Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
At almost every post above I want to yell "oversupply!"
MGMA does occasionally offer a "database" of salaries, yet it's kind of mathematically sketchy. It's a big 'ol spreadsheet and rad onc is in one row amongst many specialties and there are 80 columns that start with "10%ile, 11%ile, ..." all the way to "90%ile." No individual data points, just rows labeled as percentiles. The spreadsheet is therefore actually a histogram. How did they bin? Did they bin properly? They do not let you peek under the hood at the points. Occasionally a dollar value in one column will be the exact same dollar value in the next column even though MGMA says it has 100s of data points for rad onc now (ie they claim they're sampling about 10% of the total rad onc population nationally). Once you graph the columnal data, the salaries slope smoothly on a gentle line from about $300K 10%ile to about $800K 90%ile IIRC. Given the ubiquity of Pareto distributions in rad onc this is also suspicious as the MGMA average is almost the same as the MGMA median. The MGMA's spreadsheet models salaries as normally distributed; a normal distribution has a very low probability of being correct IMHO.
"And of course 50% make 500 or less." So 50% make 501K or more. Now how can this be? Does anybody have any skepticism over this? 50% of all rad oncs collect $150K or less per year from Medicare (the median is $150K, the average is $335K/yr), and Medicare makes up about 30% of the payor mix nationally in rad onc. 50% of all rad oncs have 12 patients under beam per day or less. 50% of all RT patients nationally receive 15 fractions or less.
Kim Jong-un can come on TV and tell me the median household income in N Korea is $100K/year, and I would be very skeptical. I know why he would have his reasons to fib. I have no idea why MGMA would fib. But...Guys we don't have to speculate. Per most recent MGMA. median is about 520k. 75th percentile is like 650k. So only a very small percentage make over 700k. And of course 50% make 500 or less. Keep in mind mgma is the highest of all salary surveys
MGMA does occasionally offer a "database" of salaries, yet it's kind of mathematically sketchy. It's a big 'ol spreadsheet and rad onc is in one row amongst many specialties and there are 80 columns that start with "10%ile, 11%ile, ..." all the way to "90%ile." No individual data points, just rows labeled as percentiles. The spreadsheet is therefore actually a histogram. How did they bin? Did they bin properly? They do not let you peek under the hood at the points. Occasionally a dollar value in one column will be the exact same dollar value in the next column even though MGMA says it has 100s of data points for rad onc now (ie they claim they're sampling about 10% of the total rad onc population nationally). Once you graph the columnal data, the salaries slope smoothly on a gentle line from about $300K 10%ile to about $800K 90%ile IIRC. Given the ubiquity of Pareto distributions in rad onc this is also suspicious as the MGMA average is almost the same as the MGMA median. The MGMA's spreadsheet models salaries as normally distributed; a normal distribution has a very low probability of being correct IMHO.
"And of course 50% make 500 or less." So 50% make 501K or more. Now how can this be? Does anybody have any skepticism over this? 50% of all rad oncs collect $150K or less per year from Medicare (the median is $150K, the average is $335K/yr), and Medicare makes up about 30% of the payor mix nationally in rad onc. 50% of all rad oncs have 12 patients under beam per day or less. 50% of all RT patients nationally receive 15 fractions or less.