PhD Salary

[samusb]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Money is not the reason any of us are here. Hopefully we all enjoy what we do/plan to do. But based on posts and other threads and just knowledge in general, I still have a nagging question:

I am well aware that the median salary for PhD-level psychologists hovers around the high $70ks. And I understand that for those working in research or lower on the academia totem pole, wages may not be that remarkable.
But it appears that even the top 10% of earners- presumably those with more years of experience in the clinical world or those who are higher in an academic setting- just barely break the six-figures mark.

I'm just rather confused by these numbers. Even in gross simplicity, let's say someone working in private practice sees just 15 patients a week, at $100/hr (I really don't know what the going rate is- and it will surely be less in places that aren't the NYC-metro area or other major city regions-, but I understand that Medicaid reimbursement in upstate NY is nearly this) and works 48 weeks a year. That is still $72000, just around the median. And that's only 15 hours a week! Who works that!? Bump it to $150/hr, just 25 patients a week and the same 48 weeks, and it's $180,000.

Now, please, before you all get in a huff about this generalization/disregard of important factors such as reimbursement issues and whatever other short comings this question has that forum posters can drum up, take it at face value.

I'm really just wondering why this median, and especially the top 10% figures, seem rather low (not that they are necessarily inaccurate). But why is this so?

 

[KillerDiller]

I think you are overestimating the take-home salary for private practice clinicians because quite a bit of that money you speak of--the 72K say--goes to pay costs of overhead. You need to rent an office, decorate it, pay utilities, and may need to pay someone to do your billing unless you want to take time out of your week to do that part. You may also want to hire a receptionist for other reasons.

Also, private pay clients aren't all that common, so you usually have to go with whatever the insurance companies you belong to will reimburse you for. I don't pretend to be an expert in that subject, but I don't think many of them pay $100 an hour. Medicaid reimbursed at $69.68 for an hour of individual therapy as of last year (it has probably changed).

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I'm really just wondering why this median, and especially the top 10% figures, seem rather low (not that they are necessarily inaccurate). But why is this so?

1. Many people do not report their incomes on those surveys, and/or they only report their primary income (ex. 9-5 @ a hospital), and do not include outside monies.

2. Private practice clinicians are challenged with keeping a steady flow of patients coming through the door, and they only get paid when they work. All vacations and "other" time is a loss of income. I'd say a minority are in a place where they are working full-time and they can turn away patients and/or only do cash pay. I do know a few, and they all make $150-$200k/yr, though that is hardly the average...and they work in/around major cities with clientel who can pay out of pocket.

3. Many psychologists in the field do not want to work 50+ hours a week, so they are limited in where they work. Many have choosen a lifestyle that allows them to "live" more and "work" less....but for much less money, which brings me to #4.

4. Many psychologists would rather work for a salary at an established facility, typically making 50% or less than they would working on their own. Contract rates are far better if you cut out healthcare (which you can secure through a quasi-FT position or independantly), and in areas of need they can be very lucrative. You need to work in an area of need, be very good at what you do, and/or do assessments in "need" areas like neuo or forensics.

5. Most people accept their first offers and whether they realize it or not, they cut themselves off at the knees. Unfortunately the supply side usually outnumbers the demand side, so they don't have much room to negotiate. If you work in a "need" area and/or are a big fish in a small pond, you have greater flexibility to negotiate your rate.

I've put together a few different business plans, and in all of them I can make 6-figures within a couple of years of being licensed. The limitations are usually self-imposed, though most people seem find with making $70k a year....I am not. If you look farther out from major cities and/or in places that may be less desirable, the cost of living is less, and some people are willing to pay more for quality service.

 

[phillydave]

Although I am not passionate about teaching, I do not rule out the possibility. Many do teach to supplement their clinical income. Just another thing (although quite obvious) to keep in mind.

Private practice isn't so cut and dry. Also, don't forget to factor in taxes. And as KillerDiller reminds us, there are a ton of overhead costs.

 

[samusb]

I think you are overestimating the take-home salary for private practice clinicians because quite a bit of that money you speak of--the 72K say--goes to pay costs of overhead. You need to rent an office, decorate it, pay utilities, and may need to pay someone to do your billing unless you want to take time out of your week to do that part. You may also want to hire a receptionist for other reasons.

Also, private pay clients aren't all that common, so you usually have to go with whatever the insurance companies you belong to will reimburse you for. I don't pretend to be an expert in that subject, but I don't think many of them pay $100 an hour. Medicaid reimbursed at $69.68 for an hour of individual therapy as of last year (it has probably changed).

Thanks for the response. Overhead is a certainly a factor, but I don't know that it impacts on these kinds of numbers. Reported salaries aren't adjusted for things like taxes, and I also assume not for overheard. So net income will naturally be different, but even the base numbers are off. If you take no private-pay patients, $70 (last year's Medicaid as you've said) * 25 patients * 48 weeks is still $84k gross. Much closer to the median than my $100, but still higher.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Thanks for the response. Overhead is a certainly a factor, but I don't know that it impacts on these kinds of numbers. Reported salaries aren't adjusted for things like taxes, and I also assume not for overheard. So net income will naturally be different, but even the base numbers are off. If you take no private-pay patients, $70 (last year's Medicaid as you've said) * 25 patients * 48 weeks is still $84k gross. Much closer to the median than my $100, but still higher.

Overhead can be roughly estimated between .15-.20 of gross dollars. Using your numbers that equals....$67.2k-$71.4k.

 

[phillydave]

Thanks for the response. Overhead is a certainly a factor, but I don't know that it impacts on these kinds of numbers. Reported salaries aren't adjusted for things like taxes, and I also assume not for overheard. So net income will naturally be different, but even the base numbers are off. If you take no private-pay patients, $70 (last year's Medicaid as you've said) * 25 patients * 48 weeks is still $84k gross. Much closer to the median than my $100, but still higher.

Also, it is likely that of those reporting, there are significantly more psychologists that are not in private practice full-time; with that said, it is the case that many psychologists do some sort of private practice, but not as their main source of income.

 

[erg923]

Money is not the reason any of us are here. Hopefully we all enjoy what we do/plan to do. But based on posts and other threads and just knowledge in general, I still have a nagging question:

I am well aware that the median salary for PhD-level psychologists hovers around the high $70ks. And I understand that for those working in research or lower on the academia totem pole, wages may not be that remarkable.
But it appears that even the top 10% of earners- presumably those with more years of experience in the clinical world or those who are higher in an academic setting- just barely break the six-figures mark.

I'm just rather confused by these numbers. Even in gross simplicity, let's say someone working in private practice sees just 15 patients a week, at $100/hr (I really don't know what the going rate is- and it will surely be less in places that aren't the NYC-metro area or other major city regions-, but I understand that Medicaid reimbursement in upstate NY is nearly this) and works 48 weeks a year. That is still $72000, just around the median. And that's only 15 hours a week! Who works that!? Bump it to $150/hr, just 25 patients a week and the same 48 weeks, and it's $180,000.

Now, please, before you all get in a huff about this generalization/disregard of important factors such as reimbursement issues and whatever other short comings this question has that forum posters can drum up, take it at face value.

I'm really just wondering why this median, and especially the top 10% figures, seem rather low (not that they are necessarily inaccurate). But why is this so?

1. Where did those 15 patients come from. They dont just appear out of air.

2. 15 patients =15 hours is naive. How bout notes, treatment plans, billing, reading, etc?

3. How come you didnt mention any overhead expenses, mal practice insurnace costs etc?

 

[samusb]

1. Many people do not report their incomes on those surveys, and/or they only report their primary income (ex. 9-5 @ a hospital), and do not include outside monies.

2. Private practice clinicians are challenged with keeping a steady flow of patients coming through the door, and they only get paid when they work. All vacations and "other" time is a loss of income. I'd say a minority are in a place where they are working full-time and they can turn away patients and/or only do cash pay. I do know a few, and they all make $150-$200k/yr, though that is hardly the average...and they work in/around major cities with clientel who can pay out of pocket.

3. Many psychologists in the field do not want to work 50+ hours a week, so they are limited in where they work. Many have choosen a lifestyle that allows them to "live" more and "work" less....but for much less money, which brings me to #4.

4. Many psychologists would rather work for a salary at an established facility, typically making 50% or less than they would working on their own. Contract rates are far better if you cut out healthcare (which you can secure through a quasi-FT position or independantly), and in areas of need they can be very lucrative. You need to work in an area of need, be very good at what you do, and/or do assessments in "need" areas like neuo or forensics.

5. Most people accept their first offers and whether they realize it or not, they cut themselves off at the knees. Unfortunately the supply side usually outnumbers the demand side, so they don't have much room to negotiate. If you work in a "need" area and/or are a big fish in a small pond, you have greater flexibility to negotiate your rate.

I've put together a few different business plans, and in all of them I can make 6-figures within a couple of years of being licensed. The limitations are usually self-imposed, though most people seem find with making $70k a year....I am not. If you look farther out from major cities and/or in places that may be less desirable, the cost of living is less, and some people are willing to pay more for quality service.

Oh, T4C, always a good head on your shoulders. All of these reasons certainly make sense. It had occurred to me that some people may have been reporting their primary occupation and left off their supplemental private practice incomes.

It definitely points to issues within the field. I personally think primary care psychology is something that needs to be expanded, and bringing ourselves up to the level of some kind of attending clinician would be a good way to leverage salary expectations too.

 

[phillydave]

Also, it is likely that of those reporting, there are significantly more psychologists that are not in private practice full-time; with that said, it is the case that many psychologists do some sort of private practice, but not as their main source of income.

1. Many people do not report their incomes on those surveys, and/or they only report their primary income (ex. 9-5 @ a hospital), and do not include outside monies.

Sorry for the redundancy, but I really think this is probably the best reason for the difference in figures.

Ps. You're quick, t4c.

 

[samusb]

1. Where did those 15 patients come from. They dont just appear out of air.

2. 15 patients =15 hours is naive. How bout notes, treatment plans, billing, reading, etc?

3. How come you didnt mention any overhead expenses, mal practice insurnace costs etc?

1. Finding patients need not cost money in and of itself. It is not an absurd number. If you can't conjure 15 people with mental health problems to see you.... Whether they come from thin air or not, the issue is eventual earnings once you actually have patients.

2. This is about billable time, be it 1 hour or 5 for any given patient. Even if a patient costs me 2 hours of man-time for all things, I would still be billing for the same $100. So your point is moot- the final figures stay the same, even if you are working more. Ultimately becomes less money per hour (theoretically), but the salary remains intact.

3. And as you'll see I've already covered issues of overhead expenses. No one accounts for overhead, taxes, insurance or any of those figures in reporting of salary. Salary is not adjusted.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

This is one of my favorite topics, so pardon the length of my post.

1. Finding patients need not cost money in and of itself. It is not an absurd number. If you can't conjure 15 people with mental health problems to see you.... Whether they come from thin air or not, the issue is eventual earnings once you actually have patients.

One of the biggest issues a PP clinician runs into at the onset of building their practice is the steady acquisition of clientel. How does a person differentiate themselves from others who have done it longer, quicker, and cheaper? Being able to build a referral network is essential, and often people expand from their primary job to build a practice, though some places do not allow for self-referrals. On average it takes 2 years to build a practice to full-time status, and during that time many people fail to become profitable.

Many clinicians struggle with allocating resources to promote their services, so they waste money on yellow page listening (very expensive), targeted directory listings (hit and miss), and/or fail to take advantage of hidden networking opportunities (speaking engagements, teaching, outreach education, etc).

CoA (cost of acquisition) is a business term, but it is quite applicable to PP work. Some of the more business savvy businesses attempt to track their referrals, as it informs their advertising spending. Many clinicians are unwilling to spend money to make money, so they run dry after the first wave of referrals from colleagues. Niche work helps, but you need to cast a wide net, and if you don't accept insurance, that net better catch the big fish, because you'll be forced to ignore most of the little fish.

2. This is about billable time, be it 1 hour or 5 for any given patient. Even if a patient costs me 2 hours of man-time for all things, I would still be billing for the same $100. So your point is moot- the final figures stay the same, even if you are working more. Ultimately becomes less money per hour (theoretically), but the salary remains intact.

Unfortunately you are discounting a very real issue, Billable v. Actual hours spent. The ratio is non-linear, as in the beginning you'll be putting in a lot more hours to get someone in the door, though even established clinicians spend a certain % of their time acquiring new patients.

I wish I had my lecture notes with me, as I had some good examples about identifying a realistic Hourly Rate (a blended rate between Billable and Non-Billable hours) for clinicians who are looking to start a practice, compared to those who can just "plug holes".

Every hour you spend that is unbillable, you Hourly Rate decreases. While you may hold your Billable Rate at a constant $100, the actual "value" of your time is divided by the total hours and not just the Billable Hours. A case that requires 2hrs to acquire and 1hr to manage now has an Hourly Rate of $25/hr (3 + 1hr of therapy), which is far less lucrative. Of course you "gain" those 2hrs to acquire back after the first session, but unless you can hold onto long-term clients, that 2hrs is simply reallocated to your next patient acquisition. Keep in mind that you "lose" $25/hr for every hour you spend on non-practice related things.

Hourly Rate is useful for projecting income potential once you establish your practice, as your ratio of Billable : Non-Billable Hours should be more consistant. It can also provide you a guide for when it is worth leaving a steady job (typically salary) for an hourly job, though it can also show you the true "value" of a PP.

3. And as you'll see I've already covered issues of overhead expenses. No one accounts for overhead, taxes, insurance or any of those figures in reporting of salary. Salary is not adjusted.

It usually isn't adjusted, but it is definitely a factor. The overhead for a practice in a major city can be 2-3x what it would be in the 'burbs, and many people under-estimate this cost. Generally a clinician will run in the red for MONTHS if they go solo, and they may barely break even if they join a group practice and/or sublet space.

I don't mean to be all gloom and doom, because you can make a lot of money....but most of these issues tank the average clinician who doesn't pay enough attention to the business side of things. Part of my plan is to be a consultANT for these things to help clinicians avoid the pitfalls, but most will need to be burned once (or more) before they see the value in the work.

 

[erg923]

Im curious how you got ther idea that it doesnt cost money to get patients. You dont think it takes time (which equals money) and some finacial investment (free talks, visits, phone calls) to build a refferal base?

Its not moot at all......You cannot bill pts for the time it takes to argue with their insurance company for reimbursement, figure out their bill, get on their insurance panel, read that article or metanalysis on treating clown phobias..etc. 15 patients is 15 billable hours per week or so...but its about 30 hours of work, especially in the beggining.

 

[AlaskanJustin]

CoA (cost of acquisition) is a business term, but it is quite applicable to PP work. Some of the more business savvy businesses attempt to track their referrals, as it informs their advertising spending. Many clinicians are unwilling to spend money to make money, so they run dry after the first wave of referrals from colleagues. Niche work helps, but you need to cast a wide net, and if you don't accept insurance, that net better catch the big fish, because you'll be forced to ignore most of the little fish.

By track do you mean the types of questions such as "how did you hear about us" etc? I think this is a very good point, something you all have spoken of on other threads, about the lack of business savvy (or business education in general) in psych professionals. I had thought of this several years back when I first started psych but had lost this notion once leaving it temporarily, glad you brought it up again (reminds me of how my dad said everyone needs to take some business courses).

Since you seem to be intuitive about this, I wonder what your opinions are about joining pre-established practices.... For instance in Alaska, there are relatively few specialized practices, but there are definitely "groups". Do you think that if you are able to get a position from a group like this, thats a decent route to take PP-wise? I know this works out well say for PT or medicine, would be curious how it works for psych

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

By track do you mean the types of questions such as "how did you hear about us" etc? I think this is a very good point, something you all have spoken of on other threads, about the lack of business savvy (or business education in general) in psych professionals. I had thought of this several years back when I first started psych but had lost this notion once leaving it temporarily, glad you brought it up again (reminds me of how my dad said everyone needs to take some business courses).

Usually it is more than that, but most clinicians have a, "how did you hear about me" spot on their intake form. I'd want metrics for any advertising I do, and if it doesn't at least pay for itself, I'd d/c and try something else.

Since you seem to be intuitive about this, I wonder what your opinions are about joining pre-established practices.... For instance in Alaska, there are relatively few specialized practices, but there are definitely "groups". Do you think that if you are able to get a position from a group like this, thats a decent route to take PP-wise? I know this works out well say for PT or medicine, would be curious how it works for psych

If you work for yourself.....yes, if you are an employee of that group...no. Starting out you may not have a choice and a job is a job, but you never get rich working or someone else. Being employed only covers your salary/benefits/etc, but working as part of a group builds value into the group (depending on the type of corp/inc)

 

[samusb]

Im curious how you got ther idea that it doesnt cost money to get patients. You dont think it takes time (which equals money) and some finacial investment (free talks, visits, phone calls) to build a refferal base?

Its not moot at all......You cannot bill pts for the time it takes to argue with their insurance company for reimbursement, figure out their bill, get on their insurance panel, read that article or metanalysis on treating clown phobias..etc. 15 patients is 15 billable hours per week or so...but its about 30 hours of work, especially in the beggining.

The issue is that you're hilariously off topic. My point at the beginning of this thread had nothing to do with hours worked or time "working" but not necessarily seeing patients or billing. The question was about final, reported salaries to the APA. But again, procuring patients, once you are relatively established, is not necessarily the hardest thing. It isn't easy, but with a good referral network and recognition you can do it without spending large amounts of money or wasted time. I know many clinicians with thriving practices who never advertise or use time that isn't a non-billable session.

And, yes, again, as far as this conversation, it IS moot. Please, for the love of god, read the first post of this thread- where I explain clearly that my analysis was purposefully simplistic and intentionally disregarded things such as reimbursement issues. I pray that your dissertation is more coherent and apt. Whether you have spent 10 hours earning $10, or 10 minutes earning $10, you have still earned $10. That $10 is what is reported as salary to the APA. They care nothing of how much time you required to earn it. This, final salary, was the issue at hand. Please save your flaming tangents for the "what are my chances!??!" threads.

 

[PhDClinical]

Does anyone have a good sense of what the salary figures look like for professors (independent of grant money) at small (private) liberal arts colleges and large research universities (public or private)?

 

[JockNerd]

Does anyone have a good sense of what the salary figures look like for professors (independent of grant money) at small (private) liberal arts colleges and large research universities (public or private)?

You know, if you want specific data, most schools post, somewhere, a giant file that contains the info on how much every person employed by the university is paid. It sometimes takes some digging to find though.

Other than that, http://www.apa.org/workforce/publications/09-fac-sal/index.aspx