MGMA?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members do not see this ad.
Hoos2004 said:

​

Hi - Yes, what @DOctorJay said is correct - you can see both the detailed community submitted salaries on Marit, and separately a snapshot of MGMA data for your specialty. Both data-sets are helpful for negotiation and complement each other - since the Marit salaries are individual level, we have seen instances where bringing specific examples that are most relevant to your situation is helpful for negotiation as well.
Click to expand...
I see now. Thank you. It seems the self reported numbers are a bit lower. Any idea why that is?
 
Not sure really. Might be sample bias. On Marit, we have 56 submissions with wRVU rate reported, so likely low n to be representative enough.
 
Hoos2004 said:

​

Hi - Yes, what @DOctorJay said is correct - you can see both the detailed community submitted salaries on Marit, and separately a snapshot of MGMA data for your specialty. Both data-sets are helpful for negotiation and complement each other - since the Marit salaries are individual level, we have seen instances where bringing specific examples that are most relevant to your situation is helpful for negotiation as well.
Click to expand...
Could our info be used for inappropriate purposes? What’s the privacy for this?
 
No. All the data is shared anonymously - when you share your salary info, we recommend a higher level of geography aggregation depending on the specialty. And you can also choose what level of geography you want it to represent, e.g., metro, state, region, etc.
The data can only be submitted and accessed by logged in users who verify their NPI, so employers do not have access to the data. It is also not visible without logging in, so search engines cannot see it as well.
Obviously, please share what you are comfortable with. We want to make sure that the data is high quality, representative, and useful for the community, and by aggregating across employer type and geography at the right level - hopefully we can keep the data accurate and specific, without tying it back to individuals. Hope that helps!
 
Hoos2004 said:

​

Hi - Yes, what @DOctorJay said is correct - you can see both the detailed community submitted salaries on Marit, and separately a snapshot of MGMA data for your specialty. Both data-sets are helpful for negotiation and complement each other - since the Marit salaries are individual level, we have seen instances where bringing specific examples that are most relevant to your situation is helpful for negotiation as well.
Click to expand...
so certain admin use Sullivan Cotter. it appears Sullivan Cotter numbers are significantly lower than MGMA.

my understanding is that Sullivan Cotter dataset is more based on larger institutional systems.

did you compare your data set to theirs? if you have not, could you?
 
so55b said:
MGMA median $76/wRVU? did this include all benefits bonus etc? can not believe 76 is median. My admin showed me MGMA median for anesthesia/pain and it was 67.87 in 2025 based on 2024 data
Click to expand...
I was surprised as well.

Source is documented as "2025 MGMA DataDive Provider Compensation"
 
hey @so55b @DOctorJay - i looked into this and figured out the reason for discrepancy. The numbers you see by default are aggregating across Academic and Non Academic, so it is skewing the overall average and median. Academic $/wRVU is much higher since it's just a ratio of Total Comp and wRVUs, and Acad wRVUs tend to be much lower. If you filter down to Non Academic Employer Type only, you will see the relevant values.

We are going to make a change in the App, so we do not aggregate and keep Acad and Non Acad separate - so it isn't confusing. Thanks for flagging this.
 
Ducttape said:
so certain admin use Sullivan Cotter. it appears Sullivan Cotter numbers are significantly lower than MGMA.

my understanding is that Sullivan Cotter dataset is more based on larger institutional systems.

did you compare your data set to theirs? if you have not, could you?
Click to expand...

We do not have access to Sullivan Cotter data, unfortunately.
 
thanks for updating this @Hoos2004

median is now in line with what @so55b posted when "non-academic" is selected
 
Hoos2004 said:
No. All the data is shared anonymously - when you share your salary info, we recommend a higher level of geography aggregation depending on the specialty. And you can also choose what level of geography you want it to represent, e.g., metro, state, region, etc.
The data can only be submitted and accessed by logged in users who verify their NPI, so employers do not have access to the data. It is also not visible without logging in, so search engines cannot see it as well.
Obviously, please share what you are comfortable with. We want to make sure that the data is high quality, representative, and useful for the community, and by aggregating across employer type and geography at the right level - hopefully we can keep the data accurate and specific, without tying it back to individuals. Hope that helps!
Click to expand...
But anyone can Google search anyone’s NPI number so that doesn’t seem like a very good way to ensure security
 
todd told me it was a scam
 
clubdeac said:
But anyone can Google search anyone’s NPI number so that doesn’t seem like a very good way to ensure security
Click to expand...
yes, possible. NPI only by itself wouldn't be enough, so it's one of the few signals we use. There are a few other signals we are looking at - e..g, is NPI location vs IP location, how realistic the numbers look, etc., and I also manually spot check around 10% of submissions that may seem off.

There’s a tradeoff here: we could get very stringent with “upload your ID” but then it'd be way too much friction. So trying to hit the right balance of creating just enough checks, without making it a huge hassle. And this is where keeping the data anonymous at employer type, geography aggregation also helps. But if you’ve any other ideas we should try, please let me know
 
TeslaCoil said:
These are based on a case log that the practice keeps based on cpt codes billed and collected. They're the ones who gave me the numbers. Cases are all done in clinic. The clinic gets paid and then they pay me. They were slick enough not to include wRVU numbers though. I had to figure that out myself based on the conversion factor for each procedure. Like for instance an SIJ injection=1.48 wRVU's times the number of those I did for the year = total number of RVU's I did just with SIJ's for the year. Then I added all those up. 12942 wRVU's just me. I mean, Im busting my ass.
Click to expand...
Does this equation change at all if you did a bilateral procedure?
 
Hoos2004 said:
hey @so55b @DOctorJay - i looked into this and figured out the reason for discrepancy. The numbers you see by default are aggregating across Academic and Non Academic, so it is skewing the overall average and median. Academic $/wRVU is much higher since it's just a ratio of Total Comp and wRVUs, and Acad wRVUs tend to be much lower. If you filter down to Non Academic Employer Type only, you will see the relevant values.

We are going to make a change in the App, so we do not aggregate and keep Acad and Non Acad separate - so it isn't confusing. Thanks for flagging this.
Click to expand...
FYI @so55b @DOctorJay @TeslaCoil We have made the update, so it should default to the Non Academic if you shared a Non Academic salary and Academic if you shared Academic. And you can toggle as needed. Let me know if you've any other feedback
 
TeslaCoil said:
Ladies and gentlemen, I have my first solid offer, at the MGMA median. Way better than what Im getting now. Thank you all so so much for your help! God bless, and Merry Christmas!!
Click to expand...
Make sure you are bonused appropriately above the median production as well.
 
Just to clarify, the median $/wRVU in these surveys (~67) is total comp/total wRVU, so therefore includes retirement match, health insurance, bonus etc?
 
Logano2230 said:
Just to clarify, the median $/wRVU in these surveys (~67) is total comp/total wRVU, so therefore includes retirement match, health insurance, bonus etc?
Click to expand...

Total Compensation (Also referred to as: Total cash compensation (TCC), compensation, salary​

The amount reported as direct compensation on a W2, 1099, or K1 (for partnerships) plus all voluntary salary reductions such as 401(k), 403(b), Section 125 Tax Savings Plan, and Medical Savings Plan.

The amount includes salary, bonus and/or incentive payments, research stipends, honoraria, and distribution of profits.

However, it does not include the dollar value of expense reimbursements; fringe benefits paid by the medical practice such as retirement plan contributions; life and health insurance; automobile allowances; or any employer contributions to a 401(k), 403(b), or Keogh Plan.

www.mgma.com

Practice Demographics

This resource is intended to serve as a guide for completing the MGMA 2018 Compensation and Production Survey with information on practice demographics.
www.mgma.com www.mgma.com
 
Ronin1 said:
At any point if you exceed base you get a bonus. If after two years you can’t hit your threshold you go down

They increased my base to about 80% of expected comp at my request so that I don’t have too large a bonus component. I don’t like them holding my money for too long.
I did recently request what they call a fair market value evaluation in regard to wrvu value so we will see what happens.
Click to expand...
Any idea who is going to do the fair market evaluation? I need to get one too
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
2024 IPM MGMA
Replies
4
Views
2K
Laryngospasm
Laryngospasm
G
2022 MGMA
Replies
3
Views
2K
DOctorJay
DOctorJay
LineEmTubeEm
Northeast specific MGMA data
Replies
1
Views
1K
Dr. Ice
D
P
2023 MGMA, AGMA or SullivanCotter data?
Replies
3
Views
2K
PainApp2021
PainApp2021
P
MGMA Compensation/Collections Ratio Qs (data included)
Replies
13
Views
7K
bedrock
bedrock
Top Bottom