Is Hospitalist the GOAT career for a single, young male?

[KnuxNole]

There are still single peeps in their 40s who go to the club and ****, so it isn't too far fetched to have that lifestyle

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[fancymylotus]

There are still single peeps in their 40s who go to the club and ****, so it isn't too far fetched to have that lifestyle

and there are married men with kids who pretend to be single to go to the club and **** too, so you know, whatever floats your boat

 

[KnuxNole]

and there are married men with kids who pretend to be single to go to the club and **** too, so you know, whatever floats your boat

Hopefully, the OP isn't sleazy like that. He is gonna settle down, and use the 7 days off for quality wife and kid time!

 

[general admission]

What are you actually interested in? One moment you're saying you like something like IM (even though you built up your app for something else that your parents more approve of) and now this thread of wanting a GOAT specialty.

What do you want out of your career and life, I guess is what I'm asking. There are no specialties with all positives but no negatives. It's more you love the positives and can tolerate the negatives. Don't try to play the system and try to predict "the next big thing" which may or may not materialize.

Still most likely doing IM with intent to specialize; just meant to start some discussion with this thread. I fully realize that chasing money/"next big thing" is foolish. I could never, ever see myself doing PM&R. And advice taken.

 

[KnuxNole]

Lol. I'm not going to rag on your OP. I remember being of a similar frame of mind. As you progress through this vile process, you'll most likely come to realize it's not what it may seem from the outside. You see one week on, one week off, and picture strutting along the hallowed halls of some pristine institution during work, then gallivanting around Barbados on the week off. The reality? Hospitalist work is an absolute nightmare. You're the scut factory of the hospital. Punished with an overwhelming amount of admissions, documentation, social work, and disturbing minutiae. The week off? Oh, yeah. The first 3 days off are spent in recovery from the preceding week. The three days before you start work again are spent in a nauseous dread of the week to come, wondering how on God's green earth you ended up doing this for a living. I guess that gives you one day to enjoy yourself. That's probably the day you'll start feeding your nascent alcoholism.

Yeah....hospitalist sounds rough. Perrotfish definitely echoed it, but to add, with places with an open ICU, you are responsible for critical care patients too.

 

[fancymylotus]

Hopefully, the OP isn't sleazy like that. He is gonna settle down, and use the 7 days off for quality wife and kid time!

ive met many, many sleazy men. most of whom happen to be indian physicians. its like a disease.

(reason 39408309483904 I refuse to date anyone brown)

 

[PlutoBoy]

LOL! I have no experience in that (obvi). It sounds great on paper, working 6 months out of the year, but nearly all the hospitalists I know, which aren't many, I'll admit, are always talking about how much money they make, and how they can't wait till they get off next week. They like the controlled hours although it's long hours. But they're working really really hard during the week, that you really do need that next week just to recover fully. I could totally see someone liking and enjoying being a Pediatric hospitalist though (but I'm biased since I like Pediatricians -- well almost all of them).

I could be wrong on this, but what if Hospitalist Medicine no longer stays 1 week on, and 1 week off and changes? You have no control over that as this could easily change based on medical economics and the healthcare landscape. And I guarantee it won't be an "easier" schedule by far.

Again, the bolded is a myth. A rheumatogist works what? 35-40 hours a week? Even less if you consider they get an hour off for lunch. Hospitalists work in one week what others work in two. No paid vacations either. It's a gimmick agreement that only works for the hospital.

Let's be clear here. The life style boat leaves the dock the moment you choose to go the IM route. Aside from Rheum, Endo, and Allergy plus maybe GI/Heme the rest pretty much sucks, including straight up IM.

 

[Silent Cool]

hello, 39408309830493084 delta skymiles

You fly Delta?

Eww.

 

[fancymylotus]

You fly Delta?

Eww.

No choice- they do the most nonstop flights between those airports. At least I can zone out and get drunk.

 

[JP2740]

Again, the bolded is a myth. A rheumatogist works what? 35-40 hours a week? Even less if you consider they get an hour off for lunch. Hospitalists work in one week what others work in two. No paid vacations either. It's a gimmick agreement that only works for the hospital.

Let's be clear here. The life style boat leaves the dock the moment you choose to go the IM route. Aside from Rheum, Endo, and Allergy plus maybe GI/Heme the rest pretty much sucks, including straight up IM.

You just named 5 IM routes as lifestyle.

 

[Serous Demilune]

Again, the bolded is a myth. A rheumatogist works what? 35-40 hours a week? Even less if you consider they get an hour off for lunch. Hospitalists work in one week what others work in two. No paid vacations either. It's a gimmick agreement that only works for the hospital.

Let's be clear here. The life style boat leaves the dock the moment you choose to go the IM route. Aside from Rheum, Endo, and Allergy plus maybe GI/Heme the rest pretty much sucks, including straight up IM.

What's wrong with ID? Money sucks but I thought the lifestyle was good, and the pathology must be pretty cool.

 

[PlutoBoy]

What's wrong with ID? Money sucks but I thought the lifestyle was good, and the pathology must be pretty cool.

Well, lifestyle is not terrible. However, why would you do additional training to earn close to $100K less? That's detrimental to the so called life style. But that's just me.

If you love it, go ahead. But there are too many other options to go this route if what you are looking for is "life style".

 

[MU420]

Yes, that first article made me want to vomit:
"For retention, you really have to treat your NPPs just like you would another doc." –Tracy E. Cardin, ACNP-BC University of Chicago Hospital

Medicine is full of stories of midlevels who are not invited to the company party or included in lunch outings, or who don't receive the same CME allowance as doctors. In fact, said Dr. Kalupa, research shows that about half of NPs and PAs get between $1,500 and $2,500 a year for CME, which is far less than most physicians. "Some institutions justify this by saying, 'Well, they're only half a physician,' " said Dr. Friar. "But the catch is that they still need the same education if they're going to do the same job you do. So the 'half a physician' thing doesn't really cut it." Moreover, NPPs need to be treated as full team members if you want to build a culture that values openness and good internal relationships. According to Dr. Friar, many PAs and NPs have taken pay cuts in exchange for positions that offer them more autonomy and a voice in group decisions. "It's not the typical medical hierarchy that a lot of physicians are taught," said Ms. Cardin. "It's a team. For retention, you really have to treat your NPPs just like you would another doc." She left a previous job with a pulmonary critical care group, she said, in part because the doctors and their spouses sat at one set of tables during the holiday party, while she and her spouse had to sit at another.

("Dr." Kalupa has a DNP, not an MD)

Well DNP Kalupa is correct. It's wrong to call NPs and PAs half a physician.

They're not physicians, period. No need to bother with 1/2 or 3/4 or 1/12.

You cannot treat nurses like you would another doc because they're not docs.

 

[PlutoBoy]

You just named 5 IM routes as lifestyle.

Haha! Realistically speaking, the best lifestyle subspecialty is Allergy/Immunology. But how many spots are out there in this field? Far and few. I wouldn't bank on this if I was a medical student after a lifestyle career. What if you end up in... Say... Nephrology? What a bummer!

The point is that IM and its subspecialties in general are not easy nor laid back.

But you are right. Allergy, Rheum, and Endo are good.

But IM, CC, Cards, Nephro, ID, Geriatrics, definitely suck.

GI probably sucks but not as much. You will be busy but will have a relatively normal schedule and not many calls.

Heme/Onc is up for debate.

But my point is that there are many other options that would be easier on you than IM and its subspecialties. That is, if you get your so called lifestyle subspecialty.

Although I must say IM is the most intellectually challenging field out there. No doubt! It's enjoyable and fun if you are an analytical guy but forget the lifestyle bit. For that go zap some seb K like @DermViser

 

[JP2740]

lol, what level of education are you at?

 

[colbgw02]

They went through an enormous salary boom with the invention of axial imaging(1), then they peaked(2), and they are increasingly outsourced(3) and automated(4). Other than interventional radiologists their salaries are now declining(5), the market is getting saturated(6), and the step 1 scores/fill rate for the field is going down. Still not a bad field to be finishing residency in right now, but there's no clear floor for salaries(7) and by medical career standards its a pretty good example of a bubble.

I'm going to try to take this in chunks, because there's a lot of misinformation in this post.

(1) Axial imaging - I have no idea what this is. I'm going to assume you mean cross-sectional imaging.

(2) Your timeline stinks. Cross-sectional imaging was invented (your word) in the 1960s to 1980s and were widely available by the late 1980s. The salary boom wasn't until the late 90s and 00s had much more to do with a) the implementation of PACS that made radiologists more efficient and b) a huge increase in demand. Generation IV CT scanners get an honorable mention for increasing efficiency, too.

(3) I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that, when you say outsource, you're not talking about all radiology reads coming from India. Instead, I'll assume that you mean outsourcing to teleradiology firms, which is generally considered to have leveled off.

(4) Now you're just making stuff up. Seriously, get out of here with that nonsense. Once we have technology good enough to replace a radiologist, then we've probably invented AI and no one's job is safe.

(5) This is true, but overstated. From 2010-2013, the worst years of the radiology market, diagnostic radiology salaries declined by 0.22%. That still puts them 5th overall. It's more accurate to say that reimbursements have declined. To which I would respond that no high-paying specialty is safe from reimburse cuts, save cash practices, obviously.

(6) An oversimplification, but a topic beyond the scope of this thread. Suffice it to say that some markets are saturated, but plenty are not.

(7) I suppose this is true, but the floor is a long way away when you're still so close to the ceiling (see #5).

 

[Mad Jack]

I'd rather do EM. $200-250/hr shift work ftw.

Most places pay 125-175. 200-250 you won't hit unless you're in the sticks. Like, Alaska level of sticks.

 

[circulus vitios]

Most places pay 125-175. 200-250 you won't hit unless you're in the sticks. Like, Alaska level of sticks.

That's way too low.

Just got my copy of the 2014 today. I think salaries went down 3-5%, but I can't find 2013 to compare directly.

50th% for total compensation:

Employees - $300K for 1700 hours, $170 an hour (yes, I know those figures don't actually work together, they're just what's reported and averaged)
Partners- $312,500 for 1582 hours, $185 an hour (surprised to see employees and partners so close together in this year's survey, even with the lower hours and higher hourly)
Independent contractors- $352,000 for 1769 hours, $200 an hour (also surprised to see contractors ahead of partners)

Guess I'll be grateful for what I've got.

Overall 10th% = $248K, $120 an hour, 90th% = $500K, $240 an hour

Lots of other info in there that might be worth buying if you're looking for a new job or looking to hire.

(Data taken from Daniel Stern survey.)

$200-250/hr is high, but it's not unattainable if you don't mind living in a rural area. The teaching hospital in my rural hometown pays FM residents $150/hr to moonlight in the ED, for example. I imagine attendings pull down $200/hr+.

 

[Mad Jack]

That's way too low.



(Data taken from Daniel Stern survey.)

$200-250/hr is high, but it's not unattainable if you don't mind living in a rural area. The teaching hospital in my rural hometown pays FM residents $150/hr to moonlight in the ED, for example. I imagine attendings pull down $200/hr+.

http://www.beckershospitalreview.co...tistics-on-hourly-physician-compensation.html

Average hourly compensation of full-time emergency physicians (26,245)
Salary/income: $133
Benefits: $27
Total compensation: $160

I'd say that their sample size of 26,245 physicians pretty firmly crushes your sample size of "wishes and dreams of making bank while working 36 hours a week."

Also this is data from 2013, so it's pretty damn recent.

 

[Silent Cool]

That's way too low.



(Data taken from Daniel Stern survey.)

$200-250/hr is high, but it's not unattainable if you don't mind living in a rural area. The teaching hospital in my rural hometown pays FM residents $150/hr to moonlight in the ED, for example. I imagine attendings pull down $200/hr+.

Wow, what town is that?

 

[LostinLift]

http://www.beckershospitalreview.co...tistics-on-hourly-physician-compensation.html

Average hourly compensation of full-time emergency physicians (26,245)
Salary/income: $133
Benefits: $27
Total compensation: $160

I'd say that their sample size of 26,245 physicians pretty firmly crushes your sample size of "wishes and dreams of making bank while working 36 hours a week."

Also this is data from 2013, so it's pretty damn recent.

Yes, please keep propagating this data and lead people away from EM...


Also you can't extrapolate that data accurately... using the neurosurg numbers at 60 hrs/week for 48 weeks the average would be over 1 million.

 

[Mad Jack]

Yes, please keep propagating this data and lead people away from EM...

Unless you're doing locums, it's a pretty solid figure. Here's a few typical job offerings paid hourly in EM:

http://www.practicelink.com/jobs/42...Indeed&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=Indeed

http://www.practicelink.com/jobs/35...Indeed&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=Indeed

http://www.practicelink.com/jobs/39...Indeed&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=Indeed

You're looking at $155, $120-130, and $150. These are typical figures. There are higher paying jobs, such as locums, which can often pay 200-225/hr, but do not cover benefits and pay you as a 1099 independent contractor, but permanent positions that pay $250 an hour in desirable locations basically don't exist.

 

[Meh.meh]

http://www.beckershospitalreview.co...tistics-on-hourly-physician-compensation.html

Average hourly compensation of full-time emergency physicians (26,245)
Salary/income: $133
Benefits: $27
Total compensation: $160

I'd say that their sample size of 26,245 physicians pretty firmly crushes your sample size of "wishes and dreams of making bank while working 36 hours a week."

Also this is data from 2013, so it's pretty damn recent.

I'm lazy, and I'm hoping you'll be familiar with the data.

Did they happen to break it down by region and academic vs community?

 

[Mad Jack]

I'm lazy, and I'm hoping you'll be familiar with the data.

Did they happen to break it down by region and academic vs community?

No. It's just an average. EM in Connecticut hospitals typically paid 110-155 an hour back when I was looking into the numbers and asking around, with the academic places paying on the low side and community hospitals paying on the high side. I didn't find a single permanent job that broke the 175 mark in the state. I'm assuming the numbers here are pretty typical, as they correlate well with the BHR survey (which is about in the middle of what the academic and community places were paying).

 

[fancymylotus]

Unless you're doing locums, it's a pretty solid figure. Here's a few typical job offerings paid hourly in EM:

http://www.practicelink.com/jobs/42...Indeed&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=Indeed

http://www.practicelink.com/jobs/35...Indeed&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=Indeed

http://www.practicelink.com/jobs/39...Indeed&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=Indeed

You're looking at $155, $120-130, and $150. These are typical figures. There are higher paying jobs, such as locums, which can often pay 200-225/hr, but do not cover benefits and pay you as a 1099 independent contractor, but permanent positions that pay $250 an hour in desirable locations basically don't exist.

...that's it??!??

 

[Mad Jack]

...that's it??!??

Keep in mind these are employed positions, so you have no expenses. 150/hr is 300k at 40 hours a week or 450k at 60 hours a week, which goes directly into your pocket instead of toward paying bills, malpractice, and staff.

 

[Siggy]

You cannot treat nurses like you would another doc because they're not docs.

The notion that nurses are like docs goes out the window the first time you get paged for the urgent temperature of 99.4... which dropped from 100.3... in a patient where the nurse doesn't know if ABx or cultures had been taken because he just was brought up from the ED. What was he admitted for, you ask? Sepsis. :face palm:

 

[fancymylotus]

Keep in mind these are employed positions, so you have no expenses. 150/hr is 300k at 40 hours a week or 450k at 60 hours a week, which goes directly into your pocket instead of toward paying bills, malpractice, and staff.

Yeah but still. Crazy ER patients. Nurses. Lactation counselers

I'd rather just dump my money into commercial real estate and hang out(at the club on top of Mt Privilege)

 

[Mad Jack]

Yeah but still. Crazy ER patients. Nurses. Lactation counselers

I'd rather just dump my money into commercial real estate and hang out(at the club on top of Mt Privilege)

 

[fancymylotus]

Remember? I'm compassionate and caring by association---> the prince' surgeon monies

 

[Mad Jack]

Remember? I'm compassionate and caring by association---> the prince' surgeon monies

General surgeons don't fare much better on an hourly basis, they just work a lot more hours:

Average hourly compensation of full-time general surgeons (14,771)
Salary/income: $169
Benefits: $34
Total compensation: $203

They don't have individual figures for vascular, but I'd imagine it's close to urology.

Average hourly compensation of full-time urologists (4,247)
Salary/income: $197
Benefits: $39
Total compensation: $236

 

[DermViser]

Haha! Realistically speaking, the best lifestyle subspecialty is Allergy/Immunology. But how many spots are out there in this field? Far and few. I wouldn't bank on this if I was a medical student after a lifestyle career. What if you end up in... Say... Nephrology? What a bummer!

The point is that IM and its subspecialties in general are not easy nor laid back.

But you are right. Allergy, Rheum, and Endo are good.

But IM, CC, Cards, Nephro, ID, Geriatrics, definitely suck.

GI probably sucks but not as much. You will be busy but will have a relatively normal schedule and not many calls.

Heme/Onc is up for debate.

But my point is that there are many other options that would be easier on you than IM and its subspecialties. That is, if you get your so called lifestyle subspecialty.

Although I must say IM is the most intellectually challenging field out there. No doubt! It's enjoyable and fun if you are an analytical guy but forget the lifestyle bit. For that go zap some seb K like @DermViser

You don't zap seborrheic keratoses. It's usually considered cosmetic by most insurances, the same way skin tags are. You can't just "zap" anything you want unless you want patients ticked about the bill.

 

[CDK11B]

 

[studentp0x]

(a) Your salary estimates are a wee bit high

(b) Fellowship isn't going to be sitting there waiting forever, especially competitive ones like GI or Cards. Spend too much time out of training as a hospitalist and you'll find some doors closed.

(c) There's a reason it has a high burnout rate. It can be a crushing job.

But since you think it's the greatest, go ahead and live it up.

Try having a masters degree while working 8-5 doing a useless job + commute for 55k/year instead.

 

[studentp0x]

I am a big believer in efficient markets. If there is easy money in something you tend to see people follow the easy money. Step 1 scores and the abusiveness of the training pathway then rapidly rise until the money is no longer easy. For historical reference see derm and rads. More recently see PM&R and ER.

The fact that hospitalists have been around for awhile and no one is flocking to it is a pretty good sign that it sucks. Its not a great career, it has a lot of drawbacks. I have some theories as to why, which I will expound on below, but those are theories. However the fact that almost everyone in IM flees into fellowship, and that no one is fighting for these jobs, is very good evidence that the job does suck.

Theories on why being a hospitalist sucks.

1) 29 is not young. I'm there: R3,about that age. I'm old. This is 5 years past the age that normal people have kids. No one talks about the 'youthful indiscretions' of their early 30s. Very few people go clubbing. 100:1 when you get there you'll have a spouse and maybe kids. You won't want a week off at a time. You'll want weekends. And holidays. And the chance to come home to see your loved ones every day like a normal person.

2) You can't just drift into fellowship when you're done. You need LORs. Research. Other BS. Keeping that door open is a second job. If hospitalist is a destination you might be able to work 'just' every other week, but be prepared to have several side projects if you want to be something else later on.

3) The hours aren't great. They aren't 8 hour shifts. Its 7 13 hour shifts in a row. 90 hours every other week is not an easy schedule.

4) Its a high stress, high liability environment. The advantage of being an outpatient generalist is that it is very, very easy to punt something when you don't know what to do with it. A hospitalist largely loses that privilege. If the ED admits it, and the ICU won't take it, you have to see it.

5) You work in one of the most out of control environments in the hospital. This is the big one for me. No other physician in the hospital, not even the ED doc, is as completely out of control of his workspace as a hospitalist. You are obligated to negotiate with RTs, nurses, specialist groups, ed physicians, and ICU physicians who you rely on to provide reasonable patient care and who have little real incentive to treat you with respect or consideration. Good luck.

Until you hit 40 years old and that high divorce statistic applies to you making you single and unable to see your kids most of the time + saying bye to a good portion of your assets and income. Sounds like a bad deal man.

 

[fancymylotus]

Try having a masters degree while working 8-5 doing a useless job + commute for 55k/year instead.

Try having nothing more than a GED and getting paid upwards of 50/hr..oh wait, I'm describing some of our overpaid monkey staff!

 

[studentp0x]

Try having nothing more than a GED and getting paid upwards of 50/hr..oh wait, I'm describing some of our overpaid monkey staff!

But they got that job when?

 

[link2swim06]

No. It's just an average. EM in Connecticut hospitals typically paid 110-155 an hour back when I was looking into the numbers and asking around, with the academic places paying on the low side and community hospitals paying on the high side. I didn't find a single permanent job that broke the 175 mark in the state. I'm assuming the numbers here are pretty typical, as they correlate well with the BHR survey (which is about in the middle of what the academic and community places were paying).

It's regional. Look at it this way. There are ENTIRE states like Alabama that only have one EM residency. People don't equally disperse across the nation after residency. The northeast pays crap for EM because it has most the residencies (per population) and is closer to being saturated than the rest of the country. Also there aren't as many freestanding ERs. Oh and malpractice sucks there. Oh and cost of living and taxes are way higher. Overall your lifestyle is way different than if you lived somewhere else.

Connecticut is not representative of the rest of the US. But conversely the rest of the US is not representative of the northeast.

 

[Mad Jack]

It's regional. Look at it this way. There are ENTIRE states like Alabama that only have one EM residency. People don't equally disperse across the nation after residency. The northeast pays crap for EM because it has most the residencies (per population) and is closer to being saturated than the rest of the country. Also there aren't as many freestanding ERs. Oh and malpractice sucks there. Oh and cost of living and taxes are way higher. Overall your lifestyle is way different than if you lived somewhere else.

Connecticut is not representative of the rest of the US. But conversely the rest of the US is not representative of the northeast.

Most desirable areas have similar salaries was my point, not that all places are like Connecticut. There is a reason the national average is what it is. There are certain places where you can make a killing, mostly along the Gulf Coast (excluding Florida) and in the flyover states. But in the Northeast, the DC area, the West coast, and the big midwest and western metros (Chicago, Denver, St. Louis, etc) you're looking at salaries that are almost universally less than 175 an hour.

 

[pathstudent]

Was thinking about this the other day. Say you're a single, young male. Went straight from college-->med school-->residency. Graduate med school at 25/26, finish IM residency at 28/29 and you're a full-fledged attending. Get a job making a conservative $225K/year, working one week on, one week off (with some vacation time thrown in there). All of a sudden, you're sub-30 years old making more than pretty much any other non-medicine professional. No family=money to pay off your loans and cheaper living. Then you can buy cool **** you've always wanted, and get the week off to hang out with friends/go to the club and **** or moonlight and make upwards of $300k/year. After a few years of this you could also potentially apply for fellowship.

Seems like a much more desirable field when factoring demographics of the applicant. I think it's only going up in terms of compensation/demand, from what I hear as well. Any input?

No subspecialty surgery is. You can get a bunch of scams going like investing in your own surgery center that is out of net work for all insurance companies and then weave copy's and deductibles and get higher reimbursement than one that is in network or try hiring your own hospitalist, intensivist, pathologist, anesthesiologists and skim their pay.


The opthalomologist I go to is young, has his own office with tons of staff and he not only owns his own lasik/surgery center but he is also buying commercial medical space. Trying doing that as a hospitalist.

 

[Robinson EM]

No. It's just an average. EM in Connecticut hospitals typically paid 110-155 an hour back when I was looking into the numbers and asking around, with the academic places paying on the low side and community hospitals paying on the high side. I didn't find a single permanent job that broke the 175 mark in the state. I'm assuming the numbers here are pretty typical, as they correlate well with the BHR survey (which is about in the middle of what the academic and community places were paying).

Haha.

First, the survey is a bunch of BS. You don't know how many hours anyone is working. How in the world do you compare hourly salaries with everyone when you have no idea how long someone works???

Neurosurgery works 40 hrs and pediatrics works 40 hrs?

General surgery works the same # of hours as Emergency Medicine? Are you kidding?

Next, you've somehow determined a single rate for each specialty. This doesn't make sense, especially when there are a lot of people bringing the average down or even up. I'm sure you've been in college classes when the mean is incredibly low even though the class is easy. Sometimes there are people who bring down the average.

Likewise, if you want to truly compare hourly - then you need to account for many surgeons working 60 to even 80 hrs per week. Their hourly salaries will drop 50% on this survey. Which makes it a joke.

Can you list where they got their data from and how it's validated? It appears that they just have a database of physicians, but there's no info on how many hours people are working, where they get the data from or anything. Please share.

If an Emergency physician decided to work neurosurgery hours, they would earn 600k per year. But many EM people are happy to work 30 hrs or 40 hrs - which I'm sure is listed as 40 hrs in this survey, if they are working 30 hrs or 80 hrs.

Also, this has no partner salaries. There are EM guys earning 400k+ who are in democratic groups. These are all employees it appears. Although, who knows because I haven't seen anyone explain where the data comes from.

 

[Mad Jack]

Haha.

First, the survey is a bunch of BS. You don't know how many hours anyone is working. How in the world do you compare hourly salaries with everyone when you have no idea how long someone works???

Neurosurgery works 40 hrs and pediatrics works 40 hrs?

General surgery works the same # of hours as Emergency Medicine? Are you kidding?

Next, you've somehow determined a single rate for each specialty. This doesn't make sense, especially when there are a lot of people bringing the average down or even up. I'm sure you've been in college classes when the mean is incredibly low even though the class is easy. Sometimes there are people who bring down the average.

Likewise, if you want to truly compare hourly - then you need to account for many surgeons working 60 to even 80 hrs per week. Their hourly salaries will drop 50% on this survey. Which makes it a joke.

Can you list where they got their data from and how it's validated? It appears that they just have a database of physicians, but there's no info on how many hours people are working, where they get the data from or anything. Please share.

If an Emergency physician decided to work neurosurgery hours, they would earn 600k per year. But many EM people are happy to work 30 hrs or 40 hrs - which I'm sure is listed as 40 hrs in this survey, if they are working 30 hrs or 80 hrs.

Also, this has no partner salaries. There are EM guys earning 400k+ who are in democratic groups. These are all employees it appears. Although, who knows because I haven't seen anyone explain where the data comes from.

That survey was based on hours worked and salary paid to employed physicians, and thus accounted for hours worked and income paid. It wasn't based on a 2080 hour work week. 61.7% of EM physicians are hospital employees, so this represents the salary of roughly 2/3 of EM doctors. Partnership is dying nowadays as all of the big groups are selling out to management companies, I honestly doubt that more than 20% of EM physicians will be partners in 10-15 years. I'm not saying there aren't high-paying positions out there, just that they are abnormal, not the norm. There is a reason that the average EM physician is making roughly 250k- if they were making 200+ an hour, that would equate to 400k in a 40 hour work week or 600k in a 60 hour work week, which has not been demonstrated in basically any survey ever taken by anyone ever. The average ED doc works about 40 hours a week, give or take, which equates to a salary of $125/hr. Please, use actual data to prove me wrong. You can't and you won't.

 

[Meh.meh]

Try having a masters degree while working 8-5 doing a useless job + commute for 55k/year instead.

That's not really a comparable experience. The things that make being a hospitalist crushing are only in small part due to the hours.

It's also not really an either/or situation. My spouse makes 1.5x that without any graduate education, or family connections.

 

[Robinson EM]

Btw here are some of those impossible jobs you've mentioned:

Twelve - 12 hr shifts a month? ---> 367k annually $212/hr
http://www.merritthawkins.com/job-search/job-details.aspx?job=11205

$250/hr
http://www.edphysician.com/state-process.asp?state=Texas

$240/hr - 425k annually
http://www.physicianjobboard.com/jo..._campaign=simplyhired35&rx_source=simplyhired

Again, this is Twelve 12 hr shifts a month. That's 18 or 19 days off per month!

Want to work 24 days a month (well, no one in EM does this) but if we wanted to work like neurosurgery then that would net 700k per year in the first job listing. That's at 70 hrs per week.

 

[Robinson EM]

That survey was based on hours worked and salary paid to employed physicians, and thus accounted for hours worked and income paid. It wasn't based on a 2080 hour work week. 61.7% of EM physicians are hospital employees, so this represents the salary of roughly 2/3 of EM doctors. Partnership is dying nowadays as all of the big groups are selling out to management companies, I honestly doubt that more than 20% of EM physicians will be partners in 10-15 years. I'm not saying there aren't high-paying positions out there, just that they are abnormal, not the norm. There is a reason that the average EM physician is making roughly 250k- if they were making 200+ an hour, that would equate to 400k in a 40 hour work week or 600k in a 60 hour work week, which has not been demonstrated in basically any survey ever taken by anyone ever. The average ED doc works about 40 hours a week, give or take, which equates to a salary of $125/hr. Please, use actual data to prove me wrong. You can't and you won't.

I think you misunderstood, I didn't want you to explain where the data came from. I wanted an official website or methods explaining where the data came from.

Here's an example, what I just said was told to me from Zeus. 66% of what Zeus said is accurate, 99% of the time, blah blah blah.

If you could list the companies official explanation of the data on a real website that explains how they calculated neurosurgeons and orthopedics hourlys salary, that would be great. Also, please list where you are getting your stats instead of just listing them. That's why they created hyperlinks. : D

Also you honestly doubting this or that, you aren't really an authority on this topic - if you had paid taxes before or were a physician, then maybe I that would buy you a little more credibility. But right now you are listing statistics in every sentence, yet I haven't seen you list any links other than that website you took the data from, which doesn't explain how they obtained it. I'm sure you aren't making this all up, hence why I'm asking for the links.

 

[studentp0x]

That's not really a comparable experience. The things that make being a hospitalist crushing are only in small part due to the hours.

It's also not really an either/or situation. My spouse makes 1.5x that without any graduate education, or family connections.

It's rare nowadays to get a decent job position with having tons of qualifications etc. I just think that people making 1/3 of a hospitalist while still working super hard would jump at the chance to have that job (hypothetically).

 

[Mad Jack]

Btw here are some of those impossible jobs you've mentioned:

Twelve - 12 hr shifts a month? ---> 367k annually $212/hr
http://www.merritthawkins.com/job-search/job-details.aspx?job=11205

$250/hr
http://www.edphysician.com/state-process.asp?state=Texas

$240/hr - 425k annually
http://www.physicianjobboard.com/jo..._campaign=simplyhired35&rx_source=simplyhired

Again, this is Twelve 12 hr shifts a month. That's 18 or 19 days off per month!

Want to work 24 days a month (well, no one in EM does this) but if we wanted to work like neurosurgery then that would net 700k per year in the first job listing. That's at 70 hrs per week.

Those were in the area I said those salaries were possible- North Dakota, middle of nowhere Texas, and Texas (though one of your links is broke so it's hard to figure out where). In desirable areas, this is not the norm. The salary information provided was from Jackson and Coker, a company that buys physician compensation, hours worked, and c revenue data, and this has over 20,000 EM physicians in their sample size, and correlates well with both the MGMA and Medscape salary surveys. Is say all of that is slightly more reliable than three rural outlier jobs that pay a premium to draw physicians there. Personally I'd gladly make $75 less an hour to not live in NoDak or northwest TX.

 

[Mad Jack]

I think you misunderstood, I didn't want you to explain where the data came from. I wanted an official website or methods explaining where the data came from.

Here's an example, what I just said was told to me from Zeus. 66% of what Zeus said is accurate, 99% of the time, blah blah blah.

If you could list the companies official explanation of the data on a real website that explains how they calculated neurosurgeons and orthopedics hourlys salary, that would be great. Also, please list where you are getting your stats instead of just listing them. That's why they created hyperlinks. : D

Also you honestly doubting this or that, you aren't really an authority on this topic - if you had paid taxes before or were a physician, then maybe I that would buy you a little more credibility. But right now you are listing statistics in every sentence, yet I haven't seen you list any links other than that website you took the data from, which doesn't explain how they obtained it. I'm sure you aren't making this all up, hence why I'm asking for the links.

I've paid taxes for probably half as long as you've been alive. I was probably working my first job before you had ever been laid lol. And I spent 6 years of that time doing clinical work in a hospital.

http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2014/public/overview#2

http://www.beckershospitalreview.co...tistics-on-hourly-physician-compensation.html

http://www.mgma.com/blog/highlights-of-mgma-s-2011-physician-compensation-survey

You can look up the most recent MGMA if you have a subscription, but keep in mind it is total compensation, of which roughly a quarter is benefits, not straight pay. Again, I'm just demonstrating the norm. The are high paying EM jobs out there, but if you want your kids to have good schools or any culture in your life, you're capping at around 175 an hour plus benefits in most decent metro areas.

 

[Meh.meh]

It's rare nowadays to get a decent job position with having tons of qualifications etc. I just think that people making 1/3 of a hospitalist while still working super hard would jump at the chance to have that job (hypothetically).

If that's the case, nothing is stopping them.

Aside from four years of medical school, a few hundred thousand dollars of debt, and a three year residency making less than they currently do (while doubling the hours).

I hope it makes them happy.

However, when a senior resident in surgery calls something grueling, I tend to take that resident's word for it. If anyone knows the meaning of the word "grueling," it's probably someone who has worked 80 hours a week for a half decade or so.

 

[Robinson EM]

I've paid taxes for probably half as long as you've been alive. I was probably working my first job before you had ever been laid lol. And I spent 6 years of that time doing clinical work in a hospital.

http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2014/public/overview#2

http://www.beckershospitalreview.co...tistics-on-hourly-physician-compensation.html

http://www.mgma.com/blog/highlights-of-mgma-s-2011-physician-compensation-survey

You can look up the most recent MGMA if you have a subscription, but keep in mind it is total compensation, of which roughly a quarter is benefits, not straight pay. Again, I'm just demonstrating the norm. The are high paying EM jobs out there, but if you want your kids to have good schools or any culture in your life, you're capping at around 175 an hour plus benefits in most decent metro areas.

You would think with age you would have more humility or wisdom. So how old are you exactly?

Again, these are simply lists of data for the Jackson & Coker's physician salary calculator. I was asking for a simple description of the methods of obtaining and calculating the data so we can know it's quality. You seemed to go into an argument immediately backing up the data listing that it wasn't based on _________ hrs of work a week and that _____% of EM physicians do this and that. This is the type of info that would be in the methods. Here's a random example from a survey that looked at nursing incomes hourly for a set of international nurses, they don't jump immediately to the results - they explain how they obtained them (that way we can decide how valid the results are!).

Example of methods for obtaining a survey:

Methods
Back to Top
Buerhaus, Staiger, & Auerbach, 2009) and have been used in a number of studies (Mark, Harless, & Spetz, 2009; Schumacher, 2011). Data for the 2008 NSSRN were collected using equal probability systematic random sampling, from state-based lists of RNs (USDHHS, 2010). The final public data set contained 33,352 records. One hundred seventy-three RNs who did not reside or work in the United States and 4,625 RNs who did not work in nursing were excluded, leaving 28,544 observations (Figure 2). Sample weights, available in the data files, were used to adjust the sample to the target population.

Figure 2
Broeck, Cunningham, Eeckels, and Herbst (2005) and Osborne (2010). Whenever the data values for a continuous variable (e.g., age) extended beyond +3 SD, the data points were identified as outliers, as recommended by Osborne. Approximately 1% (n = 327) cases of the 28,554 observations had implausible values and were excluded. Descriptive analyses to compare the characteristics of IENs and USNs used a sample of 28,227 (Figure 2). However, wage analyses were on 22,703 observations. This number was achieved by first excluding respondents who reported any on-call hours (n = 4,049), because there is no set rate of payment for on-call hours, and then by excluding cases for which calculated hourly wages were less than the 2008 federal minimum wage of $5.85 (n = 12; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009) or greater than $150 (n = 13). Finally, 1,450 observations that had missing data for any variable were excluded from regression analyses.

Here's another for pharmacists explaining methods and data:

Methods
Choice of indicators
The mean was the indicator of central tendency chosen in this study. Although the median may be preferable at times when dealing with potentially skewed distributions such as earnings, the mean is a more stable indicator and its algebraic properties make it a virtually universal choice for all but descriptive purposes. Besides, pharmacists' earnings are more normally distributed relatively to other occupations.2 In matters of dispersion, however, there is no consensus. Multiple indicators, each focusing on a unique component of the inequality picture, possess different sensitivity to income levels throughout any array of values, as well as advantages and disadvantages. Consequently, analysts often estimate families of indicators in search of a more complete view of the distribution being studied.15, 16, 17 and 18 Five inequality indicators were used in this paper: the log earnings variance, the coefficient of variation, the lower median share, the 90-10 decile ratio, and the Gini coefficient.


The log earnings variance portrays inequality throughout the entire earnings distribution; it has the disadvantage of lacking an upper bound, but the variance of the natural log transformation is not affected by proportional changes in all earnings. The coefficient of variation, which is equal to the standard deviation-mean ratio, also focuses on variation across the spectrum; it is easy to conceptualize and compute, but it is susceptible to outliers. The lower median share measures the proportion of total earnings received by the lower half of the population of earners; it portrays a broad view of how earnings shares are split down the middle, but it is insensitive to transfers among earners within the same half of the distribution. The 90-10 decile ratio is obtained by dividing the total earnings reported by the lowest 10% of earners into the total earnings reported by the top 10%; it detects disparity at the extremes of the distribution, but it does not track the composition of the middle 80% of earners. And the Gini coefficient, derived from the Lorenz curve, is more sensitive to earnings changes in the middle than at the ends of the distribution, but it does not differentiate among kinds of disparity. Greater inequality in a distribution would be denoted by smaller values of the lower median share and greater values of the other four indicators. A more detailed discussion of these inequality indicators may be found in the article from which the data were obtained (see below).

Data
Carvajal and Armayor19 have discussed and calculated the values of these five earnings inequality indicators, along with the mean, for 41 groupings of pharmacists in 16 categories (gender, ethnic group, age group, etc.). The central tendency and dispersion indicators were developed separately for all pharmacists in the data set and for the subset of practitioners working full time, defined as an average work week of 36 or more hours. The distinction between the two groups was based on the presumption that the labor supply function of full-time pharmacists probably has different determinants, and/or different weights of the same determinants, compared with the labor supply function of pharmacists who restrict their work hours due to a seemingly higher opportunity cost of non-work activities. More inequality was expected, and found, in the overall distribution than in the distribution of full-time pharmacists because of wider differences in the amount of labor supplied.

The original data were obtained from the responses of 1278 registered South Florida pharmacists to a 2006–2007 questionnaire designed specifically for studies of this nature. More than three-quarters (77.5%) of respondents reported working, on average, at least 36 h per week; this was approximately the same percentage reported by the 2009 National Pharmacist Workforce Study.20

See, they explain how the data got there, why they used certain methods, what the survey contained, when they excluded some data, etc. You are just listing results with no explanation.