How much did docs in the 70s and 80s make, really?

[dragonfly99]

---

Members don't see this ad.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/273686.html

Here's an interesting thread I found on a Google search.
What you find for "average" physician salary is going to vary by what source(s) you consult. I think that it may not be that useful to try to compare "physician salary" to "average person". There is a big range in physician salaries, with some specialties easily averaging double the salary of others like psych and peds.

I think a lot of what you see/observe about physicians complaining about reimbursements is that the gov't yearly threatens to cut the Medicare payment rate, which would in effect lower ALL insurance reimbursements, since the private insurers base their payment rates on Medicare's reimbursement rates. At the 11th hour, Congress always bails out Medicare so that it doesn't get cut, or gets a 0.5% or 1% physician payment raise to try to account for some of practice cost inflation, etc. If Medicare did carry out its proposed 40% total reimbursement cut, that could be cataclysmic for a lot of medical practices which are currently profitable....so the fear is there even though the actual event hasn't really taken place.

I think most physicians are still paid well. However, compared with years past, they/we go through more years of training, and the cost of medical education has inflated >> the rate of inflation of money/most other things. I see a lot more students doing other degrees, etc. just to get themselves into med school...some have incredible amounts of debt. Personally, I had a research job before med school, and have done research years where I'm paid a resident level salary (though already boarded in internal medicine). That was my choice to do that but mostly I did it to help get myself into fellowship.

I think what you are seeing is jut a lot of fear from trainees and practicing physicians that after devoting 10 years or so to medical education (plus 4 years in undergrad) that we'll not necessarily get to the point of not having to worry about money any time soon. It's not necessarily a matter of avarice, as you seem to feel, Excelcius, it's more one of general insecurity and fear about the future. Personally, I know I'll be all right with my 120k remaining student loans 5 years out from med school, but I do worry about the med students who'll have the 250k debt at 6.8%, or whatever it is now. I think they can dig themselves out of debt eventually, but it's going to take quite some time.

 

[Excelsius]

...

I think what you are seeing is jut a lot of fear from trainees and practicing physicians that after devoting 10 years or so to medical education (plus 4 years in undergrad) that we'll not necessarily get to the point of not having to worry about money any time soon. It's not necessarily a matter of avarice, as you seem to feel, Excelcius, it's more one of general insecurity and fear about the future. Personally, I know I'll be all right with my 120k remaining student loans 5 years out from med school, but I do worry about the med students who'll have the 250k debt at 6.8%, or whatever it is now. I think they can dig themselves out of debt eventually, but it's going to take quite some time.

Perhaps you are mixing me up with someone else. I have never claimed that doctors are avaricious. In fact, some doctors do deserve to make more money based on the sacrifices they make in their personal lives and the hectic schedules they work. All I am saying is that salaries in the past are relevant to understanding overall salary trends. I am not just going to sit back and assume that salaries have dramatically gone down without seeing any evidence. I actually did believe that was the case, but given the reluctance to produce any hard evidence in this thread, I am beginning to somewhat doubt that phenomenon. Sure, some specialties have been hard hit, like PCPs, but that's what you get when you have free market economics. Other specialties have in fact seen a rise in earnings by significant amounts. Others and I have published the statistics in that thread by macgyver - the "old timer" thread in preallo that clearly show that salary have indeed gone up for many specialties.

I can understand being insecure about the future. I am worried too. But that doesn't mean that someone can make false claim to previous glory without proper statistics. I think we are mature and intelligent enough to not have to do that.

 

[GeraldMonroe]

Everyone here understands that what I am asking pretty much gives the full picture.

Response bias is an enormous problem with a question like this one. It's highly likely that most of your respondents would be skewed to one side or the other of the income distribution curve for "physician's income in the 1970s and 1980s by specialty".

I would look for credible data compiled by the government or other competent researchers who know how to properly use statistics.

 

[dragonfly99]

Sure, some specialties have been hard hit, like PCPs, but that's what you get when you have free market economics. Other specialties have in fact seen a rise in earnings by significant amounts. Others and I have published the statistics in that thread by macgyver - the "old timer" thread in preallo that clearly show that salary have indeed gone up for many specialties.

I don't think there has been a dramatic drop in overall physician salaries. I think people who are saying that are not correct (for physicians as a group). I think it is harder and harder to make really big money in medicine private practice, for various reasons. On of these is that the amount of paperwork in medicine has increased, which takes up the doctor's time and that of his/her staff/employees. Reimbursement rates have been pretty flat in recent years (evidence = the fact that Medicare reimbursement rates have been going up at about 0.5% or 1% a year or so, which probably doesn't even account for practice cost inflation). The private insurance companies base their reimbursement rates on Medicare, so their reimbursement rates are pretty flat, too, at least in a lot of areas of the country. What is happening is that a lot of docs in private practice found that they have to see more and more patients/day and per week to keep their income from falling, so they get more and more stressed out trying to do this. After all, their office rent is not going down, and their employees want their pay and benefits. And the doc has bought a house, got a spouse and kids, etc. who have gotten used to a 150k lifestyle, and doesn't easily just switch back to a 110k lifestyle due to the flat reimbursements. What does the doc do? He just works more hours.

Medicine is not really a free market. The vast majority of patients pay via insurance, and the insurance is either gov't (Medicaid/Medicare) or private insurance, and the doc is paid based on that. If the doc is lucky, he/she can refuse to see certain insurance companies' patients if they company doesn't pay well, but depending on the doctor, the specialty, the location where he/she lives, this might not be possible. If you are a LASIK surgeon, the free market is at work b/c people pay out of pocket for that. Most people don't pay out of pocket for general medical or hospital care...there are some market forces at work, but there's actually a lot of price-fixing there too.

 

[turkeyjerky]

Perhaps you are mixing me up with someone else. I have never claimed that doctors are avaricious. In fact, some doctors do deserve to make more money based on the sacrifices they make in their personal lives and the hectic schedules they work. All I am saying is that salaries in the past are relevant to understanding overall salary trends. I am not just going to sit back and assume that salaries have dramatically gone down without seeing any evidence. I actually did believe that was the case, but given the reluctance to produce any hard evidence in this thread, I am beginning to somewhat doubt that phenomenon. Sure, some specialties have been hard hit, like PCPs, but that's what you get when you have free market economics. Other specialties have in fact seen a rise in earnings by significant amounts. Others and I have published the statistics in that thread by macgyver - the "old timer" thread in preallo that clearly show that salary have indeed gone up for many specialties.

I can understand being insecure about the future. I am worried too. But that doesn't mean that someone can make false claim to previous glory without proper statistics. I think we are mature and intelligent enough to not have to do that.

Dude, look at the numbers I posted earlier in this thread. PCPs, on average, have not taken the huge hit everyone thinks they have.

Surgeons have taken a hit, as have non-procedural medial specialists. But others, like cardiologists and radiologists have seen a large bump in salaries.

A lot of the bitching you see is simply sour grapes by older docs is specialties that used to make more money. Or, its bitching by people pissed about the fact that they're taking out 200 grand in loans to pay for their education and working 80 hours a week and constantly hearing that doctors are "just in it for the money" (a completely legitimate complaint, mind you). But, on the whole, payments are largely equivalent today.

What has changed, however (in addition to the sickening increases in tuition), is that the goalposts have been moved back by all the people working in finance or as executives or lawyers that get paid so much more nowadays (or at least did up until they got laid off).

 

[Excelsius]

Dude, look at the numbers I posted earlier in this thread. PCPs, on average, have not taken the huge hit everyone thinks they have.

Surgeons have taken a hit, as have non-procedural medial specialists. But others, like cardiologists and radiologists have seen a large bump in salaries.

A lot of the bitching you see is simply sour grapes by older docs is specialties that used to make more money. Or, its bitching by people pissed about the fact that they're taking out 200 grand in loans to pay for their education and working 80 hours a week and constantly hearing that doctors are "just in it for the money" (a completely legitimate complaint, mind you). But, on the whole, payments are largely equivalent today.

What has changed, however (in addition to the sickening increases in tuition), is that the goalposts have been moved back by all the people working in finance or as executives or lawyers that get paid so much more nowadays (or at least did up until they got laid off).

Well then, you and dragonfly just further confirm that all this hearsay on SDN is just that. And I thought the sources were pretty credible medical students. Anyway, I should have known better since the lack of any substantive responses to this thread questions their entire credibility. I have one more thread in my archives to silence a medical student who thinks he knows more than a resident or a fellow. Thank you both for correcting this.

 

[gonogo]

What has changed, however (in addition to the sickening increases in tuition), is that the goalposts have been moved back by all the people working in finance or as executives or lawyers that get paid so much more nowadays (or at least did up until they got laid off).

I think you're right on the money. Maybe 10-20 years ago doctors were in general at the top of the pyramid. However, their salaries stagnated while those of corporate America have (or at least until recently) skyrocketed. Before doctors were the wealthiest on the neighborhood, now they can't even afford to live where CEOs, lawyers, business people live. But it's not the physicians' salaries that are down, it's the others which are up, therefore making doctors feel poor.

 

[dilated]

This is probably one of the worst sexist comments I have seen on the forums.

Are you sure the problem you have with women is that you may feel that we are butting in on your turf?

I've seen some economics studies that suggest that as increasing numbers of women enter a field, the lower salaries go. The purported reason is that working women typically have a working husband as well, thus they can afford to take a hit on how much they earn without going bankrupt. In contrast, many more working men have wives who stay at home and their salary is all that's coming in. It makes sense to me, the single female surgeons I know would tear your heart out if you tried cutting their pay, but the dermatologists married to cardiologists seem much more like who cares. 😛

 

[Tigerz_Fan]

I've seen some economics studies that suggest that as increasing numbers of women enter a field, the lower salaries go. The purported reason is that working women typically have a working husband as well, thus they can afford to take a hit on how much they earn without going bankrupt. In contrast, many more working men have wives who stay at home and their salary is all that's coming in. It makes sense to me, the single female surgeons I know would tear your heart out if you tried cutting their pay, but the dermatologists married to cardiologists seem much more like who cares. 😛

 

[NonTradMed]

A lot of the bitching you see is simply sour grapes by older docs is specialties that used to make more money. Or, its bitching by people pissed about the fact that they're taking out 200 grand in loans to pay for their education and working 80 hours a week and constantly hearing that doctors are "just in it for the money" (a completely legitimate complaint, mind you). But, on the whole, payments are largely equivalent today.

What has changed, however (in addition to the sickening increases in tuition), is that the goalposts have been moved back by all the people working in finance or as executives or lawyers that get paid so much more nowadays (or at least did up until they got laid off).

It's interesting what you post and kind of the direction I'm thinking too. I like reading up on socioeconomic trends and the more professions I read up on, the more I realize doctors are not doing all that badly. Yes, hours have gone up, patient case load has increased and autonomy has gone down, but generally speaking, salary is still decent. The biggest peeve I think is the fact that finance biglaw people have made a KILLING in corporate which meant the physician is no longer the big cheese with the nice house on the top of the hill. Seeing others make so much more, coupled with the deteriorating work conditions of medicine makes for unhappy doctors.

I remember reading recently an article that mentioned that for the last several years, MIT has sent a quarter of their graduates to Wall Street. They mentioned the recent economic meltdown may finally see a reversal of that trend with more science grads entering science fields like medicine,engineering and research. I wonder if this also means the end of the big ticket CEO's and lawyers and doctors will regain some of their 'status'. Hm, probably not. In today's world, the big makers will always be in managing large groups of producers. Physicians will always just be singlular producers

 

[Law2Doc]

... Everyone here understands that what I am asking pretty much gives the full picture. How you think tuition rates have anything to do with someones salary is beyond me. How taxes are relevant...is beyond me. ...

I'm sorry that it is beyond you. Let me try to explain. You are asking for salary info from the 70s as compared to today. Why? Because you are seeking to make a comparison -- did people really do better, worse, the same, back when. But any comparison is flawed if you don't consider other factors. Lets say (using made up numbers) a doctor earned $150,000 in 1970 in inflation adjusted dollars and $200,000 today. But today's doc has $250k in tuition debt, and pays 40% tax rate, as compared to $10,000 in debt and a 20% tax rate. Is the $200k with high debt and high tax rate really better than the $150k with low debt and lower tax rate? Hint -- nope. Get it? If you still don't see how debt, taxes and even other factors are necessary parts of your equation along with inflation adjustment, to get to "the full picture" as to whether docs are doing better, worse, or the same, then I think you are working from some very bad financial understandings. Things have changed since 1970 other than inflation. So to peg solely to that is to miss the boat. The devil is in the details here, not a broad back of the envelope guestimate based on round, anecdotal inflation adjusted salary numbers. Hope this makes sense.

 

[Law2Doc]

... I wonder if this also means the end of the big ticket CEO's and lawyers and doctors will regain some of their 'status'. Hm, probably not. In today's world, the big makers will always be in managing large groups of producers. Physicians will always just be singlular producers

Physicians already lost the war when insurance company executives became the ones to set the reimbursements. If you don't control your own prices, you can only get stiffed worse.

 

[Slack3r]

The biggest peeve I think is the fact that finance biglaw people have made a KILLING in corporate which meant the physician is no longer the big cheese with the nice house on the top of the hill. Seeing others make so much more, coupled with the deteriorating work conditions of medicine makes for unhappy doctors.

We also have to realize, though, that most of the people that "strike it rich" are working in conditions much like that of doctors. It takes a lot to "make it" in business, and the hours aren't much better than a resident. And while most all doctors will go on to six figure salaries, there are many, many (many) businessmen that end up in the average range of 5 figures to low (and we're talking barely above $100k) six figures. Similarly, though, you'll never see doctors making CEO level salaries. What's the highest paid doctor? The dermpath guy at Columbia making 16mil? Chump change, look at the AIG bonuses, and those are just BONUSES. Doctor's will never scratch the potential in other areas with similarly intelligent/talented individuals, and I feel we're only going down from here.

 

[Law2Doc]

We also have to realize, though, that most of the people that "strike it rich" are working in conditions much like that of doctors. It takes a lot to "make it" in business, and the hours aren't much better than a resident. And while most all doctors will go on to six figure salaries, there are many, many (many) businessmen that end up in the average range of 5 figures to low (and we're talking barely above $100k) six figures. Similarly, though, you'll never see doctors making CEO level salaries. What's the highest paid doctor? The dermpath guy at Columbia making 16mil? Chump change, look at the AIG bonuses, and those are just BONUSES. Doctor's will never scratch the potential in other areas with similarly intelligent/talented individuals, and I feel we're only going down from here.

Exactly -- it's the whole risk reward paradigm. If you want a safe stable job, you lose your chance at an upside. If you are a risk taker, you can end up broke or layed off when things go bad, but you maintain the potential upside. Which is why during boom times you can see Wall Street types earning bonuses which are triple their salary, while in bust times you see stories on CNBC of traders driving cabs. A few years back I worked with a number of clients in their mid 20s, with only a college education and minimal debt, who worked at some of the financial houses (with not even very fancy job titles), and for many years running, they were earning just shy of six digits in salary, but better than 3 times that in bonuses each year. If they invested conservatively, they likely would have several million in the bank by the time they were in their 30s. But by the same token, I doubt any of them are still employed at the same place -- their firms have had massive layoffs in the last few years. They probably don't care -- the Ferrari is paid for and there will be other jobs, eventually. But it's a different mentality than a lot of folks who go into medicine. You can be comfortable, but rarely really "rich" in a conservative career such as medicine, these days. Or you can do something riskier, but the trade off is that for unlimited upside, there is also less to keep you from falling through the floor.

 

[nancysinatra]

A few points:

1) Another thing to take into consideration is malpractice insurance rates which have risen since the 1970s
2) Raw data is useful to many people nonetheless
3) In any case no statistical trend is going to be proven by anecdotes posted on SDN

I wonder how much not just the "goalposts" have been moved by other professions taking the lead with the highest salaries, but by the fact that consumer trends have changed since the 60s and 70s and people have to buy way more than just a house and car just to live what seems like a "comfortable" life. Everyone in America is complaining these days, not just doctors...

Some people are saying that historically doctors were more wealthy, but we're talking about what, the 1970s here? That's 30 to 40 years ago tops. And the reign of putatively better salaries lasted what, 20 years? That's hardly a dynasty. In the 19th century medicine was scoffed upon. Doctors are not kings and never have been.

If your goal in life is to be rich you should have thought of that before applying to med school. Medicine is a very bourgeois profession and has never been anything more than upper middle class, at least for most people. It's probably always waffled between middle and upper-middle with it nowadays veering more towards middle to our dismay, but to think you'll get "rich" like the folks who did well in finance is really naive. The BASIS for medicine is altruistic, so how on earth could anyone "get rich" that way?

 

[abcxyz0123]

I'm sorry that it is beyond you. Let me try to explain.

You still don't get it. Not worth responding to at all.

 

[Law2Doc]

You still don't get it. Not worth responding to at all.

And yet you did.
Dude, you are going to get flawed results if you think you can normalize 70s salary numbers with 2009 numbers solely be adjusting for inflation. You are even further off if you think you can use anecdotal data as your "average" 70s salary. That's all I'm saying. And I am someone who worked in a number oriented industry and am not just saying a comparison can't be done, just that you aren't doing it right and that it would take a lot of work to get numbers that might even be close to right. But to each his own.

 

[Law2Doc]

A few points:

1) Another thing to take into consideration is malpractice insurance rates which have risen since the 1970s
2) Raw data is useful to many people nonetheless
3) In any case no statistical trend is going to be proven by anecdotes posted on SDN
...

Couldn't agree more with #1 and #3 above. I don't however agree with #2. Raw salary data is only useful if you plug it into something that accounts for the major factors that have changed over time. Inflation is one. Taxes, tuition debt, medmal rates are all others. There are even others beyond these. They are enough to make a big number small, so to ignore them and look at raw data can give you the opposite conclusion. See my $200k vs $150k example above.

 

[nancysinatra]

Couldn't agree more with #1 and #3 above. I don't however agree with #2. Raw salary data is only useful if you plug it into something that accounts for the major factors that have changed over time. Inflation is one. Taxes, tuition debt, medmal rates are all others. There are even others beyond these. They are enough to make a big number small, so to ignore them and look at raw data can give you the opposite conclusion. See my $200k vs $150k example above.

Right--I agree that raw data must be crunched to be meaningful, but you have to first start with the raw number. Having that data posted would allow multiple people to crunch it separately. (Obviously that isn't really going to happen reliably on SDN, see point #3 above). Inflation alone probably has varied in different parts of the country and tuition certainly is variable, so getting more than one crunch of the numbers would be good rather than bad. That's all I was saying.

Plus my point #2 did not say "raw salary data" it said "raw data." I once read that with certain things, such as gas, people are more tied to a nostalgic price that they remember from their youth than they are with other things, like durable goods or food, which we are willing to accept will rise with inflation. Why knows why. But when gas prices go up, people get irate, and all sorts of things are done to keep those prices down! However with many other things, such as glue, say, we are NOT so concerned and the prices rise naturally over time with inflation and we don't care. It's weird. So sometimes, a raw number can actually mean more than other times, at least psychologically.

 

[nancysinatra]

As far as taxes, there are some people (granted they are an outcast minority) who enjoy and believe in paying taxes, and for these people, having a higher salary but paying a lot in taxes would be preferable to having a lower salary but paying little in taxes, even if the take-home pay is the same or even better. I realize the focus of this conversation IS on the take-home pay, but if a person believed in investing in the US government and its infrastructure, and were really devoted to that (as a few people are), they might want to compare their income in the 1970s and now BEFORE accounting for taxes, because for them the pretax pay is more relevant than the take home-pay. No one has control over the tax rate set by the federal government, but if you assume that you want to maximize pretax income and then spend it all on taxes, then that's what they would look at.

 

[Impromptu]

Who likes paying more in taxes? I know Joe Biden said it is patriotic to do so, but none of the democrats (probably republicans, too) like to pay their own taxes. Plus, politicians get so many free perks that makes their cost to taxpayers probably in the millions, yet they don't pay taxes on that, either. No one likes paying taxes because we realize that politicans are using our tax money to funnel money to their bribers (I mean contributors).

Tomorrow is the tax day protest in most cities across the country. It is in the evening, so go. http://www.reteaparty.com/ is one site that has more details.

It is nearly impossible to tell how much of our money goes to the government, because of all the hidden taxes and fees assessed along the way. It's even more difficult to follow government finances than it is to understand health care costs.

 

[Miami_med]

On a side note, most of the salary trends that I have seen since the 70s are essentially the result of Medicare/Medicaid taking the price ceilings of off expensive treatment for everyone. Fields hocking expensive instruments (such as Radiology and the High Res CT or Interventional Cards and stenting) have been VERY successful compared to fields that maintain a more traditional role in day to day operations. Thus, PCP down, Rads up. Gen Surg down, Interventional Rads up. The current system essentially pays more for more expensive procedures, and fields that provide day to day non-exciting care are generally penalized in the current system. In a way, the current system rewards inefficiency (aka high cost) and penalizes those providing the bread and butter care that really makes healthcare function. I know an old GI who used to do primarily primary care before Medicare, because you could make more as an internist at the time.

It seems like in many fields, there was a historical bump in income from the advent of Medicare until the 90s. Pay is heading back to historical norms in bread and butter fields. The difference is that the people making those historical salaries didn't have the extensive loan burden, the extra post-graduate education, the paperwork burden, or the malpractice climate of the modern day. They also didn't have the option of chasing the very lucrative fields of today (Rads, Derm, etc...) that simply weren't that well paying or appealing before Medicare. The system adapted to the new inflated salaries, and physicians are now functioning at a disadvantage in the respect. It'll be interesting to see where it goes. Also, it'll be interesting to see if we drop below historical norms after the very real inflation that will result from the current economic "stimulus" isn't accounted for in real physician payments.

 

[dragonfly99]

On a side note, most of the salary trends that I have seen since the 70s are essentially the result of Medicare/Medicaid taking the price ceilings of off expensive treatment for everyone. Fields hocking expensive instruments (such as Radiology and the High Res CT or Interventional Cards and stenting) have been VERY successful compared to fields that maintain a more traditional role in day to day operations. Thus, PCP down, Rads up. Gen Surg down, Interventional Rads up. The current system essentially pays more for more expensive procedures, and fields that provide day to day non-exciting care are generally penalized in the current system. In a way, the current system rewards inefficiency (aka high cost) and penalizes those providing the bread and butter care that really makes healthcare function. I know an old GI who used to do primarily primary care before Medicare, because you could make more as an internist at the time.

It seems like in many fields, there was a historical bump in income from the advent of Medicare until the 90s. Pay is heading back to historical norms in bread and butter fields. The difference is that the people making those historical salaries didn't have the extensive loan burden, the extra post-graduate education, the paperwork burden, or the malpractice climate of the modern day. They also didn't have the option of chasing the very lucrative fields of today (Rads, Derm, etc...) that simply weren't that well paying or appealing before Medicare. The system adapted to the new inflated salaries, and physicians are now functioning at a disadvantage in the respect. It'll be interesting to see where it goes. Also, it'll be interesting to see if we drop below historical norms after the very real inflation that will result from the current economic "stimulus" isn't accounted for in real physician payments.

I agree with this...

 

[nancysinatra]

Who likes paying more in taxes?

I don't really know these people or hang out with them. I was just sayin...

 

[turkeyjerky]

As far as taxes, there are some people (granted they are an outcast minority) who enjoy and believe in paying taxes, and for these people, having a higher salary but paying a lot in taxes would be preferable to having a lower salary but paying little in taxes, even if the take-home pay is the same or even better. I realize the focus of this conversation IS on the take-home pay, but if a person believed in investing in the US government and its infrastructure, and were really devoted to that (as a few people are), they might want to compare their income in the 1970s and now BEFORE accounting for taxes, because for them the pretax pay is more relevant than the take home-pay. No one has control over the tax rate set by the federal government, but if you assume that you want to maximize pretax income and then spend it all on taxes, then that's what they would look at.

I don't think you really understand how the tax system in this country works...

 

[nancysinatra]

I don't think you really understand how the tax system in this country works...

What do you mean? Of course I understand how it works:

pre-tax = take home + tax

therefore:

tax = pre-tax - take home

If someone wants to know that they are paying lots of tax, they can maximize that by having a high pretax income and a low take home pay. They need to know both things. The other thing that will help is a high tax rate, since tax is a function of pre-tax, but the government sets that. Having a high pretax income will naturally put them in a high tax bracket assuming richer people are taxed more.

The only reason I posted about that is because Law2Doc made it sound like no human being could ever want to know their pre-tax salary, and I was saying, well, some people might care. Granted they will well be deemed losers.

Please no one continue to comment on this. It is really lame to do so.

 

[ThinkTooMuch]

If you don't want to see reimbursement cut 40%, everyone should send a copy of the letter below (edited for your own use as necessary) to your representative:

Dear....

As you know, Medicare physician payments are scheduled to be cut 21.5 percent in 2010 and by more than 40 percent over the next decade. These cuts are a result of the flawed sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula used to calculate Medicare physician reimbursement. In 2002, the SGR led to a 5.4 percent reduction in Medicare physician payments, and only Congressional action has prevented further reductions in the following years.

It is critical that Congress take action this year to stop the 21.5 percent cut and to initiate reform of Medicare’s physician payment system. Unfortunately, some have proposed Medicare reforms that would finance increased Medicare payments for some physicians and services by cutting payments to other physician specialties, including surgeons. With Medicare payments already not keeping pace with the rising practice costs, such proposals would take the dangerous step of trying to promote one type of care while potentially threatening patient access to the life-saving care provided by other physician specialties. While Congress must work together to help Americans better manage their care, Congress must also ensure that a new reimbursement structure not threaten patients’ access to the life-saving care provided by surgeons and other physicians.

Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) are sending a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) that urges them take action this year to increase Medicare physician physicians in 2010, to initiate much-needed Medicare payment reform, and to oppose any effort to cut payments to some physicians to pay for payment increases for other physicians.

Please demonstrate your support for preserving Americans’ access to the full-range of physician care by contacting Rep. Berkley or Rep. Kirk today telling them that you will sign onto the Berkley-Kirk letter.

Thank you,

thank you, i will contact these public servants.

 

[dragonfly99]

They aren't really going to cut reimbursements 40%...that is just the threat year after year. If they actually did that, docs WOULD drop Medicare, and the politicians can't let that happen because seniors vote and it would be a big mess.

 

[Lonestar]

medicare is the biggest fraud ever. The government essentially decides how much your services are worth. Not your competition. But enough ranting.

I am worth every penny that I earn. You know why? Because I put in the sacrifice.

Life for physicians will get worse in the near term. We have become puppets to the masses. We have grown complacent. Thats whats wrong with this picture.

Whos with me? Lets all ask for a bailout. Oh wait!!! We already are. Lets ask our overlords (i.e the congress) to give us our small crumbs so that we can all go back to a lower standard of living.

Greed is good my friends. Without it, you have the state of medicine today.

Well, time to trade stocks again. 😀

 

[ThinkTooMuch]

COD movement?

 

[scab]

Of course I am not laying blame to lower salaries on female physicians. Its very complex and there are multiple forces working to lower our salaries. If you look at any industry in the US women tend to be paid less. I think this creates downward pressure on our salaries when there are more women. I think, in general, women don't fight as hard for higher salaries.

ANd do you also think they don't work hard enough too?
😕

 

[dacrocytic]

So as long as you get paid enough that you are not losing money that is OK?

I just don't understand how so many people can undervalue their work so much in a single profession. Even socialist hollywood types don't argue that they should be paid less when they make a movie.

Part of the problem I think is so many women in medicine who aren't as aggressive at defending their turf when it comes to pay.

what would you have us do? strike?

 

[TTPHUS]

medicare is the biggest fraud ever. The government essentially decides how much your services are worth. Not your competition. But enough ranting.

I am worth every penny that I earn. You know why? Because I put in the sacrifice.

Life for physicians will get worse in the near term. We have become puppets to the masses. We have grown complacent. Thats whats wrong with this picture.

Whos with me? Lets all ask for a bailout. Oh wait!!! We already are. Lets ask our overlords (i.e the congress) to give us our small crumbs so that we can all go back to a lower standard of living.

Greed is good my friends. Without it, you have the state of medicine today.

Well, time to trade stocks again. 😀

funny enough , NPs are making the same salary as FP doctors in many areas . doctors are really hated .