The future is bright

[Chartreuse Wombat]

15 physician specialties with largest pay jumps | Becker's

Discover the latest median compensation data for 11 physician specialties from Sullivan Cotter's 2022-23 Physician Compensation and Productivity Report.

www.beckershospitalreview.com

Hematology and oncology physicians saw the largest median compensation increases in 2024, according to SullivanCotter's 2023-24 Physician Compensation and Productivity Report.

The report includes data on more than 306,000 employed physicians, PhD providers and physician researchers across 915 hospitals, health systems and medical groups nationwide.

Sullivan Cotter attributes the rise in compensation primarily to increased physician productivity. The following 15 specialties saw the largest increases in median total cash compensation in 2024. Only specialties with at least 500 physician respondents are included in the report.

Specialty ​	Median compensation in 2024 ​	Median compensation % change (2023-24)​	wRVU median % change (2023-24)​
Hematology and oncology​	$456,632​	9.7%​	5.4%​
Endocrinology and metabolism​	$285,660​	8%​	6.1%​
Radiation oncology​	$550,000​	7.5%​	5.3%​
Pathology – anatomic and clinical​	$424,744​	6.7%​	7.3%​
Geriatrics​	$273,025​	6.1%​	0.10%​
Pulmonology – general​	$375,003​	6%​	3.8%​
Urology​	$530,557​	5.9%​	3.3%​
Urgent care​	$328,596​	5.8%​	8.3%​
Anesthesiology​	$498,973​	5.6%​	8.5%​
Otolaryngology – general​	$491,654​	5.2%​	3.6%​
Pediatrics – hospitalist​	$237,516​	5.1%​	5.3%​
Internal medicine​	$308,288​	4.8%​	5.7%​
Dermatology​	$509,587​	4.7%​	4%​
Nephrology and hypertension​	$350,558​	4.6%​	1.4%​
Physical medicine and rehabilitation​	$312,828​	4.4%​	6.7%​

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[thesauce]

Bull****

 

[seper]

low sample size for RO probably

 

[drowsy12]

Is the fact that the median salary for a rad onc 550k a surprise to anyone? That’s what we see over and over again in reports.

 

[ramsesthenice]

Is the fact that the median salary for a rad onc 550k a surprise to anyone? That’s what we see over and over again in reports.

There is 0% chance it is the true median of every rad onc in the US. Even using the most generous definition of "total compensation." Granted, I am in academics, but across a fairly wide sampling of institutions, it seems like maybe 20% of academic rad oncs should ever expect to make that (Im being extremely generous here). Even that is largely driven by a small number of outliers who pay very well. I just can't imagine how the true median is anywhere close to 550K.

The hypothesis that rising income can be attributed to a modest increase in productivity is laughable as well. I would wager to bet at least half of US rad oncs are employed or otherwise don't directly reap the benefits of a 5% increase in wRVUs.

 

[drowsy12]

There is 0% chance it is the true median of every rad onc in the US. Even using the most generous definition of "total compensation." Granted, I am in academics, but across a fairly wide sampling of institutions, it seems like maybe 20% of academic rad oncs should ever expect to make that (Im being extremely generous here). Even that is largely driven by a small number of outliers who pay very well. I just can't imagine how the true median is anywhere close to 550K.

The hypothesis that rising income can be attributed to a modest increase in productivity is laughable as well. I would wager to bet at least half of US rad oncs are employed or otherwise don't directly reap the benefits of a 5% increase in wRVUs.

I mean it’s literally the MGMA median. I’m not considering academics in that I suppose

 

[ramsesthenice]

I mean it’s literally the MGMA median. I’m not considering academics in that I suppose

I thought it did include some academic organizations. But I could be wrong.

 

[DrProtonX]

There is 0% chance it is the true median of every rad onc in the US. Even using the most generous definition of "total compensation." Granted, I am in academics, but across a fairly wide sampling of institutions, it seems like maybe 20% of academic rad oncs should ever expect to make that (Im being extremely generous here). Even that is largely driven by a small number of outliers who pay very well. I just can't imagine how the true median is anywhere close to 550K.

The hypothesis that rising income can be attributed to a modest increase in productivity is laughable as well. I would wager to bet at least half of US rad oncs are employed or otherwise don't directly reap the benefits of a 5% increase in wRVUs.

I think you’re understimating the benefits of academic places. I can’t talk globally but the big academic center near my hometown has amazing benefits. The starting radonc assist prof salary is $380k, 12% 401k match, amazing health insurance and possible $15-20k end of the year bonus. The total comp comes down to $450k. For assoc prof, total comp is around $500-520k and full prof around $600k

 

[CurbYourExpectations]

Median compensation includes other things. This is pretty accurate, RadOncs get compensated about 550k on average currently, it's not purely salary, but benefits as well. Pretty accurate, and yeah we do do better than a lot of specialties currently.
It is also very hard to completely dilute what we produce, which is why it's funny people think in just a year, or maybe 2 years everything will crater. Not really, it takes a lot to make a splash in an ocean, but to keep things as good as they are now? Probably need to change some things.

And I say this with all sincerity:

 

[ramsesthenice]

I think you’re understimating the benefits of academic places. I can’t talk globally but the big academic center near my hometown has amazing benefits. The starting radonc assist prof salary is $380k, 12% 401k match, amazing health insurance and possible $15-20k end of the year bonus. The total comp comes down to $450k. For assoc prof, total comp is around $500-520k and full prof around $600k

agree about the fringe and this is where definitions matter. I also have a 12% match and 100% of the premium for my whole family paid for.

I can tell you first hand that starting base of $380 for an assistant prof is absolutely not the norm. I can think of several places off hand it is, so I do believe you. But I can think of many more in the $280-315 range. That would be much more typical. Another major consideration in academics is how closely is salary tied to rank. The less, the better. Where I trained, that was it. Your rank determined your compensation. Where I am now, I’ve managed to get 5-6% bumps for smoking my targets.

 

[CurbYourExpectations]

agree about the fringe and this is where definitions matter. I also have a 12% match and 100% of the premium for my whole family paid for.

I can tell you first hand that starting base of $380 for an assistant prof is absolutely not the norm. I can think of several places off hand it is, so I do believe you. But I can think of many more in the $280-315 range. That would be much more typical. Another major consideration in academics is how closely is salary tied to rank. The less, the better. Where I trained, that was it. Your rank determined your compensation. Where I am now, I’ve managed to get 5-6% bumps for smoking my targets.

I don't think that is much more typical, even first years the average starting SALARY is closer to 350-360k based on ARRO surveys? So even in worse case scenarios are new and lowest paid people are making closer to 400-420k, while our superiors and those ahead in PP are making a lot more. 550K is probably right for average compensation.

I think a big issue is people don't understand compensation and salary. Even in the arro surveys they seem to confabulate it, but of most people I know the SALARY is at least around 350k staring and the compensation is higher.

Even my buddies that took jobs recently in historically lower paying areas make more than what you're saying, so either you're only friends with people who take jobs in central NYC and LA, or you're underestimating what they make.

 

[StIGMA]

Not sure what an annual salary report has to do with the future of the field. Nothing here is guaranteed into the future.

 

[ramsesthenice]

I don't think that is much more typical, even first years the average starting SALARY is closer to 350-360k based on ARRO surveys? So even in worse case scenarios are new and lowest paid people are making closer to 400-420k, while our superiors and those ahead in PP are making a lot more. 550K is probably right for average compensation.

I think a big issue is people don't understand compensation and salary. Even in the arro surveys they seem to confabulate it, but of most people I know the SALARY is at least around 350k staring and the compensation is higher.

Even my buddies that took jobs recently in historically lower paying areas make more than what you're saying, so either you're only friends with people who take jobs in central NYC and LA, or you're underestimating what they make.

everything is subject to sample bias, but most of my first hand knowledge comes from reviewing contracts for graduating residents. There is nothing subjective about the salary data I’m basing it on. And no, most are in the south or Midwest at recognizable institutions and not clustered in the highly coveted areas (though some are and you could probably guess, that’s where the high 2s come in). I’d be genuinely thrilled to find out the sample I have seen is randomly low.

And I stand by what I said about earning potential. PP, academic…doesn’t matter where you go. Starting salary is faaaaaaaaaar less important than having an understanding of where it can go over time (and how fast it can improve).

BTW, I fully agree that talking about total compensation most people in academics should expect to have a total compensation in that range (by today’s equivalent) by mid career. How fast you get there can vary a lot.

 

[CurbYourExpectations]

I do think low, but I wonder why, is it mostly top 10 programs?

Also I think for low-mid tier academics, and community programs you have the benefit of a relatively higher floor, but not a big potential difference. I for one think that is more ideal for us in these ages, as I do not know if PPs can be trusted in long terms (edit, from stories I have heard)(maybe the larger ones), and I do not know if most high tier academic centers focus on doctors, since they are (edit, probably) currently oversupplying.

 

[ramsesthenice]

I do think low, but I wonder why, is it mostly top 10 programs?

Also I think for low-mid tier academics, and community programs you have the benefit of a relatively higher floor, but not a big potential difference. I for one think that is more ideal for us in these ages, as I do not know if PPs can be trusted in long terms (maybe the larger ones), and I do not know if most high tier academic centers focus on doctors, since they are currently oversupplying.

I don’t see a lot of consistent patterns. It’s no secret that a couple of the top 5 programs are among the worst and one of them is among the highest paying in academics. Desirable locations often pay low but there are a lot of exceptions. People frequently over estimate mid west salaries.

The worrying trend I see in academics is departments losing control of compensation to the SOM/deans offices. It tends to favor the lower paying specialties at the expense of the higher paying ones. A very well known high mid tier program just revamped the entire faculty compensation model (as in, not just rad onc). Some of the younger faculty there think it will be a good change but the most senior faculty I know well enough to discuss salary are not happy about it. I don’t think academic salaries are going to plummet by any stretch. But loss of autonomy usually doesn’t lead to good things in the long run.

 

[drowsy12]

agree about the fringe and this is where definitions matter. I also have a 12% match and 100% of the premium for my whole family paid for.

I can tell you first hand that starting base of $380 for an assistant prof is absolutely not the norm. I can think of several places off hand it is, so I do believe you. But I can think of many more in the $280-315 range. That would be much more typical. Another major consideration in academics is how closely is salary tied to rank. The less, the better. Where I trained, that was it. Your rank determined your compensation. Where I am now, I’ve managed to get 5-6% bumps for smoking my targets.

AAMC salaries are out there for assistant, associate, and professor.

The 25th, 50th, and 75th.

Your numbers are low. Maybe your shop is underpaying.

I have some 2020 AAMC numbers (academics) readily available for salary.


Assistant professor

25th percentile 329
50th 380
75th 446
Mean 390

The full professor median and mean are 533 and 550


And then yearly we have the Terry Wall numbers


I’m sure this will get moved away and hidden as this does every time this comes up. If people want to say they’re worried about the future - then great I agree! But why do people here want to always undersell, diminish, or in some cases (not anyone here in this thread but have seen it) lie about the present? Like I don’t get what purposes it serves.

This happens like once or twice a year that some salary survey gets discussed and everyone’s always like well the rad onc part must not be true, yet it always says the same over and over again?

 

[CurbYourExpectations]

Yeah, I think those numbers are fairly accurate. I don't think Ramses is saying anything wrong, but like they were saying, possibly a selection bias, and I think they are more of a true academic.

I want to note that when things get specific, some people don't talk at all...

 

[Chartreuse Wombat]

But loss of autonomy usually doesn’t lead to good things in the long run.

Amen brother. Sullivan Cotter survey is used by health systems to "set the bar" for "appropriate compensation". As the academic behemoths continue to grow these "surveys" provide "evidence" that "redistribution" is warranted.

 

[ramsesthenice]

AAMC salaries are out there for assistant, associate, and professor.

The 25th, 50th, and 75th.

Your numbers are low. Maybe your shop is underpaying.

I have some 2020 AAMC numbers (academics) readily available for salary.


Assistant professor

25th percentile 329
50th 380
75th 446
Mean 390

The full professor median and mean are 533 and 550


And then yearly we have the Terry Wall numbers


I’m sure this will get moved away and hidden as this does every time this comes up. If people want to say they’re worried about the future - then great I agree! But why do people here want to always undersell, diminish, or in some cases (not anyone here in this thread but have seen it) lie about the present? Like I don’t get what purposes it serves.

This happens like once or twice a year that some salary survey gets discussed and everyone’s always like well the rad onc part must not be true, yet it always says the same over and over again?

I don’t have an agenda beyond sharing personal experience. I’ve been very open about my personal compensation on this forum over the years and I really wish more people would too. Hard numbers from specific places provide the best context for people looking for their first jobs.

This is going to be my last post on the topic. I personally think we do pretty well for ourselves in academic rad onc but I don’t know what to make of the surveys. I just know what contracts from varied institutions for graduating residents over the last 8 years have looked like and they largely have not matched up to the survey data. When they come asking for advice, I have to tell them what they are seeing is largely in line with what I’ve recently seen and I can’t in good conscious tell them that I think $380 is what I would consider an average starting base salary until I start to see first hand numbers in contracts to say otherwise. It could be selection bias, but I suspect a better guess is that we are not making apples to apples comparisons. Im not going to dox myself, but I work at a state institution that has to report out compensation and I have no idea where my own numbers come from. The base is too low and the total compensation is higher than anything I can reasonably come up with from my benefits plan. I don’t think anyone is trying to be deceptive, but the specific numbers are subject to change when they come from different pots.

 

[drowsy12]

my anectodotal experience is a bit different than yours overall. however I would also point out that these numbers are not starting salaries but rather just by rank. the AAMC ones in particular I know are not salary plus benefits but rather just total comp. I am not sure about the MGMA ones, I have not seen those in a while. I seem to rememebr that MGMA may report out academic and non academic separately and also regionally, but again, havent seen in a while.

 

[StIGMA]

2024 SCAROP survey data (2023 #'s) is available to the public now, if you want to shell out a few grand to buy it. It is higher than the 2020 AAMC median by a good bit (not terribly far off from what inflation would be). It is a reported average of all participating departments (and broken down by region)

 

[ramsesthenice]

my anectodotal experience is a bit different than yours overall. however I would also point out that these numbers are not starting salaries but rather just by rank. the AAMC ones in particular I know are not salary plus benefits but rather just total comp. I am not sure about the MGMA ones, I have not seen those in a while. I seem to rememebr that MGMA may report out academic and non academic separately and also regionally, but again, havent seen in a while.

Appreciate the discussion. That’s a good point and this comes back to what I said a couple times above 🙂. My base had gone up by almost 75K from where I started by my last year as an assistant. I always encourage graduating residents to understand their opportunities to increase compensation. If it’s performance based, a lower initial number will probably work out fine. If your base is set at rank (which is the case at some institutions), it better have a good bonus structure to make up this difference or be in a place you really want to be. Further, if salary actually means base salary plus bonus (but not fringe benefits), the survey numbers would be much closer to my experiences as well. Where I trained, the base salary was awful but some of the bonuses were six figures and none of the faculty were hurting (except during COVID when the system clawed them back, whomp whomp).

The more I consider it that way, the other thing that muddies the water is the inconsistent concept of rank. At traditional “up or out” places, assistant means someone in their first 6-8 years of practice. That probably the majority of places but there are others where for one reason or another, you can stay at assistant for much longer. Look at the “our faculty” pages with pictures at some of the NE programs. I suspect many of them are doing quite well compared to the traditional assistant prof.

 

[NotMattSpraker]

2024 SCAROP survey data (2023 #'s) is available to the public now, if you want to shell out a few grand to buy it.

Wow, that’s a big change from actively blocking people from buying it.

Maybe there is hope for SCAROP 😂

 

[DrProtonX]

AAMC salaries are out there for assistant, associate, and professor.

The 25th, 50th, and 75th.

Your numbers are low. Maybe your shop is underpaying.

I have some 2020 AAMC numbers (academics) readily available for salary.


Assistant professor

25th percentile 329
50th 380
75th 446
Mean 390

The full professor median and mean are 533 and 550


And then yearly we have the Terry Wall numbers


I’m sure this will get moved away and hidden as this does every time this comes up. If people want to say they’re worried about the future - then great I agree! But why do people here want to always undersell, diminish, or in some cases (not anyone here in this thread but have seen it) lie about the present? Like I don’t get what purposes it serves.

This happens like once or twice a year that some salary survey gets discussed and everyone’s always like well the rad onc part must not be true, yet it always says the same over and over again?

I might get backlash for this but I think the current job market isn’t as bad as what people think. No, that doesn’t mean the concerns over job market weren’t legit. No, that doesn’t mean it can’t get much worse in the future. No, it doesn’t mean our job market is as good as it used to be or it’s as good as Rads, Gas, Medonc.
I think it’s important to acknowledge the current job market and showing concerns about the future of the job market.

 

[ramsesthenice]

I might get backlash for this but I think the current job market isn’t as bad as what people think. No, that doesn’t mean the concerns over job market weren’t legit. No, that doesn’t mean it can’t get much worse in the future. No, it doesn’t mean our job market is as good as it used to be or it’s as good as Rads, Gas, Medonc.
I think it’s important to acknowledge the current job market and showing concerns about the future of the job market.

With respect to reimbursement I largely agree with you. Context is everything and if you were around 15 years ago, you probably wouldn't feel the same way. It used to be very reasonable to expect each graduating resident to get multiple competitive offers with at least one (or more) in your target region or even city. I agree that the job market today is not horrific but there is absolutely no objective way to look at it over the long term and not be concerned about the overall pattern. That is the reason for all the angst.

 

[radiaterMike]

FWIW you can look up many salaries of those who work for institutions funded by their state. These salaries generally do not include bonuses, and some are muddied by people getting salaries from 2 sources (with only the state-sponsored source reported). These are also a year or two outdated.

 

[NotMattSpraker]

I might get backlash for this but I think the current job market isn’t as bad as what people think. No, that doesn’t mean the concerns over job market weren’t legit. No, that doesn’t mean it can’t get much worse in the future. No, it doesn’t mean our job market is as good as it used to be or it’s as good as Rads, Gas, Medonc.
I think it’s important to acknowledge the current job market and showing concerns about the future of the job market.

Its probably more important to acknowledge that its very difficult to get a comprehensive objective view of the "health of the job market" in this field. Assuming you can define "health", there is a ton of resistance to even talking about it in this field.

 

[ramsesthenice]

FWIW you can look up many salaries of those who work for institutions funded by their state. These salaries generally do not include bonuses, and some are muddied by people getting salaries from 2 sources (with only the state-sponsored source reported). These are also a year or two outdated.

Anyone considering a job at these places should absolutely look these up. You can't really take them literally. They usually are, however, an excellent source of relative data. Do all of the assistants make about the same or does it it appear you can expect decent increases with time? How does rad onc compensation appear to compare with other specialties? Is there a substantial difference between the fully clinical faculty and those with more research FTE? Even though the absolute number is probably suspect, the data is far from useless.

 

[medgator]

I might get backlash for this but I think the current job market isn’t as bad as what people think. No, that doesn’t mean the concerns over job market weren’t legit. No, that doesn’t mean it can’t get much worse in the future. No, it doesn’t mean our job market is as good as it used to be or it’s as good as Rads, Gas, Medonc.
I think it’s important to acknowledge the current job market and showing concerns about the future of the job market.

Geographically it's much worse than those specialties and has been for a very long time. And that gets glossed over a lot

Rads is so good at this point: private, employed academic- or community-hospital gigs all with great setups, wfh in your jammies etc so many options all over the country in rural and urban markets.

(Anecdote: I know of a large hospital employed rads group in a decent southern metro where the night folks now do 1 week on, 2 weeks off as their FT schedule for a competitive salary and benefits).

I think where we see erosion in rad onc is the trend towards more employment (very little chance of technical ownership, pro only groups faltering with PP reimbursement climate etc) and less ability to lateral from a bad job given that there is a surplus of grads and labor willing to take your job if you don't want it if it is in a decently desirable area with decent pay. That's definitely worse now (even if it was better than pre covid, it still isn't as good as it was 2000-2012 IMO)

 

[RickyScott]

Geographically it's much worse than those specialties and has been for a very long time. And that gets glossed over a lot

Rads is so good at this point: private, employed academic or hospital, wfh in your jammies etc so many options.

I think where we see erosion in rad onc is just more employment and less ability to lateral from a bad job. That's definitely worse now (even if it was better than pre covid, it still isn't as good as it was 2000-2012 IMO)

its all about geography, which is more important than salary. Yes, there is a job available somewhere, but desirable locations are scarce and lateral movement is difficult.

 

[udrag14]

FWIW you can look up many salaries of those who work for institutions funded by their state. These salaries generally do not include bonuses, and some are muddied by people getting salaries from 2 sources (with only the state-sponsored source reported). These are also a year or two outdated.

For anyone doing this, it isn't representative of most practices. There numbers are usually presented "lower" and much of the income is done thru other sources to prevent people from gathering total benefits.

 

[TexasMed22]

Geographically it's much worse than those specialties and has been for a very long time. And that gets glossed over a lot

Rads is so good at this point: private, employed academic- or community-hospital gigs all with great setups, wfh in your jammies etc so many options all over the country in rural and urban markets.

(Anecdote: I know of a large hospital employed rads group on a decent metro where the night folks now do 1 week on, 2 weeks off as their FT schedule for a competitive salary and benefits).

I think where we see erosion in rad onc is the trend towards more employment (very little chance of technical ownership, pro only groups faltering with PP reimbursement climate etc) and less ability to lateral from a bad job given that there is a surplus of grads and labor willing to take your job if you don't want it if it is in a decently desirable area with decent pay. That's definitely worse now (even if it was better than pre covid, it still isn't as good as it was 2000-2012 IMO)

If the rads market is one one end and rad onc is on the other, where does med onc fit into this?

 

[RickyScott]

If the rads market is one one end and rad onc is on the other, where does med onc fit into this?

adjacent to rads. they are the quarterbacks of oncology

 

[medgator]

adjacent to rads. they are the quarterbacks of oncology

I personally think rads is better. Huge WFH option available.

But both are >>>>>> RO esp geographically

 

[ramsesthenice]

If the rads market is one one end and rad onc is on the other, where does med onc fit into this?

Med Onc is very good and should be fore the foreseeable future. Systemic therapy indications and duration of therapy (largely because of IO) have expanded faster than the labor pool. Will they end up expanding without abandon for short term gains and drink every last drop from the honey hole in the process? Maybe. But it will take them many years to do it.

 

[CurbYourExpectations]

I deviate from people in this sense. I considered medonc and radiology. @medgator talks about these sweet ass rads gigs where you're working 1 week of nights, probably making 600k, but I think that's a nightmare job for most people in our field. For some background I am a "night owl", I can handle weird hours and short sleeps etc. Don't think this would be a good job for most people.

If you take a rads nighthawk 1:2 job for good pay, you're reading during that night shift, you're reading lots for 10-12 hours for 7 days straight. That is almost the equivalent of hours of a normal 2-2.5 week radonc job. And IMO not as enjoyable of work.

What do I like? I like sitting with a patient for 30-45 minutes talking them through details of their whole oncology course, what has happened and what should be happening and why. Helping patients who happen to have the worst disease of all time get a moment with someone who cares. Someone who is familiar with the "emperor of all maladies". I want to be someone that if I spend 1.5 hours with a patient it's not a big deal because I will work on my work after hours to catch up. I will take my measely "not medonc or radiology pay" and be happy with it.
... I honestly think most of the people in my field have this same thought process.

 

[yesmaster]

Rad onc’s not bad, with the small caveat that we’re just severely underemployed

If I was scarop and I wanted to gaslight on job market health, I would just turn up the dial of underemployment, while keeping unemployment low. Direct supervision is a patient safety issue too of course

 

[medgator]

I deviate from people in this sense. I considered medonc and radiology. @medgator talks about these sweet ass rads gigs where you're working 1 week of nights, probably making 600k, but I think that's a nightmare job for most people in our field. For some background I am a "night owl", I can handle weird hours and short sleeps etc. Don't think this would be a good job for most people.

If you take a rads nighthawk 1:2 job for good pay, you're reading during that night shift, you're reading lots for 10-12 hours for 7 days straight. That is almost the equivalent of hours of a normal 2-2.5 week radonc job. And IMO not as enjoyable of work.

What do I like? I like sitting with a patient for 30-45 minutes talking them through details of their whole oncology course, what has happened and what should be happening and why. Helping patients who happen to have the worst disease of all time get a moment with someone who cares. Someone who is familiar with the "emperor of all maladies". I want to be someone that if I spend 1.5 hours with a patient it's not a big deal because I will work on my work after hours to catch up. I will take my measely "not medonc or radiology pay" and be happy with it.
... I honestly think most of the people in my field have this same thought process.

Dream job no doubt. As long as you don't mind doing it in rural Texas, Nebraska or Iowa.

That's the crux of the issue. I'm at least a solid hour outside of a major metro and that's far enough for me. I can't imagine some of these gigs in flyover country. But that's me. If you love rad onc enough to do it anywhere in the country, by all means enter the specialty.

To bring back the SDN RO moniker.. Do you want your biryani fresh, or frozen from the grocery store or gas station?

 

[evilbooyaa]

I deviate from people in this sense. I considered medonc and radiology. @medgator talks about these sweet ass rads gigs where you're working 1 week of nights, probably making 600k, but I think that's a nightmare job for most people in our field. For some background I am a "night owl", I can handle weird hours and short sleeps etc. Don't think this would be a good job for most people.

If you take a rads nighthawk 1:2 job for good pay, you're reading during that night shift, you're reading lots for 10-12 hours for 7 days straight. That is almost the equivalent of hours of a normal 2-2.5 week radonc job. And IMO not as enjoyable of work.

What do I like? I like sitting with a patient for 30-45 minutes talking them through details of their whole oncology course, what has happened and what should be happening and why. Helping patients who happen to have the worst disease of all time get a moment with someone who cares. Someone who is familiar with the "emperor of all maladies". I want to be someone that if I spend 1.5 hours with a patient it's not a big deal because I will work on my work after hours to catch up. I will take my measely "not medonc or radiology pay" and be happy with it.
... I honestly think most of the people in my field have this same thought process.

You sound like a person who strongly prefers the work of Rad Onc over the owrk of med onc and radiology. There is nothing wrong with that - I feel similarly. You feel you are compensated reasonably for the work you do. I feel (mostly) similar - while I'd love to make 7 figures, I dont' consider my current salary a 'failure'.

But for someone who is on the fence about which field they want to work in (Rad Onc vs say Rad Onc or med onc), and/or want to maximize their earning potential without massive geographic restriction, the reality is Rad Onc is not the field for them.

 

[Doctorer]

You sound like a person who strongly prefers the work of Rad Onc over the owrk of med onc and radiology. There is nothing wrong with that - I feel similarly. You feel you are compensated reasonably for the work you do. I feel (mostly) similar - while I'd love to make 7 figures, I dont' consider my current salary a 'failure'.

But for someone who is on the fence about which field they want to work in (Rad Onc vs say Rad Onc or med onc), and/or want to maximize their earning potential without massive geographic restriction, the reality is Rad Onc is not the field for them.

I take a similar approach with my least favorite platitude: "Do XXX only if you feel like you can do nothing else."

There is literally no one on earth who was born to be a radiation oncologist/urologist/neurosurgeon/psychiatrist/lawyer/banker/etc. I love my job, but there are tradeoffs, just like there are tradeoffs with any job. There is zero reason to limit yourselves to these tradeoffs in TYOOL 2024, especially if you haven't started your career.

 

[RickyScott]

You sound like a person who strongly prefers the work of Rad Onc over the owrk of med onc and radiology. There is nothing wrong with that - I feel similarly. You feel you are compensated reasonably for the work you do. I feel (mostly) similar - while I'd love to make 7 figures, I dont' consider my current salary a 'failure'.

But for someone who is on the fence about which field they want to work in (Rad Onc vs say Rad Onc or med onc), and/or want to maximize their earning potential without massive geographic restriction, the reality is Rad Onc is not the field for them.

same here. I could never do rads but probably would have been fine with medonc.

 

[yesmaster]

All my conversations with med onc suggest their worst year of training is internship, PGY2/3 isn’t bad, fellowship too. I’d hazard that at least half of us do a medicine year already.

 

[RickyScott]

All my conversations with med onc suggest their worst year of training is internship, PGY2/3 isn’t bad, fellowship too. I’d hazard that at least half of us do a medicine year already.

bm transplant is bad, and they all seem to hate benign heme

 

[medgator]

bm transplant is bad, and they all seem to hate benign heme

Plenty of ONC only jobs out there in decent size metros all over

 

[medgator]

As a med onc fellow having little idea about the rad onc life, how’s the inbox burden? I imagine it’s not as bad as ours since we’re basically primary onc for these patients. Concern for med onc all over the internet seems to be the hours spent when you’re off work.

Very little inbox or call burden in my experience.

 

[grenz]

As a med onc fellow having little idea about the rad onc life, how’s the inbox burden? I imagine it’s not as bad as ours since we’re basically primary onc for these patients. Concern for med onc all over the internet seems to be the hours spent when you’re off work.

I know my med onc referrings are finishing notes in the evening after the kids go to bed. Once in a blue moon for me. I get a few inbox messages a day that are exclusively from referrings or imaging results I ordered.

 

[Old rad onc]

Med oncs are being challenged by hospitals and universities. Even in private practice in a community the hospitals want control. The last 3 years I have seen downward pressure on rad Onc. 3 years ago a pretty big drop in imrt and other codes resulted in an 18% drop. The last 2years 2-3% per year. Meanwhile overhead increased in those 3 years from 50% to 70%. Now I hear ASTRO will push for case rates. Things will change greatly in the next few years . Hard to say if it will be good or bad for us. Likely it will be out of our hands. Control of patients will be driven by insurance, hospitals, med oncs and primary care. We will hit a crisis in the next 5 years with targeted therapy drug costs. The number of new drugs and cost are not sustainable . At some point, physicians will organize. I think Rad Onc will still be fine but we must keep reinventing ourselves. Protons will not be the answer! Good luck and Good night my fine colleagues! Keep fighting for your patients and staff! Most of you are still the best and brightest, and that alone should give you hope!

 

[WorkingRad]

15 physician specialties with largest pay jumps | Becker's

Discover the latest median compensation data for 11 physician specialties from Sullivan Cotter's 2022-23 Physician Compensation and Productivity Report.

www.beckershospitalreview.com

Hematology and oncology physicians saw the largest median compensation increases in 2024, according to SullivanCotter's 2023-24 Physician Compensation and Productivity Report.

The report includes data on more than 306,000 employed physicians, PhD providers and physician researchers across 915 hospitals, health systems and medical groups nationwide.

Sullivan Cotter attributes the rise in compensation primarily to increased physician productivity. The following 15 specialties saw the largest increases in median total cash compensation in 2024. Only specialties with at least 500 physician respondents are included in the report.

Specialty ​	Median compensation in 2024 ​	Median compensation % change (2023-24)​	wRVU median % change (2023-24)​
Hematology and oncology​	$456,632​	9.7%​	5.4%​
Endocrinology and metabolism​	$285,660​	8%​	6.1%​
Radiation oncology​	$550,000​	7.5%​	5.3%​
Pathology – anatomic and clinical​	$424,744​	6.7%​	7.3%​
Geriatrics​	$273,025​	6.1%​	0.10%​
Pulmonology – general​	$375,003​	6%​	3.8%​
Urology​	$530,557​	5.9%​	3.3%​
Urgent care​	$328,596​	5.8%​	8.3%​
Anesthesiology​	$498,973​	5.6%​	8.5%​
Otolaryngology – general​	$491,654​	5.2%​	3.6%​
Pediatrics – hospitalist​	$237,516​	5.1%​	5.3%​
Internal medicine​	$308,288​	4.8%​	5.7%​
Dermatology​	$509,587​	4.7%​	4%​
Nephrology and hypertension​	$350,558​	4.6%​	1.4%​
Physical medicine and rehabilitation​	$312,828​	4.4%​	6.7%​

Does anyone have the wRVU productivity and compensation for radiology from Sullivan and Cotter for 2024? I need the most recent data. Cannot seem to find it.