Path Salaries and Malpractice

[path1]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Just wondering if anyone has any web site or info on the average pathologist salary and malpractice insurance, also for path subspecialties. thanks

 

[pathstudent]

Iseserson says that the average path salary is 199,000. It is above psych, family, peds, and being a general internist, but all surgeries and all medicine subspecialities are higher. That is not as high as I thought it was going to be.

But I have also hear that there is a "two tier" system as far as jobs go, with AMGs fairing much better than FMGs. So there might be a difference depending on that.

Perhaps someone else has more exact info.

 

[path1]

Pathstudent,

I heard via the grapevine that some path make between 150K - 500k/yr. I agree that surgeons and med subspec. make more, but when you subtract malpractice premiums, esp. in surg, i think path either make about the same or even more. I'm still trying to find out path malpractice preimiums, anyone know how much?

 

[MSV MD 2B]

here are some links that i found on this topic.
salary info

salary.com]more salary info

 

[cookypuss3]

I think starting salary is probably in the range of 100K to 125K... depending on geographic locale... and my guess is that the real bank is in buying into the lab where you work... then it would go up considerably from there... definitely not the most lucrative area in medicine, but who cares, because we'll be the ones with a normal schedule.

 

[pathstudent]

but radiologists have normal schedules too and make over 500,000 a year in private practice!!!!!

 

[MSV MD 2B]

yeah but you have to be super aoa, have the greatest most outgoing personality in the world so that everyone likes you, be in every extracurricular you can think of, apply to every radiology program you can find and then you MIGHT get a spot. oh yeah and get 260 on the usmle.

 

[pathstudent]

I don''t know about that. I think 10 of our class went into rads last year and surely there were some average students among the ten. They couldn't all be AOA and 260.

It seems strange that pathologists don't command higher compensation considering they are the only ones that can make a diagnosis.

Supposedly the radiologist gets more for seeing the hazy mass on the x-ray than a pathologist gets for saying what it is.

A doc told me also that the compensation from medicare continuously gets ratcheted back. His example was that to look at polyp from the colon used to pay $90 in the 80s and that figure has been dropped to $75 and then $50 and now it is $30 with plans to drop it 5% more this year or next year. As medicare does, the insurance companies follow suit.

But at the same time, he said path has changed completely since the 80s when you would get large chunks of organs as opposed to slivers of tissue. So now you make bigger and bigger diagnoses from smaller and smaller pieces of tissue. Moreover, the workload has gone up immensely. The bad part is either you are making 1/2 as much due to medicare's compensation or you are working twice as hard to maintain your past salary. The good part is you can still do really well if you are willing to bust your rear 10 hours a day 5 days a week.

Is 120,000 really the starting salary for path? A friend is only in her third year of anest and has already signed a contract with a group that pays 70% of a full salary your first two years after which you get 100%. She starts at 275,000. Divide that by .70 and I guess that is what anests in her group get. Plus you can make a lot more as all scheduled work from 6am-3pm gets divied amongst the group but any work you do after 3pm goes entirely to you. Plus her group is associated with a Level 1 trauma center and you get a 1000 a night to cover trauma on weekdays and 1700 on weekends paid by the hospital. And you get that if you do nothing, just for being on call. She is so psyched. Her program was trying to talk her into a fellowship and now she is just like "yeah right!".

I asked her if they need any trauma pathologists. I could use a grand a night just for making myself available.

 

[MSV MD 2B]

if you look at those links that i posted the first one says $170k on the low end. i didn't recheck the second one.
that is a good question about radiologist vs pathologists because insurance coompanies seem to rely mroe on radiologists than pathologists. almost every diagnosis goes through radiology first. wereas patholgists see the tissue first hand not an image of the tissue. i wonder why insurance companies favor them?
that's encouraging what you say about your school because i have talked to two friends at differnet schools and they said that they saw the best students applying to 50 rads programs and not getting in. and you have to do research.

 

[Jim Bob]

Hey, I think the main reason pathologists make less than radiologists is a federal law called CLIA back in the late 80's. Basically, while reimbursements change from time to time on the anatomic stuff, the main source of big path bucks is those lab tests. Back in the day, path and rads were paid pretty much the same until CLIA said pathologists couldn't just tack on an interpretation and bill for it without a clinician ordering it. But radiologists still tack on an interpretation for every x-ray done in the hospital, whether it is requested or not, whether the point is moot or not. That's my two cents.

 

[GreatPumpkin]

Starting for path private practice in the 120k to 180k is a good range.

There is definately some regional differences the midwest pays better it seems the south worse.

One of the reasons Rads is getting such big bucks is due to alot of new revenue from interventianal proceedures. Proceedures of any sort normally pay at higher rates than most things.

Thanks to CLIA path took a huge pay hit and this combined with the HMO infusion and led to the years were path jobs were hard to find. Pathologist used to get a cut from every CBC, BMP etc. that was run.