Average starting pay for MD pathologist

[scurred]

And again...this is my opinion...everybody's post here is an opinion...

half of these people also think that path doesn't have a future...also an opinion, a ******ed one, but an opinion nonetheless

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ziehl-Neelsen]

Priority list for LADOC:
La Dolce Vita, stress free: free from worries about competitors, cash, relationships...
free from worries about drunk homeless people rummaging through my trash and begging me for change on my way to morning coffee that routinely occurs in the "thriving metropolis".

free from having to drive my car around in circles trying to find a parking space.

free from having to pay massive bridge tolls or spend 45 minutes in traffic to go out to dinner

I want to sit in a smoking jacket next to a warm fire with my Wall Street Journal and pipe freshly packed with the Admiral's tobbaco, perhaps a wood barrel aged Aberlour scotch or a 2002 Bordeaux within arms reach.

No friend calling me up to go hang out at some lame as crap Bohemian club in the Haight. No more nights at some back alley wine bar filled with lesbian man haters where I struggle to listen to whatever pathetic musings about politics/change my drink companions endlessly blather on about...About 30 minutes in I begin day dreaming about sucking on the end of a Glock19 hoping to end the misery.

I want quiet. That is my priority.

Right on. Add to that portrait the ability to walk out the back door, survey my 200 acres of wilderness, and proceed to go 20 for 20 on clay pigeons with my 870 wingmaster and you and I are talking Shangri-La.

It is one of the sad ironies of my life that in order to pursue my career, I have been stuck living in major metropolises since the day my young parents dragged their wailing whelp back to the bleak, fog-enclosed prison known as the Sunset District. People talk about the wonderful diversity in cities, but until I was 17, all I knew were concrete parks, garishly painted "box" houses, lily-white Irishmen, and Chinese. I'll take the diversity of Pocatello Idaho over The City any day.

 

[mcfaddens]

Right on. Add to that portrait the ability to walk out the back door, survey my 200 acres of wilderness, and proceed to go 20 for 20 on clay pigeons with my 870 wingmaster and you and I are talking Shangri-La.

It is one of the sad ironies of my life that in order to pursue my career, I have been stuck living in major metropolises since the day my young parents dragged their wailing whelp back to the bleak, fog-enclosed prison known as the Sunset District. People talk about the wonderful diversity in cities, but until I was 17, all I knew were concrete parks, garishly painted "box" houses, lily-white Irishmen, and Chinese. I'll take the diversity of Pocatello Idaho over The City any day.

Amen!

 

[pathstudent]

Now that investment banking and law have tanked, medicine seems like the best move in the world

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/opinion/02thu4.html?em

EDITORIAL OBSERVER
With the Downturn, It’s Time to Rethink the Legal Profession
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT
SHARE

By ADAM COHEN
Published: April 1, 2009
The economic downturn is hitting the legal world hard. American Lawyer is calling it “the fire this time” and warning that big firms may be hurtling toward “a paradigm-shifting, blood-in-the-suites” future. The Law Shucks blog has a “layoff tracker,” and it is grim reading. Top firms are rapidly thinning their ranks, and several — including Heller Ehrman, a venerable 500-plus-lawyer firm founded in 1890 — have closed.

The employment pains of the legal elite may not elicit a lot of sympathy in the broader context of the recession, but a lot of hard-working lawyers have been blindsided, including young associates who are suddenly finding themselves with six-figure student-loan debts and no source of income.

Leading firms have historically avoided mass layoffs, concerned that their reputations would take a hit. But some have been putting those inhibitions aside, perhaps calculating that the stigma of pushing out their colleagues has faded. Law firm managers and bar associations should be looking for more creative ways to deal with the hard times — like reducing pay for both partners and associates to save jobs, as a few firms have begun doing.

The silver lining, if there is one, is that the legal world may be inspired to draw blueprints for the 21st century.

The changes are likely to begin with compensation. Years ago, law firm starting salaries were not that different from government or public-interest jobs. But the gap has become a chasm. First-year salaries at top firms are around $160,000, compared with $48,000 to start for state and local prosecutors and $40,000 for legal-services lawyers. New associates often earn more than the judges they appear before.

The downturn will probably rein in salaries at the high end. Top firms are already under pressure to lower the $160,000 starting salary; one industry-watcher says it could fall as low as $100,000. And fewer firms will feel the need to pay the top salary.

Lower pay should mean that associates will not need to work the grueling hours many have been forced to. And it will mean less pressure to go into private practice for law graduates who would rather do something else.

Clients are also likely to benefit — and consumers, since legal fees are built into the cost of almost everything. Even before the downturn, big-firm clients, led by the Association of Corporate Counsel, were pushing to phase out the billable hour — which can go as high as $1,000. Tight corporate budgets will give clients more leverage to push to pay by the project or for successful outcomes.

For years, law school tuition rose along with big-firm salaries. Between 1990 and 2003, the cost of private law schools rose at nearly three times the rate of consumer prices. The average graduate now leaves with more than $80,000 in debt. In one survey, 66 percent of students said debt prevented them from considering government or public-interest jobs.

If the downturn is prolonged, law schools will need to keep tuition and other costs in check so students do not graduate with unmanageable debt. More schools may follow the lead of Northwestern, the first top-tier law school to offer a two-year program.

Law schools may also become more serious about curriculum reform. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching released an influential report that, among other things, urged law schools to make better use of the sometimes-aimless second and third years. If law jobs are scarce, there will be more pressure on schools to make the changes Carnegie suggested, including more focus on practical skills.

They may also need to pay more attention to preparing students for nonlegal careers. Law graduates have always ended up in business, government, journalism and other fields. Law schools could do more to build these subjects into their coursework.

The past few decades of prosperity made a lot of lawyers wealthy, but they were not always good for the profession. Law school deans, bar association leaders and firm managers should follow Rahm Emanuel’s advice about never allowing a crisis to go to waste and start planning for what comes next.

 

[mcfaddens]

I decided to become eco friendly and not repost the internet copy and paste from "pathstudent" in the above post but I had a question or 2 for the poster. 1#: find me a job in medicine (MD or DO degree) that will pay you $160K with 3 yrs out of college (3rd year med student level) what is the going rate? #2: it seems you copy and post alot of info from internet sites but dont offer your interpretation of the info (if you are a pathologist (or one in training) thats kind of what you should be doing). come on what was the point of the post? im confused. Yes i cry myself to sleep every night that there might be one less lawyer in the world who might to try to press suit against me when I did nothing wrong or my name happens to rhyme with the actual defendant ..... I wonder if all of us quit tomorrow.. that might actually influence the starting salary of new law grads..

 

[pathstudent]

I decided to become eco friendly and not repost the internet copy and paste from "pathstudent" in the above post but I had a question or 2 for the poster. 1#: find me a job in medicine (MD or DO degree) that will pay you $160K with 3 yrs out of college (3rd year med student level) what is the going rate? #2: it seems you copy and post alot of info from internet sites but dont offer your interpretation of the info (if you are a pathologist (or one in training) thats kind of what you should be doing). come on what was the point of the post? im confused. Yes i cry myself to sleep every night that there might be one less lawyer in the world who might to try to press suit against me when I did nothing wrong or my name happens to rhyme with the actual defendant ..... I wonder if all of us quit tomorrow.. that might actually influence the starting salary of new law grads..

I posted it because a lot of people gripe about salaries, but now it looks like things have changed a lot. There was an an article ago about how young financiers routinely make 300-400k a couple years out of business school, and now that has completely dried up with the financial crisis. Young law grads are now facing a new reality. You can't do any better than medicine/pathology unless you can make it as rock star, professional athlete or A list actor.

But at the same time, if the country continues to decline, the gov't/medicare/the populace may say, "no way are doctors going to make that much while the rest of us take a beating" and cut our reimbursements in half.

 

[stickyshift]

But at the same time, if the country continues to decline, the gov't/medicare/the populace may say, "no way are doctors going to make that much while the rest of us take a beating" and cut our reimbursements in half.[/quote]

You bet! I can just hear our President saying, "The days of doctors getting rich off of the sickness and suffering of the taxpayers is over."
Just wait and see: soon people will be saying that a good reason to nationalize health care will be to make sure that people go into medicine for "the right reasons" and "to make sure that this (doctors making money) never happens again."

 

[scurred]

can this thread just be deleted...it's like a bad train wreck that I can't stop looking at. Seriously...it's one of the numerous iterations of the same thread that keeps on popping up and the same posts by the same angry people.

 

[scurred]

But at the same time, if the country continues to decline, the gov't/medicare/the populace may say, "no way are doctors going to make that much while the rest of us take a beating" and cut our reimbursements in half.

You bet! I can just hear our President saying, "The days of doctors getting rich off of the sickness and suffering of the taxpayers is over."
Just wait and see: soon people will be saying that a good reason to nationalize health care will be to make sure that people go into medicine for "the right reasons" and "to make sure that this (doctors making money) never happens again."[/quote]

Your interpretation is horrendous, atrocious, and honestly, I feel like people like you should be banned from posting baseless statements

1) If you had any idea about how much physicians get paid in a socialized health care system, rather than just making ignorant statements, then I would say post

2) Whatever healthcare system is created would be a hybrid of what we have now in the states...also, weren't we just talking about how pathologists are being paid quite well in canada, like around 300k...

3) Additionally, if everyone has healthcare, that means more cases which means more money, compensation will not change dramatically in pathology

4) Technology is currently coming to head in pathology and we are seeing a bloom in the number of tests as well as its cost, which will only mean more money for pathologists.

5) personalized medicine will dramatically increase over the next decade and we will also cause a boon for pathologists

 

[deschutes]

Just because the theme of a thread is repetitious, isn't enough reason for it to be deleted. Believe me I am weary of the innumerable "job market sucks!" threads too, but discussion of the pathology job market is both valid and current. You can always ignore threads or posters you don't like.

 

[scurred]

Just because the theme of a thread is repetitious, isn't enough reason for it to be deleted. Believe me I am weary of the innumerable "job market sucks!" threads too, but discussion of the pathology job market is both valid and current. You can always ignore threads or posters you don't like.

I could do a lot of things...but I choose not ignore problems like these, especially when it causes deters people from choosing a specialty that they may indeed enjoy and who many in other professions seem to want to always switch into

 

[yaah]

I could do a lot of things...but I choose not ignore problems like these, especially when it causes deters people from choosing a specialty that they may indeed enjoy and who many in other professions seem to want to always switch into

If someone is basing their career choice on the rantings of selected anonymous internet forum posters, perhaps they shouldn't be in pathology anyway.

 

[stickyshift]

You bet! I can just hear our President saying, "The days of doctors getting rich off of the sickness and suffering of the taxpayers is over."
Just wait and see: soon people will be saying that a good reason to nationalize health care will be to make sure that people go into medicine for "the right reasons" and "to make sure that this (doctors making money) never happens again."

Your interpretation is horrendous, atrocious, and honestly, I feel like people like you should be banned from posting baseless statements

1) If you had any idea about how much physicians get paid in a socialized health care system, rather than just making ignorant statements, then I would say post

2) Whatever healthcare system is created would be a hybrid of what we have now in the states...also, weren't we just talking about how pathologists are being paid quite well in canada, like around 300k...

3) Additionally, if everyone has healthcare, that means more cases which means more money, compensation will not change dramatically in pathology

4) Technology is currently coming to head in pathology and we are seeing a bloom in the number of tests as well as its cost, which will only mean more money for pathologists.

5) personalized medicine will dramatically increase over the next decade and we will also cause a boon for pathologists[/quote]


You have a lot of balls as a medical student to accuse an attending of being "horrendous," "atrocious," and ignorant. I do not like to engage in ad hominem arguments, so I will address what you said, point by point:

1) So, let's say pathologists in Canada make a nice $300K. You have to tell me if that's in Canadian dollars, or US dollars ($240K). Furthermore, you have to take into account where the doctor lives and practices: even $300K is a modest sum if you live and practice in an urban setting.

2) Even if the government merely offers an "option" for uninsured citizens, or for those who just want to get off their private plans, there is a clear threat to the continued existence of both a private and public option since the government option can outcompete the private option on price; the government option can be subsidized by taxpayer dollars. So in a short space of time, it is likely that there will be no hybrid system.

3) I am in private practice and I watch over the group (20+ pathologists) finances. The uninsured make up no more than 5% of our accounts. We routinely write these accounts off, since they so rarely pay. However, Medicare/Medicaid make up about 30% of our revenue. I assume that the government option will pay pathologists at the Medicare rate. Do you have any idea what that rate is? In my practice, it is no more than 80% of what I am reimbursed by my private payers. Now, if the 5% that are uninsured are enrolled in Medicare, the bump up to my bottom line will be negligible. However, if a much greater percentage becomes Medicare (because of patients switching from private plans to the government plan), the results would be disastrous for my practice. We would have to lay off at least half of our pathologists to make up for the shortfall (in large part because Medicare also does not pay PCCL).

4) Many of these great technologically advanced tests are not billable by pathologists. An example is the Digene test (HPV test): this test does not require physician interpretation and thus we can not bill a professional fee for it (and the majority of pathologists make their living primarily by billing professional fees). Your statement would be reasonable for pathologists who own their own labs, because they can bill a technical fee for the running of the test, but most pathologists do not own their own labs.

5) We will see about personalized medicine, and if it will become a boon to pathologists. But once again, it is not clear that your usual pathologist, billing only the professional component, will profit.

If you are horrified that anyone would try to vilify productive pathologists for earning good incomes, you should listen to some of our President's vitriol against bankers . . . I don't think that it's a big stretch to see that invective directed against doctors.

 

[stickyshift]

"Your interpretation is horrendous, atrocious, and honestly, I feel like people like you should be banned from posting baseless statements."

OK, OK, OK. I really don't like to criticize people as much as I like to criticize positions, but I find it really rich that you defended yourself earlier by saying that everyone is entitled to his own opinion . . . Yet I should be banned . . . That's really hurtful.

 

[earmuff]

[/quote]

2) Even if the government merely offers an "option" for uninsured citizens, or for those who just want to get off their private plans, there is a clear threat to the continued existence of both a private and public option since the government option can outcompete the private option on price; the government option can be subsidized by taxpayer dollars. So in a short space of time, it is likely that there will be no hybrid system.

[/quote]

I'm sure that this point is nothing more than one poster's opinion.

Australia has a very functional two-tiered system that rewards the privately insured with tax incentives. Additionally, they generally receive private rooms when admitted to hospital (as opposed to a multi-bed room), and have shorter wait times and better reimbursement for elective procedures. Many people would purchase private insurance just for this reason alone. There are other benefits to being privately insured in Oz... probably too numerous to list.

The point is that the system can be set up in just such a way, ie "if you can afford it, please buy it" or, conversely, "only take it for free if you absolutely need it."

The doom and gloom surrounding a government plan that may provide "health insurance for all" is a bit pessimistic, and reeks of fear-mongering in order to maintain the status quo. But that is only my opinion.

 

[deschutes]

Stay on target. I never suggested you ignore problems, just what you yourself described as being repetitious opinions.

I could do a lot of things...but I choose not ignore problems like these, especially when it causes deters people from choosing a specialty that they may indeed enjoy and who many in other professions seem to want to always switch into

can this thread just be deleted...it's like a bad train wreck that I can't stop looking at. Seriously...it's one of the numerous iterations of the same thread that keeps on popping up and the same posts by the same angry people.

 

[scurred]

Your interpretation is horrendous, atrocious, and honestly, I feel like people like you should be banned from posting baseless statements

1) If you had any idea about how much physicians get paid in a socialized health care system, rather than just making ignorant statements, then I would say post

2) Whatever healthcare system is created would be a hybrid of what we have now in the states...also, weren't we just talking about how pathologists are being paid quite well in canada, like around 300k...

3) Additionally, if everyone has healthcare, that means more cases which means more money, compensation will not change dramatically in pathology

4) Technology is currently coming to head in pathology and we are seeing a bloom in the number of tests as well as its cost, which will only mean more money for pathologists.

5) personalized medicine will dramatically increase over the next decade and we will also cause a boon for pathologists

You have a lot of balls as a medical student to accuse an attending of being "horrendous," "atrocious," and ignorant. I do not like to engage in ad hominem arguments, so I will address what you said, point by point:

1) So, let's say pathologists in Canada make a nice $300K. You have to tell me if that's in Canadian dollars, or US dollars ($240K). Furthermore, you have to take into account where the doctor lives and practices: even $300K is a modest sum if you live and practice in an urban setting.

2) Even if the government merely offers an "option" for uninsured citizens, or for those who just want to get off their private plans, there is a clear threat to the continued existence of both a private and public option since the government option can outcompete the private option on price; the government option can be subsidized by taxpayer dollars. So in a short space of time, it is likely that there will be no hybrid system.

3) I am in private practice and I watch over the group (20+ pathologists) finances. The uninsured make up no more than 5% of our accounts. We routinely write these accounts off, since they so rarely pay. However, Medicare/Medicaid make up about 30% of our revenue. I assume that the government option will pay pathologists at the Medicare rate. Do you have any idea what that rate is? In my practice, it is no more than 80% of what I am reimbursed by my private payers. Now, if the 5% that are uninsured are enrolled in Medicare, the bump up to my bottom line will be negligible. However, if a much greater percentage becomes Medicare (because of patients switching from private plans to the government plan), the results would be disastrous for my practice. We would have to lay off at least half of our pathologists to make up for the shortfall (in large part because Medicare also does not pay PCCL).

4) Many of these great technologically advanced tests are not billable by pathologists. An example is the Digene test (HPV test): this test does not require physician interpretation and thus we can not bill a professional fee for it (and the majority of pathologists make their living primarily by billing professional fees). Your statement would be reasonable for pathologists who own their own labs, because they can bill a technical fee for the running of the test, but most pathologists do not own their own labs.

5) We will see about personalized medicine, and if it will become a boon to pathologists. But once again, it is not clear that your usual pathologist, billing only the professional component, will profit.

If you are horrified that anyone would try to vilify productive pathologists for earning good incomes, you should listen to some of our President's vitriol against bankers . . . I don't think that it's a big stretch to see that invective directed against doctors.[/QUOTE]

Just because one is an "attending," again does not give you the right to make baseless statements, unless they are backed with facts...I am thankful for your counterpoints as you offered some substantial evidence...however, to say that I have the audacity to "question" you, I'll have to say that you are a little full of yourself...if people don't question, we end up in the current economic straights that we are now thanks to bush and Co...I guess we should just take your word as gospel because you are an "attending"

1) Here are some faults to your counterpoint. The first being that if the salary was 300k in CAD, then it would be 250k(1USD=1.2CAD). The Canadian economy and dollar is much stronger than the USD, and it is only a matter of time before the CAD is worth more than the USD. It already happened at one point last year before the entire world market dropped and the USD reassumed its original position. In addition, as a US citizen working abroad your first 95k would go untaxed, previously 85k. This would be an additional 20k on top of that salary. In addition, it was 300k CAD for major metropolitan areas of Canada...550k to 600k for the boondocks of canada

2) Your point is ridiculous...I guess you think that somehow the entire private system, with all their money, is suddenly going to dissolve...please don't inhale the formalin...there will be a hybrid system, as the ones that are currently in place work...see the person's post who posted after you

3) Again, your counterpoint is not based on fact...the current plan allows for different tiers of coverage by the government...not everyone would be going through Medicaid...I can only assume that with different levels of coverage there would be different levels of compensation

4) You gave one example of a test that goes straight to a lab...congrats...i don't see how this counters anything...there are plenty that are coming around that still require a pathologist's interpretation...see
http://www.cap.org/apps/cap.portal?_nfpb=true&cntvwrPtlt_actionOverride=/portlets/contentViewer/show&_windowLabel=cntvwrPtlt&cntvwrPtlt{actionForm.contentReference}=cap_foundation/futurescape_meeting.html&_state=maximized&_pageLabel=cntvwr

5) no dispute

 

[BamaAlum]

3) I am in private practice and I watch over the group (20+ pathologists) finances. The uninsured make up no more than 5% of our accounts. We routinely write these accounts off, since they so rarely pay. However, Medicare/Medicaid make up about 30% of our revenue. I assume that the government option will pay pathologists at the Medicare rate. Do you have any idea what that rate is? In my practice, it is no more than 80% of what I am reimbursed by my private payers. Now, if the 5% that are uninsured are enrolled in Medicare, the bump up to my bottom line will be negligible. However, if a much greater percentage becomes Medicare (because of patients switching from private plans to the government plan), the results would be disastrous for my practice. We would have to lay off at least half of our pathologists to make up for the shortfall (in large part because Medicare also does not pay PCCL).

This is the essence of the fear that most private practice pathologists have with this proposed plan. Based on government projections and current prices for providing private insurance, it will ultimately be cheaper for an employer, who is mandated to provide coverage at the risk of a penalty, to switch to the proposed government run plan. Given this, many employers will undoubtedly opt to pay into the government plan. The question becomes what will the reimbursement rate be for this proposed plan? One has to assume that it will be substantially less than private plans and more in line with Medicare. Do you really think the government is going to reimburse for their own plan at 120% of Medicare? This shift would result in a drop in reimbursement.

However, all of this is based on Obama's campaign plan. The final plan must still be hammered out in Congress and most likely will be significantly diluted. The insurance lobby will certainly put up a fight and as the plan takes shape physician groups will come out in droves against aspects of the plan.

I am willing to wait and see what sort of plan emerges later this year. I am not optimistic that a reduction is reimbursement of some magnitude will not be a part of whatever plan is decided upon, however.

 

[Sulfinator]

If someone is basing their career choice on the rantings of selected anonymous internet forum posters, perhaps they shouldn't be in pathology anyway.

I think this is quite possibly one of the best statements I have ever read on the Pathology subforum.

 

[schrute]

Based on government projections and current prices for providing private insurance, it will ultimately be cheaper for an employer, who is mandated to provide coverage at the risk of a penalty, to switch to the proposed government run plan. Given this, many employers will undoubtedly opt to pay into the government plan. The question becomes what will the reimbursement rate be for this proposed plan? One has to assume that it will be substantially less than private plans and more in line with Medicare. Do you really think the government is going to reimburse for their own plan at 120% of Medicare? This shift would result in a drop in reimbursement.

I think that is a point that warrants repeating. The "doom and gloom" projections from the likes of stickyshift are not based on Right-wing fear-mongering tactics, but the likelihood of COUNTLESS Americans having their employer switch from private plans to the government plan, and in doing so, drastically reducing the number of private insurers.

It's a farce to believe that making an "affordable" government plan will spontaneously draw in the crowds of uninsured who could potentially afford it. Rule numero uno in America: if you can get it for cheaper, take it...if you can get it for free, better yet. And because such a large percentage of health care is tied to employment, employers aren't going to want to pay for private when government insurance is available at a cheaper rate.

 

[schrute]

2) Your point is ridiculous...I guess you think that somehow the entire private system, with all their money, is suddenly going to dissolve...please don't inhale the formalin...there will be a hybrid system, as the ones that are currently in place work...

The point, as I understand it, is not some irrational fear that we're all going to be forced into government health care, as you so uneloquently alluded. Rather, it is hesitancy to advance down a certain path with the experience-based knowledge that there is no turning back, as the road becomes widened, paved, and repaired on a yearly basis for fear of losing allocated funds.

No one is saying the system is fine how it is, but the "well we have to do something and it may as well involve government control" is the first step in a departure from historic principles, and it's not going to turn out for the better if you're a physician.

 

[KeratinPearls]

In my experience, from first hand knowledge of people with jobs, or recently accepting jobs:

Average starting pay for a General Pathologist with a Surgical Path Fellowship or Cytopathfellowship - 225K in places like Iowa or Pennsylvania(basically boondocks)

if in a major metropolitan area with same qualifications - 150k

Average starting pay for a General Pathologist at an Academic Institution -(100k-150k)

Average starting pay for a Pathologist with a GI, Hemepath fellowship - (250-350k)

Average starting pay for a Dermatopathologist is (250k-450k)

Dermatopathologist starting at 450K? No way. Unless he has his own gig or clinicians are sending him skin biopsies up the hizzle.

 

[LADoc00]

Dermatopathologist starting at 450K? No way. Unless he has his own gig or clinicians are sending him skin biopsies up the hizzle.

You wanna hear something crazy...I heard a 600K starting offer in the South somewhere a few years back..600K, probably in place where the mean wage is like 18000/year! LOL, you buy the biggest house in town outright after a single year of savings. Of course the kicker was partner salary being 8-10 stacks of High Society a month! LMAO...of course no idea how long this will last. Probably not long.

 

[2121115]

In my experience, from first hand knowledge of people with jobs, or recently accepting jobs:

Average starting pay for a General Pathologist with a Surgical Path Fellowship or Cytopathfellowship - 225K in places like Iowa or Pennsylvania(basically boondocks)

if in a major metropolitan area with same qualifications - 150k

Average starting pay for a General Pathologist at an Academic Institution -(100k-150k)

Average starting pay for a Pathologist with a GI, Hemepath fellowship - (250-350k)

Average starting pay for a Dermatopathologist is (250k-450k)

While the other numbers that you quote are in line with what I have seen with people finishing at my program, this seems kind of high for hemepath. Do you mean someone who does a hemepath and a GI fellowship or that you've seen hemepath fellows and GI fellows getting this starting pay? Hemepath may be more in demand than I thought.

Edit: Oh wait, your profile says that you are a med student. True, or are you a resident? How does a med student get this kind of info anyway?

 

[mcfaddens]

While the other numbers that you quote are in line with what I have seen with people finishing at my program, this seems kind of high for hemepath. Do you mean someone who does a hemepath and a GI fellowship or that you've seen hemepath fellows and GI fellows getting this starting pay? Hemepath may be more in demand than I thought.

Edit: Oh wait, your profile says that you are a med student. True, or are you a resident? How does a med student get this kind of info anyway?

He makes it up! Look at some of his older posts he is a troll

 

[yaah]

Those numbers don't sound made up to me.

 

[LADoc00]

The average starting numbers are well known by CAP members, the ones being thrown around here are a bit high.

Expect the low end in a metro area to be 100 (or even less) especially when they start you 75% time (which more groups are doing) and the high end to be around 200.

I would never pay a starting salary of more than 200 for FT. I would be far more tempted to bring someone in at 50% time for 100, maybe 110 if they declined benefits. Dunno.

 

[yaah]

Interestingly though, CAP surveys also say that rural pathologists make, on average, less (by 5-10%) than urban/suburban pathologists. That probably depends on how you define the terms though.

 

[2121115]

Interestingly though, CAP surveys also say that rural pathologists make, on average, less (by 5-10%) than urban/suburban pathologists. That probably depends on how you define the terms though.

I've seen those numbers as well. I think it depends, like many other things, on the particular situation. How is 'rural' defined and how big is the local area that the hospital/practice draws from.

 

[mcfaddens]

Those numbers don't sound made up to me.

Well, I could give you a range of $1 to $500,000 and it would be true as well. The point i am trying to make is that fellowships does not = increased salary and the focus should not be on how much you make out of training it really lies on how long your are gonna have that job or be able to stand it (i.e. good money and $hitty work environment), yes you might get more money off the bat but you can get fired just as easily. it boggles my mind how the folks in our profession seem to have little when it comes to street smarts, I hope im wrong.

 

[happydoctor]

For those who are saying that GI pathology fellowship is not needed - I will say that without fellowship you are good to go up-to tubular adenoma but when it comes to IMC and submucosal invasion or pseudo-invasion then 20 year experience helps but then 1 year of GI pathology fellowship (BUT AT really busy place with extensive consults - Like MGH, MSK or Hopkins) does make a huge difference.

 

[Substance]

For those who are saying that GI pathology fellowship is not needed - I will say that without fellowship you are good to go up-to tubular adenoma but when it comes to IMC and submucosal invasion or pseudo-invasion then 20 year experience helps but then 1 year of GI pathology fellowship (BUT AT really busy place with extensive consults - Like MGH, MSK or Hopkins) does make a huge difference.

Sounds like someone did a GI fellowship and is hustling.

 

[BlondeDocteur]

Dolla dolla billz, y'all

 

[2121115]

For those who are saying that GI pathology fellowship is not needed - I will say that without fellowship you are good to go up-to tubular adenoma but when it comes to IMC and submucosal invasion or pseudo-invasion then 20 year experience helps but then 1 year of GI pathology fellowship (BUT AT really busy place with extensive consults - Like MGH, MSK or Hopkins) does make a huge difference.

LOL at this.

 

[BlondeDocteur]

Speaking of dolla dolla billz, though, @mlw3 wasn't kidding when he was describing Canadian pay.

http://www.saskdocs.ca/work/opportunities/job-posting/?jobid=00d261d5-16b9-e311-a2e5-6c3be5a8a22c

($300K Canadian = $272K US)

 

[coroner]

Forensics in Saskatchewan...I could think of a few better ways to spend a career than looking out my window and watching caribou mate

I have heard from a couple of Canadian docs in our hospital that pathologists up there have a fairly standard salary based on some kind of national pay scale determined for what specialties are worth. Pathology is somewhere b/w $300-350K from what they tell me. For some reason, if you're a surgeon, the system isn't as generous and they're better off practicing in the U.S.

"Dolla, dolla, billz, ya'll"... are you a Kenny Powers fan?

 

[Thrombus]

For those who are saying that GI pathology fellowship is not needed - I will say that without fellowship you are good to go up-to tubular adenoma but when it comes to IMC and submucosal invasion or pseudo-invasion then 20 year experience helps but then 1 year of GI pathology fellowship (BUT AT really busy place with extensive consults - Like MGH, MSK or Hopkins) does make a huge difference.

Speak for yourself, chump.

 

[Johnny Sunshine]

I am personally comfortable diagnosing a lot more than just TA's, and I have no fellowships of any kind done yet.

However, I'm afraid happydoctor may turn out to be a prophet. What about 5 or 10 years from now? Will pathology be so hyper-specialized that you will be loathe to sign anything malignant without at least an appropriately related fellowship under your belt, lest a lawsuit go awry? We are already at the point where most people avoid signing anything that hints at lymphoma, especially if no flow is available.

I feel comfortable signing most lymphomas out with just a handful of stains. But all the prosecution has to do is pay a couple $K to someone with an actual heme fellowship on their CV. They get on the stand, babble some "advanced expert opinion", and suddenly the jury isn't so sure the Reed-Sternberg cells I pointed out to them are all that legit, CD15 and CD30 be damned. The hematopathology faction is so overflooded right now, I wouldn't be surprised if a few of them take up Expert Witness as an alternate career.

Okay, I'm probably being a bit paranoid. Hopefully.

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

I borrowed this from a website for an ObGyn-owned lab, that currently has a job posting for a pathologist. See how bad those lowly community pathologists are vs a gyn expert!

http://www.womenscarefl.com/docs/de...-library/community-vs-gyn-expert.pdf?sfvrsn=0

The days of skilled morphologists are numbered. At some point technology will probably eliminate the need to be hyperspecialized and pathologist will just be pilots.

 

[yaah]

The days of skilled morphologists are numbered. At some point technology will probably eliminate the need to be hyperspecialized and pathologist will just be pilots.

The days of skilled everything are numbered, it seems like. Computers are slated to replace diagnosticians, radiologists, pathologists, and even psychiatrists and surgeons. And if computers aren't slated to replace them, it is other professionals like NPs or PAs who will replace them (like for basic surgical procedures, endoscopies, office visits, anesthesia, basically everything).

So while it is reasonable to discuss and predict how pathologists will be gradually replaced by technology, you can't really do it without considering how every other profession on earth is also at risk. I would personally put politician first on the chopping block to be replaced by a robot. That and everything in the judicial system which relies far too much on emotion than on logic and evidence.

And even the profession that I always cite as immune to the concerns of other specialties, that of the professional athlete, is probably at risk . If someone develops a robot pitcher that is better and more effective than a human, well then they are probably at risk too.

 

[deleted314957]

For those who are saying that GI pathology fellowship is not needed - I will say that without fellowship you are good to go up-to tubular adenoma but when it comes to IMC and submucosal invasion or pseudo-invasion then 20 year experience helps but then 1 year of GI pathology fellowship (BUT AT really busy place with extensive consults - Like MGH, MSK or Hopkins) does make a huge difference.

This is absolute, unmitigated horseshi*

 

[yaah]

at least he/she didn't claim it makes a difference in Barretts dysplasia cases.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18671819

 

[coroner]

This was an old thread bumped out of nowhere from 2009 by a med student who joined SDN over six years ago and in only their second post claims pathologists need a GI fellowship to sign out cases beyond a TA. I think it's pretty obvious by now...