reimbursements are changing for everyone, so you do not know what it will be like in 5-10 years when you finish training. Also, you may decide you do not want to treat cancer. What subspecialty do you want then? Something medical or something surgical?
Did you like your surgery rotation or your medicine rotation better? Did you like early morning rounds, in the OR all day, hands on, high acuity? Did you like the more cerebral aspects of medicine, rounds, conferences, some high acuity, but often not?
This is how you will get your answer. Trying heme/onc won't help you decide if you fundamentally want to be a surgeon or a medicine doctor.
