Medscape 2015 Physician Compensation

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Always interesting how anesthesia continues to be high up there in compensation year after year all while people talk about compensation decreasing year after year. Who's wrong I wonder?

Also really interesting that they included the "non patient activities" section this year.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
calvnandhobbs68 said:
Always interesting how anesthesia continues to be high up there in compensation year after year all while people talk about compensation decreasing year after year. Who's wrong I wonder?

Also really interesting that they included the "non patient activities" section this year.
Click to expand...
Sample size and small percentage of respondents possibly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
calvnandhobbs68 said:
Always interesting how anesthesia continues to be high up there in compensation year after year all while people talk about compensation decreasing year after year. Who's wrong I wonder?
Click to expand...


Clearly a problem with sampling

EDIT: Baller beat me to it
 
also funny to see derm and ortho have a low % that would choose medicine again but a high % that would choose their specialty again.

whereas FM and IM have a high % that would choose medicine again but a low % that would choose their specialty again.

also what's up with practically every specialty having a really low % answering that they would choose the same practice setting (overall at 24% but FM at 20%, derm at 14%, etc.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Leonidis I said:
also funny to see derm and ortho have a low % that would choose medicine again but a high % that would choose their specialty again.
Click to expand...

The best explanation I can think of for this phenomenon is that, because dermatologists and orthopedists are as financially successful (and intelligent - as least these days) as they tend to be, they come to realize that they likely could have made just as much money (or more) without having gone into medicine. But, if they had to be in medicine, they'd "repick" their own lucrative fields.
 
calvnandhobbs68 said:
Always interesting how anesthesia continues to be high up there in compensation year after year all while people talk about compensation decreasing year after year. Who's wrong I wonder?

Also really interesting that they included the "non patient activities" section this year.
Click to expand...

Percentage wise it had been stagnant over the past few years, and the hours requirements have gone up.

So you factor in that and inflation, and per hour compensation has gone down.
 
Leonidis I said:
also funny to see derm and ortho have a low % that would choose medicine again but a high % that would choose their specialty again.

whereas FM and IM have a high % that would choose medicine again but a low % that would choose their specialty again.
Click to expand...

A possible logical explanation for this is that ortho/derm physicians are already at the top of the ladder specialty-wise, and therefore are less likely to have a "grass is greener" mentality when considering having gone into other specialties. So if they are dissatisfied with their job they are more likely to say they'd consider a different career entirely rather than a different specialty since they know that other specialties are largely even worse off than they are. An FM on the other hand, is likely to think "man, if only I would have gone into derm things would be better" and therefore is more likely to say they would have stayed in medicine but picked a different specialty.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
ChiTownBHawks said:
This has nothing to do with the article but glad to see you weren't banned, JP (no clue what happened with all of that).
Click to expand...
Stop derailing my thread! Just kidding thanks, not really worth talking about but I'm back unless I do something bad again lol. Go Blackhawks! That triple OT was awesome lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Baller MD said:
Sample size and small percentage of respondents possibly.
Click to expand...

Definitely. Total sample size 20K with 3% Radiologists (600). For radiology that is 1.5% of the total practicing radiologists (~40K). It could be accurate but not likely. There is just no way that small of a sample size accurately represents the field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
0kazak1 said:
Percentage wise it had been stagnant over the past few years, and the hours requirements have gone up.

So you factor in that and inflation, and per hour compensation has gone down.
Click to expand...

Not factoring in the methodology of the report itself (which admittedly has a low sample size), if we assume the same types of people apply to the medscape surveys every year, the numbers themselves still look pretty good.

Comparing the 2011 vs 2015 survey, median pay went up by $23,000 (~$13,000 over inflation). Not the most awesome percentage-wise, but considering you're talking about one of the specialities with the highest median pay to begin with, not bad numbers-wise. Unfortunately, the new surveys don't show the compensation distribution like the old ones used to, so hard to know what the distribution is like.
2011: http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2011/anesthesiology
2015: http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2015/anesthesiology#page=2

Hours, if anything, stayed the same or maybe decreased. It's hard to compare the old survey vs the new one, since the old one didn't use exact numbers but eyeballing doesn't look like any dramatic increase on average, based on survey respondents.
2011: http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2011/anesthesiology (have to scroll to right page)
2015: http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2015/anesthesiology#page=19

It's just interesting to compare the competitiveness of anesthesia vs the other top earners. Ortho, obviously crazy competitive. Gastro and cards basically the same, although cards is a bit less now. Then Plastics, still crazy. Radiology, interestingly as well not as competitive this year (lots of unfilled spots for rads), although there seems like there's lots more horror stories about residents having to do 1-2 fellowships to get a job than anesthesia. Then Urology and Derm, both crazy too, then we've got kind of a clustering in the high 200s-low 300s for most of the rest until we get to primary care/non-procedural fields at around the mid-low 200s to high 100s. We're also obviously leaving out Neurosurg and ENT, who would both likely be at/near the top as well (both competitiveness and compensation).

And yeah, it's always been weird to me too how they have IM subspecialties (ID and allergy, what?) but then fail to break down any other fields into subspecialties or can't get any ENTs or neurosurgeons in there. Obviously a lot more variation in all fields than they can account for on here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Very interesting how FM has like 75% of them saying they'd choose medicine again (one of the highest) but one of the lowest for "would choose specialty again" (32%)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
JP2740 said:
Stop derailing my thread! Just kidding thanks, not really worth talking about but I'm back unless I do something bad again lol. Go Blackhawks! That triple OT was awesome lol
Click to expand...
Lol my b bro. It was sick! playoff hockey is stressful when you're invested in a team. Hopefully the Hawks can make a deep run again this year.
 
Last edited:
calvnandhobbs68 said:
Not factoring in the methodology of the report itself (which admittedly has a low sample size), if we assume the same types of people apply to the medscape surveys every year, the numbers themselves still look pretty good.

Comparing the 2011 vs 2015 survey, median pay went up by $23,000 (~$13,000 over inflation). Not the most awesome percentage-wise, but considering you're talking about one of the specialities with the highest median pay to begin with, not bad numbers-wise. Unfortunately, the new surveys don't show the compensation distribution like the old ones used to, so hard to know what the distribution is like.
2011: http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2011/anesthesiology
2015: http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2015/anesthesiology#page=2

Hours, if anything, stayed the same or maybe decreased. It's hard to compare the old survey vs the new one, since the old one didn't use exact numbers but eyeballing doesn't look like any dramatic increase on average, based on survey respondents.
2011: http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2011/anesthesiology (have to scroll to right page)
2015: http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2015/anesthesiology#page=19

It's just interesting to compare the competitiveness of anesthesia vs the other top earners. Ortho, obviously crazy competitive. Gastro and cards basically the same, although cards is a bit less now. Then Plastics, still crazy. Radiology, interestingly as well not as competitive this year (lots of unfilled spots for rads), although there seems like there's lots more horror stories about residents having to do 1-2 fellowships to get a job than anesthesia. Then Urology and Derm, both crazy too, then we've got kind of a clustering in the high 200s-low 300s for most of the rest until we get to primary care/non-procedural fields at around the mid-low 200s to high 100s. We're also obviously leaving out Neurosurg and ENT, who would both likely be at/near the top as well (both competitiveness and compensation).

And yeah, it's always been weird to me too how they have IM subspecialties (ID and allergy, what?) but then fail to break down any other fields into subspecialties or can't get any ENTs or neurosurgeons in there. Obviously a lot more variation in all fields than they can account for on here.
Click to expand...

No doubt anesthesia is still doing relatively well (325K to 358K), but comparatively to other top specialities not so much.

In the same time frame median salary for an orthopedist went up $71,ooo from 350K to 421K, which is well above inflation rate. Lower paid specialties like family medicine, went from ~140K to 190K. Emergency medicine 250K to 310K, the point is, relative to other specialities, the salary of anesthesiologists has not been increasing as fast.



Actually, the hour data is there, and there an increase in hours worked in 2015 compared to 2011, when you look at time spent with patients.
 
calvnandhobbs68 said:
Not factoring in the methodology of the report itself (which admittedly has a low sample size), if we assume the same types of people apply to the medscape surveys every year, the numbers themselves still look pretty good.

Comparing the 2011 vs 2015 survey, median pay went up by $23,000 (~$13,000 over inflation). Not the most awesome percentage-wise, but considering you're talking about one of the specialities with the highest median pay to begin with, not bad numbers-wise. Unfortunately, the new surveys don't show the compensation distribution like the old ones used to, so hard to know what the distribution is like.
2011: http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2011/anesthesiology
2015: http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2015/anesthesiology#page=2

Hours, if anything, stayed the same or maybe decreased. It's hard to compare the old survey vs the new one, since the old one didn't use exact numbers but eyeballing doesn't look like any dramatic increase on average, based on survey respondents.
2011: http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2011/anesthesiology (have to scroll to right page)
2015: http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2015/anesthesiology#page=19

It's just interesting to compare the competitiveness of anesthesia vs the other top earners. Ortho, obviously crazy competitive. Gastro and cards basically the same, although cards is a bit less now. Then Plastics, still crazy. Radiology, interestingly as well not as competitive this year (lots of unfilled spots for rads), although there seems like there's lots more horror stories about residents having to do 1-2 fellowships to get a job than anesthesia. Then Urology and Derm, both crazy too, then we've got kind of a clustering in the high 200s-low 300s for most of the rest until we get to primary care/non-procedural fields at around the mid-low 200s to high 100s. We're also obviously leaving out Neurosurg and ENT, who would both likely be at/near the top as well (both competitiveness and compensation).

And yeah, it's always been weird to me too how they have IM subspecialties (ID and allergy, what?) but then fail to break down any other fields into subspecialties or can't get any ENTs or neurosurgeons in there. Obviously a lot more variation in all fields than they can account for on here.
Click to expand...

Since I had the time, here is the percent salaries increased from the medscape 2011 report to the 2015 report. Anesthesia didn't get the shortest stick, but you can see why some of they are complaining,

Radiology 0.29
Nephrology 5.65
Oncology 5.96
Anesthesia 10.15
OB/Gyn 10.67
Urology 12.79
Neurology 14.50
General Surgery 15.27
Cardiology 15.69
Dermatology 16.90
Ophthamology 17.74
Rheumatology 18.50
Endocrinology 18.79
Internal Medicine 20.25
Orthopedics 20.29
Infectious Disease 21.71
Emergency Medicine 22.40
Gastroenterology 23.33
Pulmonary Medicine 23.33
Psychiatry 23.43
Pediatrics 27.70
Family Medicine 30.00
Plastic Surgery 31.11
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
You shouldn't take these numbers at face value for the following the reasons:

The methodology used to collect these salaries will bias the numbers to be lower than the true median. Since the Medscape cannot mandate physicians to respond to their surveys, the ones responding are doing so by choice, with the only incentive being that they get entered into a raffle for a gift card (or something similar), which will tend to attract lower paid physicians more than higher paid ones. Thus you'll get more physicians who have more time on their hands answering the survey, which are the ones that are generally working less and thus getting paid less.

Also, the averages are also a big reflection of the number of hours physicians work in a certain specialty. For example, it seems like anesthesiology is doing well compared to before and also making more than dermatologists, but their hours are also much longer (from other studies it averages around 60 hrs/week for anesthesiology vs 45 hrs for derm). Once you adjust for the number of hours it's more like $115/hr for anesthesiology vs $145/hr for derm. In practice, derm pulling the same hrs as anesthesia (and the hours can be adjusted fairly easily, especially for those working in private practice) will most likely make much more for the same amount of time spent on work.

You also need to account for different number of years of training across the specialties, since every extra year you spent as a resident/fellow means giving up at least around $150k for a salary of just $50-70k.

Also, they're missing many key specialties such as neurosurgery, cardiothoracic surgery, vascular surgery, rad onc, and ENT. And they don't separate out subspecialties which can have very different compensation levels (eg invasive vs non-invasive cardiology are probably just combined).

These numbers will also change significantly over time due to many factors, and a med student deciding which specialty to go into will still have at least 4 years before they're in practice, so it's not always the best idea to make a decision based on current trends...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
collegestud2013 said:
You shouldn't take these numbers at face value for the following the reasons:

The methodology used to collect these salaries will bias the numbers to be lower than the true median. Since the Medscape cannot mandate physicians to respond to their surveys, the ones responding are doing so by choice, with the only incentive being that they get entered into a raffle for a gift card (or something similar), which will tend to attract lower paid physicians more than higher paid ones. Thus you'll get more physicians who have more time on their hands answering the survey, which are the ones that are generally working less and thus getting paid less.

Also, the averages are also a big reflection of the number of hours physicians work in a certain specialty. For example, it seems like anesthesiology is doing well compared to before and also making more than dermatologists, but their hours are also much longer (from other studies it averages around 60 hrs/week for anesthesiology vs 45 hrs for derm). Once you adjust for the number of hours it's more like $115/hr for anesthesiology vs $145/hr for derm. In practice, derm pulling the same hrs as anesthesia (and the hours can be adjusted fairly easily, especially for those working in private practice) will most likely make much more for the same amount of time spent on work.

You also need to account for different number of years of training across the specialties, since every extra year you spent as a resident/fellow means giving up at least around $150k for a salary of just $50-70k.

Also, they're missing many key specialties such as neurosurgery, cardiothoracic surgery, vascular surgery, rad onc, and ENT. And they don't separate out subspecialties which can have very different compensation levels (eg invasive vs non-invasive cardiology are probably just combined).

These numbers will also change significantly over time due to many factors, and a med student deciding which specialty to go into will still have at least 4 years before they're in practice, so it's not always the best idea to make a decision based on current trends...
Click to expand...

Very true, but regarding the methodology, it could be said that roughly the same people from one year to the next year, so that the not super accurate, is not a poor representation of overall salary.

And its hard to take hours into account as well, because it comes down to academic vs private, salaried vs pay/hr or procedure.
 
0kazak1 said:
Since I had the time, here is the percent salaries increased from the medscape 2011 report to the 2015 report. Anesthesia didn't get the shortest stick, but you can see why some of they are complaining,

Radiology 0.29
Nephrology 5.65
Oncology 5.96
Anesthesia 10.15
OB/Gyn 10.67
Urology 12.79
Neurology 14.50
General Surgery 15.27
Cardiology 15.69
Dermatology 16.90
Ophthamology 17.74
Rheumatology 18.50
Endocrinology 18.79
Internal Medicine 20.25
Orthopedics 20.29
Infectious Disease 21.71
Emergency Medicine 22.40
Gastroenterology 23.33
Pulmonary Medicine 23.33
Psychiatry 23.43
Pediatrics 27.70
Family Medicine 30.00
Plastic Surgery 31.11
Click to expand...

A lot of the specialties with elective surgeries were hit hard by the 2009 recession. Plastics was one of them. You'd expect plastics to recover strongly with the strengthening economy, which it has. However, it might give the wrong perception about the general trend of plastics salaries. I bet if you recalculated using 2007-2015 salaries, you'd find a more uniform salary trend across the board. Just my hypothesis.
 
volcomx said:
A lot of the specialties with elective surgeries were hit hard by the 2009 recession. Plastics was one of them. You'd expect plastics to recover strongly with the strengthening economy, which it has. However, it might give the wrong perception about the general trend of plastics salaries. I bet if you recalculated using 2007-2015 salaries, you'd find a more uniform salary trend across the board. Just my hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Actually, there was a big dip between 2011-2012 almost across the board. and what you see here is how these specialities recovered after that
 
Any reasons that certain specialties were left out? The one I was most interested in was not there :( haha!
 
For anyone interested in neurosurgery, the most robust salary survey is considered to be NERVES by Harlequin recruiting. They also report the MGMA and AMGA numbers. You can find the compensation report here: http://dev.harmonyd.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/14-HR-Newsletter-v4-i2-LR.pdf

Definitely a gem. They also break it down by subspecialty (cerebrovascular, functional, and spine) which I know many people are interested in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
pathologyDO said:
Definitely. Total sample size 20K with 3% Radiologists (600). For radiology that is 1.5% of the total practicing radiologists (~40K). It could be accurate but not likely. There is just no way that small of a sample size accurately represents the field.
Click to expand...

But n = 600 is pretty good, no?
 
Once you remove:

1) Those doing academic practice

2) Those doing part time work

3) Those doing any variable that goes against high income

The numbers would come up a lottt more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Salt Salt said:
But n = 600 is pretty good, no?
Click to expand...

Not for this type of population. There definitely is not a normal distribution of physician salaries in each specialty... its probably bi-modal in some, skewed left or right in others, or just all over the place. A measly 3% response-based data set is essentially useless. One specialty group in ortho straight out advised to not use these numbers when negotiating starting salaries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Everyone says physician compensation is going down…. but medscape shows 29% increase since 2015?
2
Replies
57
Views
4K
gyngyn
gyngyn
B
Physician Pharma Compensation Data
Replies
2
Views
850
calivianya
calivianya
EdgeTrimmer
Washington Post article on Physician Salaries
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
Emed MD
E
S
"Physician assistants want state to loosen restrictions"
Replies
19
Views
1K
Splenda88
S
M
Heme onc compensation
Replies
5
Views
2K
gutonc
gutonc
Top