Concerning trend: Radiology has the slowest compensation growth of any specialty

[MDapplicant578124]

From 2010 to 2019, only a .6% increase per year, not even keeping up with inflation, and lowest of all specialties.

MGMA paints an even bleaker picture, with a 2010 avg of 515k and a 2021 avg of 505k, with other specialties growing 30-60% over the same time period. Surgical subspecialists and cardiologists have had particularly large increases.

As someone applying to radiology soon, this trend is really concerning to me. By the time I hopefully make partner, Radiology will likely be outpaced by most existing specialties

Is there any chance of this reversing? Would you all still recommend radiology as a field?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Fpg1245]

From 2010 to 2019, only a .6% increase per year, not even keeping up with inflation, and lowest of all specialties.

MGMA paints an even bleaker picture, with a 2010 avg of 515k and a 2021 avg of 505k, with other specialties growing 30-60% over the same time period. Surgical subspecialists and cardiologists have had particularly large increases.

As someone applying to radiology soon, this trend is really concerning to me. By the time I hopefully make partner, Radiology will likely be outpaced by most existing specialties

Is there any chance of this reversing? Would you all still recommend radiology as a field?

Starting salaries for Rads are about what they were 10 years ago too. And larger imaging volumes.

 

[GoPelicans]

This is actually concerning! Especially if you believe with the rise of AI our volumes will continue to multiply.

 

[GadRads]

Radiology has probably suffered the largest cuts in medicine. Incomes have not bottomed out because we are working harder and reading more, but I think we have reached our limits as to how fast we can read.

CMS just sees rising expenses due to imaging, but that in itself is due to increased utilization and overuse. Since 2010, MRI has suffered 60% cuts and CT 44.4%. Researchers reveal extent of Medicare payment cuts in top 50 radiology studies

 

[MDapplicant578124]

Radiology has probably suffered the largest cuts in medicine. Incomes have not bottomed out because we are working harder and reading more, but I think we have reached our limits as to how fast we can read.

CMS just sees rising expenses due to imaging, but that in itself is due to increased utilization and overuse. Since 2010, MRI has suffered 60% cuts and CT 44.4%. Researchers reveal extent of Medicare payment cuts in top 50 radiology studies

Very unfortunate, rads and ophtho seem to be the most targeted of anyone. A little confusing why these fields are some of the fastest rising in terms of competitiveness. Particularly radiology was #1 in %increase applications this past cycle

 

[maxxor]

Very unfortunate, rads and ophtho seem to be the most targeted of anyone. Very unfortunate and a little confusing why these fields are some of the fastest rising in terms of competitiveness. Particularly radiology was #1 in %increase applications this past cycle

Because both jobs are awesome.

Just wait until we start getting slapped around like Path.

 

[Fpg1245]

Because both jobs are awesome.

Just wait until we start getting slapped around like Path.

good lifestyle? Govt and big ins has made it a mission to make even ROAD specialities as burnt out and as miserable as primary care!!

 

[Steve_Zissou]

Very unfortunate, rads and ophtho seem to be the most targeted of anyone. A little confusing why these fields are some of the fastest rising in terms of competitiveness. Particularly radiology was #1 in %increase applications this past cycle

Where did you find the stats in competitiveness this year?

 

[MDapplicant578124]

Where did you find the stats in competitiveness this year?

Rad onc bouncing back is interesting as well

 

[MetroPath]

Pathologist here. Cmon you guys are complaining about growth in 500k salaries? We are complaining about getting jobs lol.

 

[forchinet121]

500k in 2010..if it grew the same as some other fields your average comp would be 1M+ lol

 

[MDapplicant578124]

500k in 2010..if it grew the same as some other fields your average comp would be 1M+ lol

Based on that MGMA radiologists (515k) were essentially tied with orthopedic surgeons (525k) and interventional cardiologists/EP (537k and 522K, respectively) which is crazy to think about. Those fields have continued to grow and average over 700k now. It's just sad that radiology has been so targeted.

 

[DoctorMD1]

Pathologist here. Cmon you guys are complaining about growth in 500k salaries? We are complaining about getting jobs lol.

I though the path job market is pretty good. I am married to a path

 

[MetroPath]

I though the path job market is pretty good. I am married to a path

Yes I was joking. Better now than years past but regionally some tight job markets still near larger cities. I know because I’m looking for a new job near a large city.

 

[Neopolymath]

Interesting. Based on a 2020 study with 2018 data, Radiologists are not even in the top 20 for gross income in the nation. They are #23. IC was #8 and EP was #11.

I'm sure heme/onc was flying under the radar and up higher as well.

 

[vm26]

From 2010 to 2019, only a .6% increase per year, not even keeping up with inflation, and lowest of all specialties.

MGMA paints an even bleaker picture, with a 2010 avg of 515k and a 2021 avg of 505k, with other specialties growing 30-60% over the same time period. Surgical subspecialists and cardiologists have had particularly large increases.

As someone applying to radiology soon, this trend is really concerning to me. By the time I hopefully make partner, Radiology will likely be outpaced by most existing specialties

Is there any chance of this reversing? Would you all still recommend radiology as a field?

Who knows?...I graduated in 2013 (horrendous job market) and have made more each year with the exception when I changed jobs. This past year was apparently a banner year for my current group (probably around 15 years old but I'm on the newer side with them). Volumes/case complexity clearly higher than 15 years ago. I would imagine that some groups back in 2010 still owned equipment which would have skewed compensation upward.

I completely understand your concerns and was shell-shocked when as a resident I learned that CMS "death by a thousand cuts" was the accepted norm. Right now there is a shortage of rads with increasing volumes. This should bump up compensation (through subsidization) for the next few years but all bets are off by the time you would be a partner (if private practice even exists)....You will likely have much more control of your financial future as a surgical sub specialist or clinician as you has the potential to not accept insurance/CMS

 

[vm26]

Because both jobs are awesome.

Just wait until we start getting slapped around like Path.

Work is work but I agree. I am more than happy with my compensation/time off etc. Not dealing with patients/EMR/support staff, option to work from home, and ability to work until one is senile are additional perks

 

[Tiger100]

After 10 years of practice and especially saving some money, you won't care. Believe me that you won't care about 100K less or more.

Lifestyle, hours of working and your health will be your number one priority by a huge margin after age of 45.

Unless you want to live a luxury lifestyle, with the current level of salaries, if you don't do something crazy, you will be able to live a comfortable life and then go part time after 15 years of working.

I am not saying other fields are not great. But if you are debating between radiology and Orthopedic surgery just because of difference in compensation, you are doing something very wrong.

 

[JRY6788]

From 2010 to 2019, only a .6% increase per year, not even keeping up with inflation, and lowest of all specialties.

MGMA paints an even bleaker picture, with a 2010 avg of 515k and a 2021 avg of 505k, with other specialties growing 30-60% over the same time period. Surgical subspecialists and cardiologists have had particularly large increases.

As someone applying to radiology soon, this trend is really concerning to me. By the time I hopefully make partner, Radiology will likely be outpaced by most existing specialties

Is there any chance of this reversing? Would you all still recommend radiology as a field?

I'm a bit confused by the overall question you're asking. You should go into the field of medicine you enjoy and can see yourself doing every day for 40-50 years. It doesn't seem like you're truly interested in radiology if you're splitting hairs over inflation rate and general salary trends, and that's perfectly ok. If salary is a top priority I'd recommend pursuing plastics or ortho (or could also go a different direction and join a PE or VC firm...I think their bottom lines are pretty good). On top of that, how much money is enough? Will making 525k/year vs 560k/year significantly alter your quality of life and economic freedom? Probably not, but if you really need that 3rd jetski then maybe it will? I promise I'm not trying to dissuade you from applying Rads. It's by far the best specialty (along with IR) and I don't think you'd regret the decision. But if you're actually applying to radiology soon as you stated and these are major concerns, I'd recommend considering an alternate path.....one last thing I'll mention is that these trends in salary can change drastically in the course of a few years. Take a look at EM. 10-12 years ago it was the fastest growing specialty and attendings were getting incredible per hour compensation (typically 10-12 8-hr shifts/month, 350-440k), and now EM residencies can't fill half of their spots bc PAs/NPs are replacing them and demand a 1/3 the salary. Anyways, sorry for the rant, just my two cents.

 

[Radology]

This was before the 3% cut coming this year and 1% cut coming next year.

That said, the explosion in acceptance of working from home for radiologists since Covid has completely changed the game

The specialty will remain amongst the most competitive for that reason alone, regardless of pay and volumes

 

[RadJon]

First of all I hate to say that this post is misinformed. MGMA midwest for the top quartile is 660k with many groups averaging around 700k. Move to the midwest if you want those jobs. Feel free to reach out if you are interested! For sure you need to be subsidized by the hospital (i.e. share technical income). Hospitals literally can't run if there is no one to read studies.

 

[yesmaster]

The comp for radiology is very high if you're savvy, upper 6 figures or well over $1m if you hustle. With telerads and hybrid options, you can work for a hospital in a less desirable area (mid-to-large cities in the South and Midwest), but you can live wherever you want - NYC, Seattle, Miami, Cali. It's a sweet gig.

 

[HounsfieldUnit]

This was before the 3% cut coming this year and 1% cut coming next year.

That said, the explosion in acceptance of working from home for radiologists since Covid has completely changed the game

The specialty will remain amongst the most competitive for that reason alone, regardless of pay and volumes

Medicare certainly has been a negative headwind but there are positive headwinds as well that have materialized post-pandemic. Hospital stipends are being more and more common. Traditionally radiology services cost the hospital nothing and we billed our own professional fees. These days we're getting negotiated stipends for call, IR coverage, unprofitable subspeciality coverage (e.g. pediatrics) etc. to sweeten the pot. This isn't RVU based compensation but can substantially add to your practice's bottom line in the era of rad shortages and high hospital demand.

 

[SeisK]

Medicare certainly has been a negative headwind but there are positive headwinds as well that have materialized post-pandemic. Hospital stipends are being more and more common. Traditionally radiology services cost the hospital nothing and we billed our own professional fees. These days we're getting negotiated stipends for call, IR coverage, unprofitable subspeciality coverage (e.g. pediatrics) etc. to sweeten the pot. This isn't RVU based compensation but can substantially add to your practice's bottom line in the era of rad shortages and high hospital demand.

People have been crap-talking radiologists for years: “you don’t do anything, anybody can do what you do.”

Until there are no radiologists. Then the ED, outpatient, and hospital workups screech to a halt, and everyone comes to the uncomfortable realization that the keystone to the majority of diagnostics is us. It’s in our name for a damn reason. Without us, neither the hospital nor any specialists go anywhere or do anything. And hospitals subsidizing rads practices is proof of that.

 

[WorkingRad]

From 2010 to 2019, only a .6% increase per year, not even keeping up with inflation, and lowest of all specialties.

MGMA paints an even bleaker picture, with a 2010 avg of 515k and a 2021 avg of 505k, with other specialties growing 30-60% over the same time period. Surgical subspecialists and cardiologists have had particularly large increases.

As someone applying to radiology soon, this trend is really concerning to me. By the time I hopefully make partner, Radiology will likely be outpaced by most existing specialties

Is there any chance of this reversing? Would you all still recommend radiology as a field?

I personally would not choose to go into radiology at this point. I work two jobs, and I do make a lot of money, but that is mainly because I work all the time. I work one job for an HMO and the other is for a night hawk position. At my primary job, we have barely had a raise in the past 10 years. I mean like 4-5 percent over 10 years. Absolutely terrible. I live on the west coast, where housing prices are insane since the Fed decided to stimulate the housing market, and a salary of 500K really does not go so far. I have been able to make about 1.3 million for the past several years, but that is because I am constantly working, not increasing salaries. The gov wants to keep our income down and promote FP. It seems that the HMO is following their lead, and doing the same thing. Our income is based on mgma, but even when there is an increase in mgma, it seems that our salary is basically the same. Can you imagine a hospital administrator or even a nurse not getting a raise in 10 years, with the way inflation has been going? I am quite sure all hospital administrators and executives have received reasonable raises in the past decade. Somehow for radiology such stagnant wages are acceptable. With the progression of AI, I would image there will not even be much demand for radiologists 20 years from now. With AI, the increased efficiency will allow 1 rad to do the job of 10 radiologists.

 

[dgdg]

Only making half a million dollars per year sounds pretty bleak.

 

[Steve_Zissou]

I personally would not choose to go into radiology at this point. I work two jobs, and I do make a lot of money, but that is mainly because I work all the time. I work on job for Kaiser and the other is for a night hawk position. At my primary job, we have barely had a raise in the past 10 years. I mean like 4-5 percent over 10 years. Absolutely terrible. I live on the west coast, where housing prices are insane since the Fed decided to stimulate the housing market, and a salary of 500K really does not go so far. I have been able to make about 1.3 million for the past several years, but that is because I am constantly working, not increasing salaries. The gov wants to keep our income down and promote FP. It seems that Kaiser is following their lead, and doing the same thing. Our income is based on mgma, but even when there is an increase in mgma, it seems that our salary is basically the same. Can you imagine a hospital administrator or even a nurse not getting a raise in 10 years, with the way inflation has been going? I am quite sure all hospital administrator and executives have received reasonable raises in the past decade. Somehow for radiology such stagnant wages are acceptable. With the progression of AI, I would image there will not even be much demand for radiologists 20 years from now. With AI, the increased efficiency will allow 1 rad to do the job of 10 radiologists.

1.3 million per year?

 

[Steve_Zissou]

Only making half a million dollars per year sounds pretty bleak.

Might as well just give up on rads and be a Peds NP at that point

 

[Fpg1245]

Only making half a million dollars per year sounds pretty bleak.

500K on the coasts as a W2 is a joke. Really a no man’s land.

You’re really not rich enough to enjoy what coastal places have to offer but just poor enough where you’ll be on the hamster wheel feeding the delusion that someday you will be.

 

[WorkingRad]

500K on the coasts as a W2 is a joke. Really a no man’s land.

You’re really not rich enough to enjoy what coastal places have to offer but just poor enough where you’ll be on the hamster wheel feeding the delusion that someday you will be.

500K is nothing on the west coast. Housing prices have basically tripled in my community in the past 10 years. Inflation has been very high, and we almost make the same wage as we did 10 years ago. The only real difference is that our RVU quota has increased by 30-35%, for the same 500K. Once AI becomes more prevalent in the industry, it will be even worse, because there will be more rads than the market needs. They really should be shutting programs down with the anticipation of AI taking over portions of the market. I worked on a research study with one of the companies developing AI for radiology and their programs are really quite good. In the next 10-20 years, there will be a dramatic shift to AI in radiology.

 

[WorkingRad]

1.3 million per year?

yes, that is correct.

 

[sloh]

If you make 500k on the west coast and want to actually enjoy the coast, partner pretty much needs to make 500k minimum. MINIMUM.

 

[Anakinmemer]

Only making half a million dollars per year sounds pretty bleak.

The point is not the absolute value, it's that MGMA had a median of 520k in 2010 and it is the same now. What other career has not had a pay increase in the last 13 years? Even most other medical specialties have had reasonable growth to keep up with inflation.

Unless you think radiologists are worth 33% less now there's no reason it should not have kept up with inflation

 

[vm26]

The point is not the absolute value, it's that MGMA had a median of 520k in 2010 and it is the same now. What other career has not had a pay increase in the last 13 years? Even most other medical specialties have had reasonable growth to keep up with inflation.

Unless you think radiologists are worth 33% less now there's no reason it should not have kept up with inflation

I wonder how the MGMA data for other specialties looks like. I would venture to guess that many are in a similar situation as our field-medicare comp for physicians, adjusted for inflation is down 22% from 2001. I think many fields outside of medicine have also not kept up with inflation.

As others have mentioned hospital subsidies/incentive bonuses are becoming more frequent which should help offset diminishing reimbursements,

 

[Cognovi]

The only sizeable city on the coasts that you can still feel upper class with 500k is Baltimore.

 

[Anakinmemer]

I wonder how the MGMA data for other specialties looks like. I would venture to guess that many are in a similar situation as our field-medicare comp for physicians, adjusted for inflation is down 22% from 2001. I think many fields outside of medicine have also not kept up with inflation.

As others have mentioned hospital subsidies/incentive bonuses are becoming more frequent which should help offset diminishing reimbursements,

If you have specific specialties you want to ask about I can provide the data...but radiology actually is worse off than most others. In 2010 it was in the same tier as ortho and interventional cards (Diagnostic radiology-515k, general ortho- 525k, interventional cards- 535k), the latter 2 are now around 700k+ per MGMA. Pick any career field and do some digging on the average compensation in 2010 vs now, you won't find a single one that has been absolutely stagnant. Radiology still makes a lot and is a great field, but it used to be among the best in terms of earning potential (which explains why it was insanely competitive in the early 2000's).

Hopefully the subsidies do help offset in future years.

 

[Tiger100]

If you have specific specialties you want to ask about I can provide the data...but radiology actually is worse off than most others. In 2010 it was in the same tier as ortho and interventional cards (Diagnostic radiology-515k, general ortho- 525k, interventional cards- 535k), the latter 2 are now around 700k+ per MGMA. Pick any career field and do some digging on the average compensation in 2010 vs now, you won't find a single one that has been absolutely stagnant. Radiology still makes a lot and is a great field, but it used to be among the best in terms of earning potential (which explains why it was insanely competitive in the early 2000's).

Hopefully the subsidies do help offset in future years.

You can not choose two time points in a graph and compare things side by side.

It is a graph that you have to look at the whole trend. For example I am curious to know if you compare 2006 to 2023 what will be the results?

There is a possibility that 2010 was an outlier for radiology. Just saying.

 

[Anakinmemer]

You can not choose two time points in a graph and compare things side by side.

It is a graph that you have too look at the whole trend. For example I am curious to know if you compare 2006 to 2023 what will be the results?

There is a possibility that 2010 was an outlier for radiology. Just saying.

Valid argument, unfortunately I don't have MGMA that far back haha, I'll do some digging and see what I can come up with

 

[finalpsychyear]

After 10 years of practice and especially saving some money, you won't care. Believe me that you won't care about 100K less or more.

Lifestyle, hours of working and your health will be your number one priority by a huge margin after age of 45.

Unless you want to live a luxury lifestyle, with the current level of salaries, if you don't do something crazy, you will be able to live a comfortable life and then go part time after 15 years of working.

I am not saying other fields are not great. But if you are debating between radiology and Orthopedic surgery just because of difference in compensation, you are doing something very wrong.

This man knows what he is talking about. Also, if you live like a resident for half those first 10 years and slowly start living like an attending years 6-10 you have beat the game. The most valuable money you will ever make is the first decade of money. Invest it heavy and you will be set for life.
Post 10 years go part time to just pay the bills and other than 401k savings spend every last cent and that nest egg will keep growing.

However, 99% cannot do this and will be on the hamster wheel for 20 years min. But not everyone would consider a nest egg spitting out 10-20k/monthly luxurious I guess but i sure as hell do!

 

[vm26]

If you have specific specialties you want to ask about I can provide the data...but radiology actually is worse off than most others. In 2010 it was in the same tier as ortho and interventional cards (Diagnostic radiology-515k, general ortho- 525k, interventional cards- 535k), the latter 2 are now around 700k+ per MGMA. Pick any career field and do some digging on the average compensation in 2010 vs now, you won't find a single one that has been absolutely stagnant. Radiology still makes a lot and is a great field, but it used to be among the best in terms of earning potential (which explains why it was insanely competitive in the early 2000's).

Hopefully the subsidies do help offset in future years.

Can't argue with those #s...Over-utilization with imaging has been the major driving force for CMS cuts. Implementation of mid-levels has simply made matters worse...Unfortunately there's no way to prevent ongoing CMS cuts without major reform (from congress😖) which the AMA has been working on...While I'm somewhat optimistic, hard to say how things play out for us. CMS cuts will continue. AI is a wild-card which could potentially help in the short/mid-term. Lack of mid-level competition is a plus. Ongoing shortage of rads coupled with the fact that about a quarter of currents rads practicing are over 65 should also help. Guess we'll see.

 

[Cognovi]

I need to see more evidence that overutilization of imaging is the major driving force for CMS cuts.

People doing multiple exams at the same time led to combining CT abdomen and pelvis codes. That was a big one time hit in the late 2000s. It hasn't happened to other exams yet (eg, CTA head and neck).

CMS cuts reimbursements based on the RUC re-valuing codes periodically, but this is not informed by the utilization. It is informed by things like time, materials, risk, expertise. When radiologists as a whole read a certain exam faster than before then it gets cut in reimbursement.

Most recently, CMS cut the RVU to dollar conversion factor because it upped the RVUs for E&M codes and needed to remain overall budget neutral. It hurt radiology and other procedural specialties in order to benefit clinic-based specialties.

 

[finalpsychyear]

Starting salaries for Rads are about what they were 10 years ago too. And larger imaging volumes.

How much of a jump in expected volume for an average day has occurred in 10 years ? 20, 30, 40 percent?

 

[finalpsychyear]

I need to see more evidence that overutilization of imaging is the major driving force for CMS cuts.

People doing multiple exams at the same time led to combining CT abdomen and pelvis codes. That was a big one time hit in the late 2000s. It hasn't happened to other exams yet (eg, CTA head and neck).

CMS cuts reimbursements based on the RUC re-valuing codes periodically, but this is not informed by the utilization. It is informed by things like time, materials, risk, expertise. When radiologists as a whole read a certain exam faster than before then it gets cut in reimbursement.

Most recently, CMS cut the RVU to dollar conversion factor because it upped the RVUs for E&M codes and needed to remain overall budget neutral. It hurt radiology and other procedural specialties in order to benefit clinic-based specialties.

Well the trend is with NPs/PA and mid level extenders only increasing, more and more imaging due to an aging population will be ordered whether necessary or not. CMS certainly won't be increasing rates. At best it stays what it is now.

 

[vm26]

I need to see more evidence that overutilization of imaging is the major driving force for CMS cuts.

People doing multiple exams at the same time led to combining CT abdomen and pelvis codes. That was a big one time hit in the late 2000s. It hasn't happened to other exams yet (eg, CTA head and neck).

CMS cuts reimbursements based on the RUC re-valuing codes periodically, but this is not informed by the utilization. It is informed by things like time, materials, risk, expertise. When radiologists as a whole read a certain exam faster than before then it gets cut in reimbursement.

Most recently, CMS cut the RVU to dollar conversion factor because it upped the RVUs for E&M codes and needed to remain overall budget neutral. It hurt radiology and other procedural specialties in order to benefit clinic-based specialties.

I don't know precisely how CMS determines what gets cut/bundled but it must have something to do with spreadsheets and looking at total costs on an annual basis. Budget neutrality/zero sums game is the big killer. Anything that gets a bump in reimbursement needs to have a corresponding cut...I don't think rads has been randomly targeted. I think our lobby (RADPAC) is pretty decent. Anything that is done more frequently typically is perceived as more "efficient" and thus "over-valued" from a CMS perspective. When I was in training 10 years ago, I never saw in-pt/ER body MRI. Now they're a dime a dozen. Even see inpt thyroid US and radiation planning CTs!

Btw this is not unique to radiology. Below is from an abstract from Journal of Arthroplasty:

"After adjusting for inflation, the average physician reimbursement decreased by 31.9% for all hip arthroplasty procedures and by 33.3% for all knee arthroplasty procedures from 2000 to 2019. During this period, primary total hip arthroplasty physician fees decreased by 37.1% and primary total knee arthroplasty fees decreased by 40.6%. From 2000 to 2019, the inflation-adjusted reimbursement rate for all procedures decreased by an average of 1.7% per year."

https://www.arthroplastyjournal.org/article/S0883-5403(19)31157-X/fulltext

I think specialties such as ortho have maintained their income since their services are profitable for hospitals (eg. admissions/testing etc) and hospitals have negotiated much more favorable terms with CMS (eg. build in annual increases). Thus even hospital employment for ortho can be lucrative. Rads professional service on the other hand are considered separate entities from the more lucrative tech fees that hospitals receive. In DR, we are just names signing off reports.

Rads PP tends to rely on pro-fees only these days and larger hospital employment models are narrowing the gap with income/time-off. If hospitals cannot subsidize PP to off-set this, then these groups will implode and hospitals will be in a bind, particularly for boots-on-the-ground (breast/IR). In the past PE such as RP would swoop in and "save" the day but this is less likely now.

Very hard to predict how this all plays out. My current group starts renegotiating our contract in a few months. While we already receive some modest subsidization from the hospital, it's going to have to substantially increase for recruitment/retainment given what the different and larger HC systems are now offering their rads. This will be a major battle, easily one the group will lose.

 

[vm26]

How much of a jump in expected volume for an average day has occurred in 10 years ? 20, 30, 40 percent?

This was posted by someone from a radiology practice consulting firm on AM. Cannot vouch for its precise accuracy but feels right.

"The current number of clinically practicing radiologists is somewhere around 33,000 nationwide. The educational system is producing an average of 1,200 new providers every year. My latest estimate is there are still 8,000+ radiologists past retirement age still working. So how does the industry with an aging workforce and a static supply of new providers handle an average 6% increase in volume?"

 

[finalpsychyear]

This was posted by someone from a radiology practice consulting firm on AM. Cannot vouch for its precise accuracy but feels right.

"The current number of clinically practicing radiologists is somewhere around 33,000 nationwide. The educational system is producing an average of 1,200 new providers every year. My latest estimate is there are still 8,000+ radiologists past retirement age still working. So how does the industry with an aging workforce and a static supply of new providers handle an average 6% increase in volume?"

Wow. If that is indeed true i am not sure how the increase in volume will be handled. Surely, you cant be reading 50% more in the 2030s vs today. Are they going to create more midlevels specific to certain types of imaging only supervised by a rad sign off???... Will CMS cut rates over that time that rad docs will be pressured to read that much more just to maintain current income levels?

One things for sure that healthcare costs are going to be even more unsustainable in the long run. At some point your going to have to pay a penalty to incentivise people to lose weight, lower bp/lipids/glucose. All we have in the states is the sickest people causing the most money to be spent that allows them to stay sicker for longer..... makes sense..

 

[TexasMed22]

I'm sure heme/onc was flying under the radar and up higher as well.

Why do you think heme/onc was flying under the radar?

 

[Cognovi]

Lots of things fly under the radar because nobody on the valuation committee is aware / or they are aware but don't have a vendetta against a subspecialty.
Plenty of random things.
Endoscopic sinus surgery is ridiculously overcompensated and has zero day post-operative global period.
Would anyone like to make a big fuss that ENTs are getting paid too much? shrug

 

[WorkingRad]

This was posted by someone from a radiology practice consulting firm on AM. Cannot vouch for its precise accuracy but feels right.

"The current number of clinically practicing radiologists is somewhere around 33,000 nationwide. The educational system is producing an average of 1,200 new providers every year. My latest estimate is there are still 8,000+ radiologists past retirement age still working. So how does the industry with an aging workforce and a static supply of new providers handle an average 6% increase in volume?"

With AI, in the coming 1-2 decades there will be one radiologist doing the work that 10 radiologists did in the past. Compensation will continue to decrease per rvu, since the government and HMOs want us to work for near nothing. In the short term, income may increase for a short period of time since we are doing more work, but in the long term most of us will be out of work. This is the same trend that has happened in the past 15 years. In my group, we do 35% more work than 10 years ago, and get paid about 6% more. It is an ok job for the moment, not long term.

 

[WorkingRad]

With AI, in the coming 1-2 decades there will be one radiologist doing the work that 10 radiologists did in the past. Compensation will continue to decrease per rvu, since the government and HMOs want us to work for near nothing. In the short term, income may increase for a short period of time since we are doing more work, but in the long term most of us will be out of work. This is the same trend that has happened in the past 15 years. In my group, we do 35% more work than 10 years ago, and get paid about 6% more. It is an ok job for the moment, not long term.

I work part time for one of the telerad companies. They are so busy and compensation has decreased so much, it seems like CT A/P and MR knees are treated like plain films were years ago. They expect us to read so much volume, it is overwhelming.