- Nov 1, 2007
- Reaction score
An analysis of the financial returns of fellowship training in pediatrics.
New research, updating findings from about a decade ago. Compared to General Peds, only Cardiology, PICU and NICU represent increased lifetime earnings opportunities.
The commentary (here: Addressing the Negative Financial Impact of Fellowship to Increase the Workforce) is interesting, if mainly for the fact that present research on graduating fellows seems to indicate that those choosing a fellowship had already resigned themselves to lower earnings. Think the interesting thing would be to compare graduating medical students going into various fields (probably has been done, I'm not going to search for it though). I suspect that financial considerations are listed as being of greater importance to those going into other fields, but that the difference is not that the soon-to-be pediatricians don't care about money, just that it's an understood portion of the field and they've come to accept that fact. That's a nuanced view that probably gets lost in hot takes discussions.
The commentary also brings up that shorter fellowships may run into problems in procedural specialties - but I think ignores the elephant in the room that is the research time. Getting rid of that and going to a 24 month program actually represents a net increase in clinical volume. Academic Departments of Pediatrics really need an honest assessment of what their goals are, and probably need a rational discussion that includes the medical school deans. If you expect all your academic pediatricians to secure some degree of extramural funding, then the research time has to stay put, as clearly junior faculty need something to build upon quickly in those early years. But if actual patient care matters, and meeting the short supply of specialists in fields other than Heme/Onc, then that extramural funding requirement needs to go, so that we can start churning out clinicians.