This is why you should specialize

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Is it too much to ask? Yes. You're the one that posted the link. I don't know why you'd expect me to do any more than simply clicking on your link. There's no "do more and extra stuff" implied when you post a simple link.

Summarizing a lot of data into a one liner will be helpful during third year. You should practice.

:laugh: you probably could have signed up in the time this argument this has taken!

Here is copy/paste of the captions to all the figures with synopsis:

1.• Survey fielded to 455,000 U.S. physicians
• Total respondents*: 15,794 U.S. physicians across 22 specialty areas
• Fieldwork conducted by Medscape from 2/2/11 to 3/30/11
• Data collected via third-party online survey collection site

2.More than 15,000 physicians nationwide took part in Medscape's 2011 Compensation Survey. Primary care physicians and 21 other specialties are represented. Despite the poor economy, a majority of physicians across all specialties reported that compensation was stable or increased over the past year. Orthopedic surgeons, radiologists, anesthesiologists, and cardiologists were the top earners, bringing in more than twice the average income of endocrinologists, primary care physicians, and pediatricians.
For employed physicians, compensation includes salary, bonus, and profit-sharing contributions. For partners, compensation includes earnings after tax-deductible business expenses but before income tax. Compensation excludes non-patient related activities (ie, expert witness fees, speaking engagements, and product sales).

3. Despite the poor economic climate, one half of all physicians reported that their income remained the same between 2009 and 2010. About 23% reported a decline in income, whereas 27% said their income increased. Among the specialties, urologists reported the biggest decrease. For cardiologists, 35% reported a decrease in earnings; this is mainly due to significant cuts in reimbursement levels, says Travis Singleton, senior vice president of AMN Healthcare, a physician staffing firm in Irving, Texas.

4.Across all specialties, male physicians earn about 41% more than female doctors. In primary care, men earn 21% more. "The vast majority of women physicians are in primary care or obstetrics, so it's natural that they would earn less," says AMN's Travis Singleton. Many women physicians are more likely to work fewer hours than their male counterparts, choosing part-time schedules to balance work and family/lifestyle needs, says Singleton. Also, there are fewer women in some of the higher-paying specialties.

5. The salaries noted above are medians. The highest-earning physicians in Medscape's survey practice in the North Central region, comprising Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Iowa, and Missouri, at a median salary of $225,000. The next-highest earners are doctors in the South Central region, comprising Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, at $216,000. Physicians in the Northeast and Southwest earn the least, at a median of $190,000.

6. Physicians in small cities earned slightly more than those in other community types, although overall, the difference was not great.
Note: Major metropolitan area = population 500,000 or more; Midsized city = population 100,000 – 499,999; Small city = population 50,000 – 99,999; Suburbs = within 30 – 45 minutes of a major metropolitan area; Small town or rural = population under 25,000.

7. The typical physician partner in a private practice earns a median of about $275,000, followed by physicians in single-specialty and multispecialty group practices. They earn significantly more than employed physicians and those in solo practice. Physicians with an equity stake typically approach work differently than do employed doctors, says Travis Singleton. "Many physicians, particularly the younger generation, are willing to sacrifice income for an easier quality of life," says Singleton. "Someone else worries about the marketing and other business aspects of medicine."

8. Despite physician concern about reimbursement levels, more than half of doctors overall feel that they are fairly compensated. However, less than half of primary care physicians were satisfied with their compensation. "Primary care doctors have legitimate concerns," says Travis Singleton. "Under the current system, consultations and coordination of care aren't valued as highly as performing procedures." There was little difference according to practice setting: Both employed physicians (53%) and doctors in private practice (52%) said that they were fairly compensated.

9. Some specialists spend more of their workweek in direct patient care than do other physicians. Anesthesiologists, cardiologists, gastroenterologists, surgeons, and urologists spend an average of 46-50 hours per week seeing patients. By contrast, primary care physicians spend a median of 30-40 hours per week in direct patient care, owing to intense paperwork and administrative demands. How productivity will be measured is likely to evolve because of healthcare reform and new developments in medicine, notes Travis Singleton. "Medical homes, accountable care organizations, the emphasis on quality and effectiveness and whether the reimbursement system will really change will have an impact that's unknown right now," he said.

10. The largest percentage of physicians see between 50 and 99 patients per week. Pediatricians have the most patient visits. The type of visit and specialty plays a large role: surgeons may see a much smaller number of patients, whereas psychiatrists doing primarily medication management may see many more patients. A majority of emergency physicians have 50-99 patient visits per week.

11. Overall, the 13 – 16 minute patient visit is most common. Anesthesiologists, neurologists, and radiologists spend more time with each patient: a median of 25 minutes or more. Primary care physicians spend a median of 13-16 minutes per patient, whereas dermatologists and ophthalmologists spend the least time -- a median of 9-12 minutes per encounter.

12. Female physicians consistently spend more time with each patient than do male physicians. As the length of patient visits increases, women doctors comprise a larger proportion of the comparison measurements. "The cultural differences between men and women explain this," says Travis Singleton. "Females tend to go into primary care, pediatrics, and obstetrics. It fits with the nurturing spirit and sense of family life."

13. The number of patient encounters differs little according to where physicians practice. A median of 50-99 visits per week is standard. About 25% of doctors practicing in suburban areas have at least 100 patient encounters a week, compared with about 18% of doctors in major metropolitan areas.

14. Paperwork and other non-patient-care obligations account for a significant part of each physician's life. "Paperwork has increased tremendously for all physicians, and that includes time spend answering patient e-mails that physicians don't get paid for," says Singleton. About 20% oncologists, surgeons, and cardiologists spend 20 or more hours per week on these professional activities. About 17% of primary care physicians do as well. Billing issues, supervisory work, office meetings, and other activities can take up significant time.

15. While many physicians justifiably express frustration with the state of practice today, a large majority (69%) would still choose medicine as a career. About 61% of physicians would choose the same specialty, whereas 21% would abandon their current specialty. Half would remain in the same practice setting; 21% would change settings, and 29% were unsure. "It is horrific how many primary care doctors indicated they would not practice primary care again when compared to the number of specialists who indicated they would not be in their field again," notes one family physician from Montana. "One has to wonder about that."

16/17. Dermatologists led the group among those most satisfied with their choice of specialty, followed by orthopedic surgeons, radiologists, plastic surgeons, and gastroenterologists. On the other end of the scale, primary care physicians were the least satisfied, followed by nephrologists, obstetricians/gynecologists, and pulmonologists. Still, more than half of respondents in every specialty were satisfied with their profession.

18. For those physicians who would abandon a career in medicine, the top alternative choices were business, law, teaching, finance, and engineering. One physician, reflecting his frustration at reimbursements, said, "I'd become an assassin of insurance company executives." A number of doctors said that they would choose a career in dentistry, whereas others said that they would prefer to be a chef, musician, farmer, or photographer.

19. Survey respondents were 68% male and 32% female. At least 40% of respondents were employed physicians at hospitals, healthcare organizations, private practices, or academic settings and research. Twenty-eight percent of respondents were aged 28-39 years, 27% were 40-49 years, 28% were 50-59 years, and 17% were aged 60 years or older. More than 84% of survey respondents are board-certified.

The largest percentage of survey respondents were primary care physicians (internal medicine and family medicine), followed by pediatrics, psychiatry, emergency medicine, Ob/GYN, surgery, and anesthesiology.

The survey's collection timeline spanned from February 2, 2011, through February 17, 2011. Demographic/attitudinal weighting was not applied to tabulation as the survey was to physicians with a similar demographic profile. In some cases, small sample size may skew data results. However, the overall number of responses by specialty mirror AMA breakdown. Note that compensation data is represented by the median reported figures.
 
lmao we're on the freaking internet, not the wards. You have no authority or power here.

Ummmmm . . .

CaptainObvious.jpg


Thanks. Until you mentioned it, I literally had no idea 😱 [/sarcasm]

Are you being actually serious when you type this stuff? You're just ****ing with me right? If so, hahaha, good one!!
 
No, that is the definition of speculation. A "bubble" is when the value of a resource is inflated well beyond its real valuation, a symptom of which is massive speculation. If you want to think gold is a bubble, I will not try and dissuade you from that position because most "expert" investors and economists take your position (which is ironically evidence in and of itself that it is not a bubble). However, it is helpful to think of gold not as an investment per-say but as a store of value (money).

Gold positions do not bear any resemblance to the housing bubble. Every other week you turn on CNBC or a number of channels and you hear people deride gold as a bubble that has yet to burst. In either case, I will not derail this thread but I think this is a good video (at 4 minutes you hear about the absurd things people were doing during both the dot com and housing bubble which in retrospect were so ridiculous I was laughing hysterically).

Ifb it was just normal speculation, hedging against future inflation, there would have been periodic corrections in the price of gold as it varies about a baseline set by the real demand of industries that use the commodity. That hasn't happened: the price of gold has steadily risen for over a decade, without ever correcting. That makes it a bubble.

Also there were plenty of economists that warned about the housing bubble before it burst. That didn't make it not a bubble
 
Ifb it was just normal speculation, hedging against future inflation, there would have been periodic corrections in the price of gold as it varies about a baseline set by the real demand of industries that use the commodity. That hasn't happened: the price of gold has steadily risen for over a decade, without ever correcting. That makes it a bubble.

Also there were plenty of economists that warned about the housing bubble before it burst. That didn't make it not a bubble

The rise in the price of gold is not a bubble at all. The rise is price is largely simply due to inflation in the value of dollars. Gold is not simply an industrial commodity, it is money and a store of wealth.

And MOST economists were NOT talking about the housing bubble before it burst, only the Austrians. Most of the conversation about the housing bubble before it so obviously burst went like this:

[YOUTUBE]Fa4pmGoca0Q[/YOUTUBE]

Pay attention to Terri Cambell. Her talking point were EXACTLY what "most economists" were saying prior to the housing bubbble. I challenge you to find a single non Austrian school "economist" who predicted this housing bubble. Ironically, you and almost everyone else are still listening to the SAME clowns and their opinions on gold (that gold is bubble and you shouldn't buy any). The same guys who actually predicted the housing bubble are recommending precious metals as a hedge against inflation - NOT an investment strategy. Gold is NOT an investment, it's hard currency. You don't put your money into savings because it's stupid, you'll never get you money back as inflation move ahead of your return on a saving account or CDs. You don't put your money into stock or bonds right now for the same reason - yeah, they may be able to show a 5-10% return over the long haul, looking back, but all of that does not take into consideration the serious inflation of the value of the dollar, nor are we sitting in a climate where easy and cheap credit can continue to drive corporate growth as an assumption and by extension stock prices in general. Land is a good option if you can maintain the taxes and upkeep. Commodities aren't a bad idea per se, but you need to know what you are doing the commodities markets for most things is a gamble.
 
http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2011/


Also, whoever said they hope primary care approaches 250K <----:laugh:

Thats nothing to laugh about...Average pay for Family Physicians in Canada is around 250K per year who work the same hours. This is not in the boonies either (where pay is up to 400K, this in the city)

On top of that family physicians bill MORE in the US than these very same Canadian physicians - its just that the overhead is absolutely ridiculous as a FP. So yea hoping that family physicians one day approach that of their neighbours up north shouldnt be that ridiculous.

Furthermore, I would argue that these FPs have skills that are more important to a society than a Radiologist. Great primary care is the basis for any healthy society - just look at Western Europe and Canada.
 
I thought this bread was gonna be about the ever-decreasing salaries of PCPs and pediatricians.

My mistake.
 
The rise in the price of gold is not a bubble at all. The rise is price is largely simply due to inflation in the value of dollars. Gold is not simply an industrial commodity, it is money and a store of wealth.

And MOST economists were NOT talking about the housing bubble before it burst, only the Austrians. Most of the conversation about the housing bubble before it so obviously burst went like this:

[YOUTUBE]Fa4pmGoca0Q[/YOUTUBE]

Pay attention to Terri Cambell. Her talking point were EXACTLY what "most economists" were saying prior to the housing bubbble. I challenge you to find a single non Austrian school "economist" who predicted this housing bubble. Ironically, you and almost everyone else are still listening to the SAME clowns and their opinions on gold (that gold is bubble and you shouldn't buy any). The same guys who actually predicted the housing bubble are recommending precious metals as a hedge against inflation - NOT an investment strategy. Gold is NOT an investment, it's hard currency. You don't put your money into savings because it's stupid, you'll never get you money back as inflation move ahead of your return on a saving account or CDs. You don't put your money into stock or bonds right now for the same reason - yeah, they may be able to show a 5-10% return over the long haul, looking back, but all of that does not take into consideration the serious inflation of the value of the dollar, nor are we sitting in a climate where easy and cheap credit can continue to drive corporate growth as an assumption and by extension stock prices in general. Land is a good option if you can maintain the taxes and upkeep. Commodities aren't a bad idea per se, but you need to know what you are doing the commodities markets for most things is a gamble.

Oh Peter Schiff. Where are you now? :laugh:
 
No matter how much money I made or inherited or whatever, I would never buy such a car. It's a complete waste of money and an absolutely unnecessary extravagance. Just my 2 cents, of course, but even if I were raking in 1 million + per year, I'd much rather stash it away as opposed to blowing it on a car. (Albeit I'm also a non-trad, so maybe this is just my age showing...)

You might reconsider after seeing this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj58hRUe05M

That said, I'm one of those weird people who prefers to walk everywhere, so I'll try to get by without a car for as long as I can, regardless of how much money I make.
 
Medscape is not accurate

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=817247&highlight=MGMA

Go to the MGMA survey it is also 300 pages and is from over 60k+ physicians

Top spinal guys make around 900K.

The Medscape survey includes academics and other types of practices aside from private practice. As I am aware, MGMA is only private practice? Furthermore, I think MGMA contains ALL compensation (including benefits/retirement) and the Medscape just contains income per year pre-tax. That may be the reason for the differences between the two.
 
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

I want some of what you're smoking.

Why is all that laughable? I was talking about this in the context of the Medscape survey data shows that primary care salary for many has increased 10-20% and many have increased 20+%. It seems from their data that there are far people who had an increase rather than a decrease last year.

This is just within 1 year between 2010 and 2011. This in contrast to things like Cardiology and Radiology where many people are seeing 20%+ DECREASE. So by the time many people are done medical school and residency on this message board, is that much to say that if trends continue (10-20% increase a year in primary care and 10-20% in some specialties), that some primary care physicians may hit 250K - is that soo absurd? You seem to not provide any data countering this.

Additionally, people over on the Family Medicine boards seem to think that income will be increasing in the near future, not decreasing..
 
Why is all that laughable? I was talking about this in the context of the Medscape survey data shows that primary care salary for many has increased 10-20% and many have increased 20+%. It seems from their data that there are far people who had an increase rather than a decrease last year.

This is just within 1 year between 2010 and 2011. This in contrast to things like Cardiology and Radiology where many people are seeing 20%+ DECREASE. So by the time many people are done medical school and residency on this message board, is that much to say that if trends continue (10-20% increase a year in primary care and 10-20% in some specialties), that some primary care physicians may hit 250K - is that soo absurd? You seem to not provide any data countering this.

Additionally, people over on the Family Medicine boards seem to think that income will be increasing in the near future, not decreasing..

So since PCP specialties got a bump this year, you can extrapolate that mean they'll likely see similar increases in subsequent years? Sounds like wishful thinking to me. Instead, we could look at the trends in the past and notice that physicians reimbursements have been in decline since the 80's. While they received an increase this year, when it comes time to make cuts again I doubt they'll be immune.
 
There's a teacher @ the high school I work at that has a 911. It's all about being wise with your money. You don't need to make $300k+ to afford a Porsche. Also, making that much money doesn't mean you know what a 911 is. Some people aren't really into cars.
This. I personally am into buses.


The new express ones in NY are faaaaaaaaancy pantsy.
 
Why is all that laughable? I was talking about this in the context of the Medscape survey data shows that primary care salary for many has increased 10-20% and many have increased 20+%. It seems from their data that there are far people who had an increase rather than a decrease last year.

This is just within 1 year between 2010 and 2011. This in contrast to things like Cardiology and Radiology where many people are seeing 20%+ DECREASE. So by the time many people are done medical school and residency on this message board, is that much to say that if trends continue (10-20% increase a year in primary care and 10-20% in some specialties), that some primary care physicians may hit 250K - is that soo absurd? You seem to not provide any data countering this.

Additionally, people over on the Family Medicine boards seem to think that income will be increasing in the near future, not decreasing..
Where are you getting data for 2011?

MGMA showed 1.6% decrease for Radiology in 2010. http://www.auntminnie.com/index.asp?Sec=mkt&Sub=emp&Pag=dis&ItemId=95626

While AuntMinnie Salary scan showed a small growth. http://www.auntminnie.com/index.asp?Sec=mkt&Sub=emp&Pag=dis&ItemId=95292
 
Hospitalists can already hit 250k in certain parts of the country (mind you 7 on 7 off 12 hour shifts). Radiology reimbursements are decreasing but not necessarily salaries. They are just working longer and harder.
 
... Radiology reimbursements are decreasing but not necessarily salaries. They are just working longer and harder.

yes I think the hours of some of these more competitive specialties have been trending up in recent years, but the salaries for radiology and derm were both listed as stable in a number of surveys this past year.

At any rate, don't try to make a trend out of a snapshot of salaries. Things can go up or down as much as 10% in a given year, but unless there is some evidence of a trend over a long period of time there's usually some very short lived change that can account for the blip.
 
Hospitalists can already hit 250k in certain parts of the country (mind you 7 on 7 off 12 hour shifts). Radiology reimbursements are decreasing but not necessarily salaries. They are just working longer and harder.

I'd gladly be a radiologist for 200K than be a hospitalist for 250K. But that is just me. I'm sure other people would love to be a hospitalist, it is a neat job with a pretty good lifestyle as you have 2 weeks of vacation a month.

Point is, do what you like. Don't do it for the money, because it changes all the time.

And for the record, rads really isn't a super cushy lifestyle field anymore. Sure rads isn't surgery, but it also isn't Psych, derm, PM&R. Those are definitely cush.
 
What do programs specifically: UCLA, UCSF, UCSD, UChicago, Northwestern and other comparable programs look for in an applicant?

I am currently an 3rd year student at a mid-tier medical school in the midwest. I would love to go back home to CA, or go to a program in Chicago. My dream program is probably UCLA.

I never really was interested in IM until I did my rotation in it and am seriously thinking about it. Also what do programs look for in fellowship apps?

For fellowships, I'm assuming the program you go to matter, what about Step 2 and Step 3. My Step 1 is 250 and I have research in basic science Cardiac Anesthesiology. I may only get a High Pass in IM clerkship unfortunately. I did the research between 1st and 2nd year of med school but didn't get anything published, just a poster presentation at my med school. I am about to get started on ENT research related to airways and indications of tonsilectomies as I am also interested in ENT. However, GI and Cards are very interesting to me as they have cool procedures like ENT. And the whole hospitalist gig sounds good too if I decide I don't want to specialize. I really am just feeling IM these days because it is so broad and you get to see the full broad scope of all organ systems.

Can I ask what changed your mind?
 
Can I ask what changed your mind?

It was early 3rd year, IM was only second rotation, what did I know then? lol. Everything was pretty cool to me, and I hadn't even seen surgery yet. Decided I like high tech minimally invasive procedures. Enjoyed laproscopic surgery cases, then got to see my first EVAR on my surgical rotation, general surgeon doing the cut down for IR. Then got to my rads rotation, liked it the high tech imaging, ability to sit while working, the efficiency, the opportunity to be THE doctor as an IR and be procedural if I so choose. Got through a neuro ICU rotation and found the imaging very interesting, especially the angiograms. Now I am done with 3rd year, and I see the light. :idea:
 
It was early 3rd year, IM was only second rotation, what did I know then? lol. Everything was pretty cool to me, and I hadn't even seen surgery yet. Decided I like high tech minimally invasive procedures. Enjoyed laproscopic surgery cases, then got to see my first EVAR on my surgical rotation, general surgeon doing the cut down for IR. Then got to my rads rotation, liked it the high tech imaging, ability to sit while working, the efficiency, the opportunity to be THE doctor as an IR and be procedural if I so choose. Got through a neuro ICU rotation and found the imaging very interesting, especially the angiograms. Now I am done with 3rd year, and I see the light. :idea:


And that's the key. Third year really changes (or has the potential to change) your perspective on a lot of fields, as well as what you look for in a chosen field.
 
Top