Can you believe Ophtho starting salaries??

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

keye

Full Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Can someone, hopefully a 3rd year resident tell us if these are the norms??? Becuase 96-100k seems very low, do these usually shoot up in 2-3 years???

https://secure3.aao.org/professionalchoices/search.cfm?cfid=1711021&cftoken=50772790

Post Date:
Apr 14, 2008
Type:
Full time,Part time
Start Date:
ASAP
Salary:
$96,000 - $105,000
Category:
MD:pediatric/Strabismus
Post Reference:

Location:
United States - Utah::South Jordan


Post Date:
Apr 14, 2008
Type:
Full time
Start Date:
immediate
Salary:
$96,000 - $105,000
Category:
MD:Anterior Segment,MD:Cataract,MD:General
Post Reference:

Location:
United States - Georgia::Suwanee

Members don't see this ad.
 
Can someone, hopefully a 3rd year resident tell us if these are the norms??? Becuase 96-100k seems very low, do these usually shoot up in 2-3 years???

There are crappy jobs with crappy salaries everywhere. You should address the salary issue if you are serious enough to inquire. Is the practice weak and unable to offer a better salary? Can they even justify hiring a full-time person? Are they financially stable? Are they just abusive and simply want to get someone cheap that they don't want to even bother with the pretense of treating well or paying fairly?

Practices that offer suspiciously low or suspiciously high salaries are often saying something about themselves and their history as a practice, usually not something good. It is your job to find out what they are saying.

I have always found it useful to call around about a given practice. It is particularly helpful to speak with former associates, and is worth the effort to track them down to hear what they have to say. Ask for the names of former administrators and even competitors. You can always discount opinions for bias later.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Dr. Doan,
Are these typical salaries, or on the low end? Also, is the overall trend downwards or upwards?
 
Dr. Doan,
Are these typical salaries, or on the low end? Also, is the overall trend downwards or upwards?

This is on the low end of starting salaries. Be aware that private practice is "your personal business". You will make as much as you will bill. So the starting salaries are the base, but when you ramp up, you usually take home 35%-50% of your billing (depending on your overhead).

At the AAO Mid-year Forum, average private practice incomes were quoted as ~$340K/year (little high IMHO)... $250K/year is more like the average.

VA Ophthalmologists now make $90K/year to $240K/year (cap just raised). So as you gain in experience, so will your salary.

Academic ophthalmologists make in the $200K/year range.

Military ophthalmologists make $125K-$200K/year range.
 
Dr. Doan,
Are these typical salaries, or on the low end? Also, is the overall trend downwards or upwards?

This is definitely in the low end of the spectrum and from what I'm hearing the starting salary for ophthalmologists is rising due to higher demand.
 
This is definitely in the low end of the spectrum and from what I'm hearing the starting salary for ophthalmologists is rising due to higher demand.

Really?
 
As Dr. Doan mentioned, in private practice, you also have to look at the amount of your billing that you'll take home, because that will make a huge difference in your actual take-home pay, even if the salary itself isn't that high. You also have to look at partnership track; are you willing to take a cut in the first year or two to become a partner sooner rather than later?

And still another thing to look at is where the practice is located. $100k in Boise is a lot better than $100k in Manhattan. Conversely, places that are popular can get away with paying a lot less than places that are unpopular. You end up taking a pay cut to live on the coasts, because more people traditionally want to live there. Inland lying practices generally have to bump the pay up a little bit to make up for "forcing" you to live there.
 
Dr. Doan's advice is spot-on and valuable on this forum. When I was considering Ophtho, his words were like liquid gold.

Regarding the OP's question, those are certainly low-end starging salaries. Most Ophtho's do very well, in the $300-400k range, in practice/partners.

Best of luck to all!
 
I vote for taking the "O" out of "ROAD".
 
on that note...what about the starting versus a few years in salaries for the specialties...everyone always says Retina is the best...but just for instance, how about

Peds:
Glaucoma:
Cornea (refractive):
Cornea (non-refractive):
Retina:
Neuro-Ophth:

etc

just curious since i really have no idea...right now I'm pretty sure I'm goin Peds Ophtho and I know this is one of the lowest paying fields...so obviously this isnt about the money...just mere curiosity

thanks
 
on that note...what about the starting versus a few years in salaries for the specialties...everyone always says Retina is the best...but just for instance, how about

Peds:
Glaucoma:
Cornea (refractive):
Cornea (non-refractive):
Retina:
Neuro-Ophth:

etc

just curious since i really have no idea...right now I'm pretty sure I'm goin Peds Ophtho and I know this is one of the lowest paying fields...so obviously this isnt about the money...just mere curiosity

thanks


Averages nationwide are just that, abstractions.

Compensation depends upon the particular area, and factors that influence availability of practitioners. Major cities with lots of training programs and a desirable community generally have depressed compensation compared to less-well-supplied areas that might not be as attractive. High-living-cost coastal cities that have residencies have no shortages of people looking for jobs.

Peds pays less because many pediatric patients are covered by public insurance, which pays less, particularly if it is medicaid or a medicaid HMO. Is that likely to change in the forseeable future? Probably not.

Retina may not be the income leader it was in the past with newer but less remunerative treatments displacing better-paid treatments of the recent past. Such is life and third-party payment.

IM(H)O: the comprehensive ophthalmologist, with or without a fellowship in a specialty, still has advantages others haven't got: the ability to attract directly rather than rely primarily on referrals. In changing times, flexibility is important.
 
IM(H)O: the comprehensive ophthalmologist, with or without a fellowship in a specialty, still has advantages others haven't got: the ability to attract directly rather than rely primarily on referrals. In changing times, flexibility is important.

Great point doc.

In the next few years, and perhaps more than ever, we're going to have to be on top of what's going on in our field. I'd hate to spend that extra year or two doing a fellowship only to find out that reimbursements have been drastically cut for your once cash-cow procedure(s).

Kinda like what happened to the MOHs doc in Derm...

Adaptibility is the name of the game if you want to survive/profit.
 
In the next few years, and perhaps more than ever, we're going to have to be on top of what's going on in our field. I'd hate to spend that extra year or two doing a fellowship only to find out that reimbursements have been drastically cut for your once cash-cow procedure(s).

Kinda like what happened to the MOHs doc in Derm...

Adaptibility is the name of the game if you want to survive/profit.

There is some truth to that, but you should also look at the flipside. Look at peds-ophtho. Because of the pay (and because kids are a pain to deal with), people aren't going into it. But big groups and departments want to have a peds guy available for two reasons. One is so they can keep the kids in their own system. More importantly, they can do it without having to see the kids themselves. That's job security right there. Academic departments also need to have peds and neuro available, even if that means supplementing their salary above what they're bringing into a department.

I'm in a department that has the patient capacity for at least 4 glaucoma people and at least 4 retina people. We currently have two and three, respectively. If the health system downsizes, who do you think is going to be more likely to get laid off? It ain't going be from those two divisions.

Also, many fellowship trained docs practice comprehensive, especially those who trained in glaucoma or cornea. It can be a nice little bump in your CV or resume that helps you stand out from your competitors, but still gives you that comprehensive flexibility.

The important thing is to find what you enjoy doing. If you're good at it, you'll be fine.
 
Top