Neurology vs Radiology

[ushush]

Who has higher earning potential 10yrs into the future? Want to hear what you all think.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Sheldor]

I'd vote radiology because there is always the opportunity to do more (relatively quick) reads.

Radiologists won't be making what they make now, but if you want to make more seems to me it will be easier to work more in radiology by reading later in the day, than by adding in more clinic appointments.

 

[blazers]

radiology. and interventional rads is the future i think.

 

[badasshairday]

They will probably be about the same earning potential in the future as the current trend looks like reimbursement slashing in higher paying fields. Do what you like. Do not pick based on speculation of income 10 years from now because nobody has a crystal ball.

 

[CatFactorial]

Just do neurorads if you like both.

 

[KinasePro]

They will probably be about the same earning potential in the future as the current trend looks like reimbursement slashing in higher paying fields. Do what you like. Do not pick based on speculation of income 10 years from now because nobody has a crystal ball.

This makes sense to me. Both fields have "interventional" tracks that are more lucrative, and both fields are probably going to see dramatic advances in the decades to come. Although I imagine, at least in the short term, you'll encounter a better job market in neurology.

 

[Oxer45]

Who has higher earning potential 10yrs into the future? Want to hear what you all think.

First, ask yourself how is a radiologist different than a pathologist? Isn't both fields image recognition in a medical context and knowledge of anatomy and pathology. Two fields that are similar will tend to have similar incomes over the long term (FM and IM salary). Radiologists also have the following problems: 1. Due to tele-radiology (nighthawk) every radiologist in US is in competition with every other radiologist. Intense competition will bring wages down to cost of production. 2. Patients choose their own PCP but not their own radiologist. Its the hospital admin who chooses which radiologist will read what. So they have an incentive to contract with the cheapest one.

On the plus side, in radiology you don't have to worry about PA or NP's, CRNAs. Radiology and pathology are the only fields of medicine where I haven't seen any PA's.

 

[D elegans]

Until radiologists are paid by the hour, radiology.

 

[SoundofSilver]

Hard to predict. Neurology is one of the lowest paying non-primary care specialties while radiology is one of the highest paid. I guess it just depends on how much the pay decreases for radiologists. I don't see the pay for neurologists increasing or decreasing too dramatically. But then again, what do I know.

 

[todds]

radiology. and interventional rads is the future i think.

I highly disagree, not as long as interventions pay more than clinic visits. I think they'll have a place mostly at academic centers.

The reason is that they don't control the patients. They have to be referred patients, and if it's lucrative, then they will get that taken away from them, just like cardiologist started interventions, reading echoes/cardiac MRI....neurologist now gunning to do interventions and read their own images, b/c they control patients.

Right now, the only people who call on interventional rads at my institution are the primary care teams, but thats chaining becuse now vascular surgeons come to them in person asking for referrals so now they send a lot of stuff to them instead. Also true of general surgeons asking for the referrals for procedures they would normally consult IR for. Since rads stays in the basement and you see these people in your face, who is primary teams and other docs going to refer to? IR will eventually lose out on a lot of business for these reasons.

IR will remain academic but I think it won't be the next big thiing.

 

[ushush]

Hard to predict. Neurology is one of the lowest paying non-primary care specialties while radiology is one of the highest paid. I guess it just depends on how much the pay decreases for radiologists. I don't see the pay for neurologists increasing or decreasing too dramatically. But then again, what do I know.

I read on neurology forum that starting for neurologists outside nyc/la is now $300k+. and it's supposed to be higher if you do neurophysiology. i understand that certain websites claim $600k for radiology and $180k for neurology, but things change.. also i wonder if it's realistic for neurologists to buy a mri machine especially if they cooperate with rehab and ortho and are involved in peripheral neuropathies.

 

[ushush]

This makes sense to me. Both fields have "interventional" tracks that are more lucrative, and both fields are probably going to see dramatic advances in the decades to come. Although I imagine, at least in the short term, you'll encounter a better job market in neurology.

i feel that if their salary is even close, neurology is the better deal. i could match into a more academic(more stimulating environment) or geographically favorable residency in neurology and thats 5yrs of my life..

 

[cowme]

I highly disagree, not as long as interventions pay more than clinic visits. I think they'll have a place mostly at academic centers.

The reason is that they don't control the patients. They have to be referred patients, and if it's lucrative, then they will get that taken away from them, just like cardiologist started interventions, reading echoes/cardiac MRI....neurologist now gunning to do interventions and read their own images, b/c they control patients.

Right now, the only people who call on interventional rads at my institution are the primary care teams, but thats chaining becuse now vascular surgeons come to them in person asking for referrals so now they send a lot of stuff to them instead. Also true of general surgeons asking for the referrals for procedures they would normally consult IR for. Since rads stays in the basement and you see these people in your face, who is primary teams and other docs going to refer to? IR will eventually lose out on a lot of business for these reasons.

IR will remain academic but I think it won't be the next big thiing.

Do you actually understand what an interventional radiologist does?

First of all, turf: The only turf that vascular surgeons have taken (or shown any interest in taking) is PVD treatments. And now cardiologists are taking those procedures from vascular surgeons, so it's not like the surgeons are any safer for seeing the patients themselves. Vascular surgeons haven't shown much interest in taking venous access cases (the bread and butter of IR procedures)

Other than ultrasound (echo, prenatal US, emergency US), imaging will never be taken over by a subspecialist. A subspecialist may be an expert in the imaging findings of their organ, but they simply do not have the knowledge to interpret an entire CT.

Second of all, regarding patient contact: Times are changing. Many new IR fellowships and practices are changing their models to manage inpatients following IR procedures, and follow up with them in IR clinic (this is especially true in oncology, fibroid, pain, cosmetic patients).

 

[Frank Nutter]

ITT: medical students and residents expound upon their vast first-hand knowledge of various medical subspecialties.

 

[colbgw02]

ITT: medical students and residents expound upon their vast first-hand knowledge of various medical subspecialties.

haha...well-played.

 

[ushush]

haha...well-played.

So. what do you think?

 

[colbgw02]

So. what do you think?

As others have mentioned, I think you should only choose a specialty by speculating on compensation if all other things are equal.

Assuming they are, and to answer your question: radiology. I admit that I am biased by my own experiences (who isn't?), but I just don't see the gap being in salaries being closed by changes in reimbursement, at least not in the next decade.