Median first year pay

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

henryblodget2012

New Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2014
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
publicly available MGMA data from the AAMC website. first year median pay.

Physician Placement Starting Salary Survey Report 2014
Report based on 2013 data: First year post residency or
fellowship compensation
Specialty Median
Anesthesiology $276,000
Cardiology: Electrophysiology $359,622
Cardiology: Inv-Intvl $400,000
Cardiology: Noninvasive $256,250
Dermatology $358,750
Emergency Medicine $230,629
Endocrinology/Metabolism $190,000
Family Practice (w/OB) $161,000
Gastroenterology $293,748
Hematology/Oncology $220,176
Hospitalist: Internal Medicine $200,000
Infectious Disease $132,500
Internal Medicine: General $180,000
Nephrology $180,000
Neurology $237,500
OB/GYN: General $220,000
Ophthalmology $185,000
Ortho Surgery: General $419,439
Ortho Surgery: Hand $320,000
Ortho Surg: Sports Med $412,500
Otorhinolaryngology $262,500
Pediatrics: General $160,000
Physiatry (Phys Med & Rehab) $200,000
Psychiatry: General $178,950
Pulmonary Medicine: General $315,000
Pulmonary Medicine: Critical Care $275,000
Radiology: Interventional $250,000
Radiology: Diagnostic $200,000
Rheumatology $198,996
Surgery: General $275,000
Surgery: Neurological $520,000
Urology $300,000

Reference: https://www.aamc.org/download/399576/data/startingsalariesforphysicians.pdf

Members don't see this ad.
 
Well, that's depressing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
As someone who has gone through the process recently, I can tell you that the those numbers for rads are completely wrong. Believe what you want to believe. I'm not going to disclose real figures on a public forum. We don't need people in this specialty who are driven solely by income. Please don't apply to rads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
As someone who has gone through the process recently, I can tell you that the those numbers for rads are completely wrong. Believe what you want to believe. I'm not going to disclose real figures on a public forum. We don't need people in this specialty who are driven solely by income. Please don't apply to rads.

I am going through the process right now and can reaffirm that those numbers are completely wrong. I will not discuss exact numbers on a public forum either. Good luck all!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Everyone please just say the numbers are completely positively correct.

That way CMS can go after Derm, GI, etc, Rads has taken its "fair share" of lumps.
 
And I am a partner in private practice who is involved in recruitment. We are in a very competitive market that always had lower salaries than average. Those numbers are wrong.

Forget about radiology for a second. Do you really believe that a general Pulmonologist has similar starting salary to a hand surgeon and more starting salary than general surgery, Urology, anesthesiology, GI and Hem-onc ?
 
Would someone say which numbers are correct?
 
I'm just guessing, but probably at least psych, FM, and IM figures are correct?

Yeah, that's what I figured. Honestly, a lot of these figures look correct because they are starting figures. I'm not sure if these are supposed to include benefits or not, though.
 
And I am a partner in private practice who is involved in recruitment. We are in a very competitive market that always had lower salaries than average. Those numbers are wrong.

Forget about radiology for a second. Do you really believe that a general Pulmonologist has similar starting salary to a hand surgeon and more starting salary than general surgery, Urology, anesthesiology, GI and Hem-onc ?

Pulm:

http://www.physicianrecruiting.com/jobs/Pulmonology/115327/Pulmonary-Intensivist-Needed-in-Oregon

http://www.physicianrecruiting.com/...25000-Just-60-Minutes-from-Lexington-Kentucky

Pulms are paid well, from what I understand.
 
Everyone please just say the numbers are completely positively correct.

That way CMS can go after Derm, GI, etc, Rads has taken its "fair share" of lumps.

CMS does not look at the salaries. It looks at the amount of money that it pays for each procedure and then cut it. Especially it targets the fastest growing procedures. This is a very defective system. This results in huge reimbursement cut for every procedure that is commonly done or is innovative. For example, liver transplant reimbursement never goes down because medicare can not save a significant money by cutting it even in half. But if they decrease the r

They are paid well but not better than urologists, hem-onc and GI.
 
As someone who has gone through the process recently, I can tell you that the those numbers for rads are completely wrong. Believe what you want to believe. I'm not going to disclose real figures on a public forum. We don't need people in this specialty who are driven solely by income. Please don't apply to rads.
Applying to rads for dat triple B. Bimmas, Bitches, and Benjamin's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Interesting. Ophtho is pretty accurate. I would assume that the fields where you don't have to build up a practice (like anesthesia, ER, and even crit care) would have much higher starting salaries.

And Shark is completely correct in how CMS determines reimbursement. The key to making sure your procedures are not cut is to make sure they're not done frequently.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
Interesting. Ophtho is pretty accurate. I would assume that the fields where you don't have to build up a practice (like anesthesia, ER, and even crit care) would have much higher starting salaries.

And Shark is completely correct in how CMS determines reimbursement. The key to making sure your procedures are not cut is to make sure they're not done frequently.

:nod:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
These numbers must be all wrong. All of the specialist I know who works full time at my hospital (very desirable city) makes more than what is quoted.

I keep seeing EM at 230-250k/yr. This has to be a combo of full time, part time, and people doing urgent care. These numbers only have any validity to me if they question full time EM docs working in ERs. If I was a fisherman with an EM degree, would they include my income? I would hope not.

Any EM doc making 230K a year working full time - 15 (8-10 hr shifts) a month would be making about $140/hr. I do not know of ONE EM doc (I have friends all over the country) who makes anything close to 140/hr. The lowest makes about 180/hr and the highest makes 325/hr.

Useless information with corrupt data.
 
These numbers must be all wrong. All of the specialist I know who works full time at my hospital (very desirable city) makes more than what is quoted.

I keep seeing EM at 230-250k/yr. This has to be a combo of full time, part time, and people doing urgent care. These numbers only have any validity to me if they question full time EM docs working in ERs. If I was a fisherman with an EM degree, would they include my income? I would hope not.

Any EM doc making 230K a year working full time - 15 (8-10 hr shifts) a month would be making about $140/hr. I do not know of ONE EM doc (I have friends all over the country) who makes anything close to 140/hr. The lowest makes about 180/hr and the highest makes 325/hr.

Useless information with corrupt data.


Generally speaking most salary surveys are very biased. However, you have to consider that these numbers are STARTING SALARIES.

Most of these salaries are a combination of academic, VA, private practice, part time, full time and ... salaries. You never know which group was more common in their survey.

In addition when they talk about median, it includes a wide spectrum from Manhattan on one hand to remote areas in fly over country on the other hand. Don't get surprised if a family doctor in a small rural town in midwest makes more than a Neurosurgeon in Boston.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I am going through the process right now and can reaffirm that those numbers are completely wrong. I will not discuss exact numbers on a public forum either. Good luck all!

I am going through the process right now and can reaffirm that those numbers are completely wrong. I will not discuss exact numbers on a public forum either. Good luck all!

WTF why? Let a brother know
 
Not in Rad, but agree that most of the above numbers for specialties are wrong (may have been correct 10-15 years ago).
 
$200,000 is the starting salary for Psych these days in crowded cities like Los Angeles. $240,000 with $180,000 loan repayment for jobs in the Midwest starting.
 
$200,000 is the starting salary for Psych these days in crowded cities like Los Angeles. $240,000 with $180,000 loan repayment for jobs in the Midwest starting.

Question about loan repayment... Private practice or government?
 
Question about loan repayment... Private practice or government?

These are hospital jobs for the most part. Tons of "Join our hospital system" type jobs. Salaries in private practice are higher. Government has woken up slowly and are starting us at $200,000 to $230,000 if you get a counter offer as a bargaining chip. Not sure what loan repayment options are offered by government or private practice, but I know they exist.
 
Question about loan repayment... Private practice or government?

FYI, employer sponsored loan repayment benefits are taxed. Basically, in the eyes of the IRS, a 20k bonus check is the same as a 20k check from your employer to pay your loans. Again, in terms of the IRS, there is no difference between you depositing the 20k check and then make a loan payment versus if your company pays the 20k on your behalf without giving you a check.

In terms of first year salary, having talked to several derm residents, it seems like most starting base salaries are around/north of 300, but 350 may be too high (although the number above may reflect base+productivity). As with all fields, academic salaries are lower than private practice, but at least in derm, the difference isn't as great as in internal medicine sub-specialties. Maybe @DermViser can throw in their two cents
 
FYI, employer sponsored loan repayment benefits are taxed. Basically, in the eyes of the IRS, a 20k bonus check is the same as a 20k check from your employer to pay your loans. Again, in terms of the IRS, there is no difference between you depositing the 20k check and then make a loan payment versus if your company pays the 20k on your behalf without giving you a check.

In terms of first year salary, having talked to several derm residents, it seems like most starting base salaries are around/north of 300, but 350 may be too high (although the number above may reflect base+productivity). As with all fields, academic salaries are lower than private practice, but at least in derm, the difference isn't as great as in internal medicine sub-specialties. Maybe @DermViser can throw in their two cents

Regarding starting salaries, it is very very location dependent. You can not give a number. A Dermatologist in Los Angeles may have a starting salary half of rural Texas.

The difference between pp and academic salaries has become much less in the last 3-4 years across the board. Simple math: Salaries have stayed the same or decreased but overhead has increased. Generally speaking, well paid fields have also much higher overhead. Thus, not only the gap has decreased between pp and academics, it has also decreased between primary care fields and specialists.

One big bias is how people compare salaries. A lot of these comparisons are between a super-busy private practice doctor in rural midwest ( who works 70 hours) and an academic attending in Manhattan who works 50 hours. People may tell you that in pp the salaries are 4 times. Also take into account that if you are in private practice you have to pay for your retirement and insurance and lost of other things yourself.

The difference between average salaries of pp and academics is about 30% for most fields. If you consider some other factors like extra perks in academics, then the REAL difference is about 20%. Your statement about Derm is not correct. In contrast to what you have said, Derm CAN have bigger gap between pp and academics in certain geographic areas since it is an out of pocket field. Also certain surgical subspecialties do not exist in pp or are not as busy and may have very high salaries in academics. The best example is transplant surgery.
 
Hooray! More useless salary figures!
 
The difference between average salaries of pp and academics is about 30% for most fields. If you consider some other factors like extra perks in academics, then the REAL difference is about 20%. Your statement about Derm is not correct. In contrast to what you have said, Derm CAN have bigger gap between pp and academics in certain geographic areas since it is an out of pocket field. Also certain surgical subspecialties do not exist in pp or are not as busy and may have very high salaries in academics. The best example is transplant surgery.
I'm going through the process currently for internal medicine, and I can echo that this is true - the difference between academics and private is dwindling and may not be any different from a dollar amount per work hour standpoint.

The real benefit of academics (besides the perks of research and having residents) is the retirement benefits that many state institutions are able to offer. Many places have a pension fund with high match, and a multitude of different retirement funds where you can park cash that is tax-deferred. So, if you consider a PP job where you're making 350k with minimal retirement fund options, then you're paying tax on the full $350k which will demolish your take-home. On the other hand, an academic job where you're making $250k and are putting away 60k and another 20k in employer match (tax deferred), you're essentially breaking even with the PP job. And assuming that your workload is much lower at academics, your hourly rate is actually HIGHER than PP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
CMS are bastards. Across all specialties, Ortho needs to be cut the most, as it is the least evidenced based practice, followed by Neuro-Spine. Most physician salaries seem to be heading towards the 250K mark. Also, I find it hard to believe that invasive cardiology still has a median starting salary of 400K... the field is completely saturated!
 
CMS are bastards. Across all specialties, Ortho needs to be cut the most, as it is the least evidenced based practice, followed by Neuro-Spine. Most physician salaries seem to be heading towards the 250K mark. Also, I find it hard to believe that invasive cardiology still has a median starting salary of 400K... the field is completely saturated!
Those numbers don't look right. Interventional cardio fellows at my institution still haven't found a gig.

But yeah, ortho and spine reimbursements are an insult to humanity.
 
Those numbers don't look right. Interventional cardio fellows at my institution still haven't found a gig.

But yeah, ortho and spine reimbursements are an insult to humanity.


Agreed but spine is by far the worst. At least with knee, hip, and shoulder the patients do well. Roughly 5% of patients truly need spine surgery and way more are getting it. Spine surgery is only indicated for neurologic deficit but how often do you see it done for "pain." And, the patients rarely do well and are just turned into chronic pain patients afterward. The Spine money train will definitely end eventually. Not so sure about the rest of ortho. The problem is that now a lot of surgeons are paid by RVU, pressured by administration, and take people to the OR that are pretty "borderline" to put it nicely. Ex. "central disc bulge" and bam L3-S1 fusion.
 
Agreed but spine is by far the worst. At least with knee, hip, and shoulder the patients do well. Roughly 5% of patients truly need spine surgery and way more are getting it. Spine surgery is only indicated for neurologic deficit but how often do you see it done for "pain." And, the patients rarely do well and are just turned into chronic pain patients afterward. The Spine money train will definitely end eventually. Not so sure about the rest of ortho. The problem is that now a lot of surgeons are paid by RVU, pressured by administration, and take people to the OR that are pretty "borderline" to put it nicely. Ex. "central disc bulge" and bam L3-S1 fusion.
Yeah, spine is the worst, but ortho isn't exactly backed by loads of evidence. How many knee, shoulder procedure are actually non-superior to physical therapy? How many are actually non-superior to sham procedures? Not saying there isn't benefit to any of their procedures, but a lot can be withheld.
The issue of whether or not their income can keep up is an entirely different discussion.
 
We are not going to get anywhere, or make any allies, if we start attacking other docs' salaries. Do not give CMS the satisfaction, this is exactly the kind of stuff they want to see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
We are not going to get anywhere, or make any allies, if we start attacking other docs' salaries. Do not give CMS the satisfaction, this is exactly the kind of stuff they want to see.
It's not about salary. It's about adding commensurate value. If we aren't going to a single payor system, then high value care is the only way to a sustainable system. Non-indicated spine surgeries are the antithesis of high value care.
 
We practice evidence based medicine....sometimes...when we feel like it....when it's easier.
 
It's not about salary. It's about adding commensurate value. If we aren't going to a single payor system, then high value care is the only way to a sustainable system. Non-indicated spine surgeries are the antithesis of high value care.
I don't know what kind of doctor you are but it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prove anything that we do is "valuable" to a determined government actuary.
 
I don't know what kind of doctor you are but it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prove anything that we do is "valuable" to a determined government actuary.


Wait, I thought we were discussing what's right or wrong and not what a determined government actuary thinks...
 
$200,000 is the starting salary for Psych these days in crowded cities like Los Angeles. $240,000 with $180,000 loan repayment for jobs in the Midwest starting.

This is a weird question...but I really like both psych and radiology. Is there any scenario, where going into psych has not only the upper hand in terms of lifestyle but also may not be as far off from rads financially as online information suggests? You can say don't go into something for the money, how can you like these two very different specialties, yada yada, but I am just wondering what you guys think and if radiology will still make 100-200k more per year in the future than psychiatry. I know it is a complex question but I feel I have to ask since I like both so much.
 
This is a weird question...but I really like both psych and radiology. Is there any scenario, where going into psych has not only the upper hand in terms of lifestyle but also may not be as far off from rads financially as online information suggests? You can say don't go into something for the money, how can you like these two very different specialties, yada yada, but I am just wondering what you guys think and if radiology will still make 100-200k more per year in the future than psychiatry. I know it is a complex question but I feel I have to ask since I like both so much.

Seriously, if you think between Psych and radiology, you either don't know the fields or you don't know yourself.

I am pretty sure that you need to put a lot of effort to either know yourself better or to know these two fields better.
 
Seriously, if you think between Psych and radiology, you either don't know the fields or you don't know yourself.

I am pretty sure that you need to put a lot of effort to either know yourself better or to know these two fields better.

I can understand thinking I'm an idiot for bringing up the salary thing, since I mostly meant lifestyle and salary balance (I can't help but sound stupid sometimes when people in rads constantly tell me not to go into it), but I don't think anyone is "born" to be a psychiatrist or radiologist. I think I would have also enjoyed being a musician or stand up comedian but I chose the more practical med school route. Why is it so difficult to understand people can enjoy radically different things? I'm also not the first one to feel this way.
 
Seriously, people act like you can't be interested in more than one specialty
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
This is a weird question...but I really like both psych and radiology. Is there any scenario, where going into psych has not only the upper hand in terms of lifestyle but also may not be as far off from rads financially as online information suggests? You can say don't go into something for the money, how can you like these two very different specialties, yada yada, but I am just wondering what you guys think and if radiology will still make 100-200k more per year in the future than psychiatry. I know it is a complex question but I feel I have to ask since I like both so much.

I can understand thinking I'm an idiot for bringing up the salary thing, since I mostly meant lifestyle and salary balance (I can't help but sound stupid sometimes when people in rads constantly tell me not to go into it), but I don't think anyone is "born" to be a psychiatrist or radiologist. I think I would have also enjoyed being a musician or stand up comedian but I chose the more practical med school route. Why is it so difficult to understand people can enjoy radically different things? I'm also not the first one to feel this way.

If we accept as true that you would enjoy both fields equally, then I think radiology would still come out ahead unless you were determined to live in a handful of very competitive markets, e.g. NYC. Psychiatry has a better lifestyle than radiology, but I think radiology's salary will remain appreciably higher than that of psychiatry. This is especially true if you're willing to work in less popular (and populated) areas. For example, many VA radiologists have very good lifestyles by our specialty's standards, approaching that of all out-patient psychiatric practice, but their salaries are still higher than that of a large majority of psychiatrists'.
 
Last edited:
This is a weird question...but I really like both psych and radiology. Is there any scenario, where going into psych has not only the upper hand in terms of lifestyle but also may not be as far off from rads financially as online information suggests? You can say don't go into something for the money, how can you like these two very different specialties, yada yada, but I am just wondering what you guys think and if radiology will still make 100-200k more per year in the future than psychiatry. I know it is a complex question but I feel I have to ask since I like both so much.
I won't go too far into salary, I think there is good info in the psych forum. IMO psych is definitely a good lifestyle and probably the last specialty you can do solo practice fairly easily in without much overhead. Most of those salary surveys are based off the fact that most psychiatrists work less than 40hrs a week, which is not the case in rads. Idk a single rad attending who thinks they are in a "lifestyle" specialty....nights, weekends, calls at home, 3am procedures etc. I think rads will continue to be paid towards the higher end but will by no means be a 40hr work week with zero call kind of gig.

Sorry that's just my two cents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Seriously, people act like you can't be interested in more than one specialty. And this whole "do what you love" thing is BS, when you're coming out of school 300 grand in debt.... Money does matter, anyone who thinks it doesn't is FOS.


Yes, it is BS. Go to a field that you feel has a better income or you think has a better lifestyle without thinking about what the field is about.

Then 8 years down the road you will join a large group of disgruntled miserable doctors who hate every moment of their life and their career. Don't believe me. Go to auntminnie and see how many people are complaining about radiology because 6-7 years ago they thought that "do what you life" is BS and followed money and lifestyle. Don't believe me again. Observe surgeons in community (not the ones in your medical school who try to pretend to be someone else) who chose surgery based on money and their ego.

I see different sort of people around me. The happiest guy is our MRI tech because he knew what he was doing to his life when he entered the field. The most miserable one is one of the surgeons in our hospital who hates his job, hates himself, hates people around him and hates everything. But you know, as you said these are all BS. He makes a good money and that is the important thing. Whoever thinks otherwise is FOS.

Anyway, spine surgeons make the most in medicine. Rather than wasting your time here, go and become a spine surgeon even if you hate surgery. After all money does matter and anyone who thinks it doesn't is FOS.


Good luck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Seriously, people act like you can't be interested in more than one specialty. And this whole "do what you love" thing is BS, when you're coming out of school 300 grand in debt.... Money does matter, anyone who thinks it doesn't is FOS.
Lol, bro. It ain't about "money doesn't matter." It's about "S*** changes." There's essentially zero chance that all the high paying specialties of today will continue to be the high paying specialties in 15 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Lol, bro. It ain't about "money doesn't matter." It's about "S*** changes." There's essentially zero chance that all the high paying specialties of today will continue to be the high paying specialties in 15 years.

You think? Ortho/neuro spine/derm etc all did quite well 15 years ago. Unless we go to a non-fee for service system in the feature, think these specialties will continue to be on top. Hardly think that peds, FP, psych etc will somehow be the top money-makers, particularly as mid-levels gain more autonomy
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Top