Why is Psychiatry not part of the "ROAD" to happiness

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Yeah, those damn radiologists and pathologists. What a waste of medical education. :laugh:
:rolleyes:

This isn't the admissions process anymore. We actually make decisions on what we want to do, not based on the premed "patient contact" that ADCOMs obsess about. Not everyone wants to go into direct patient contact. Some people want to be significantly involved in important areas in patient care without directly interacting with patients. Others want to go into research, academic medicine, teaching.

Maybe, but now we're facing a glut of radiologists and a shortage of physicians who do do things like you know talk to patients. Based on that I'd still argue that these things are worth considering in picking physicians. And hey, if you want to be a radiologist because you really enjoy radiology, more power to you. However, I'd say that the majority of medical students and applicants should be interested in patient contact specialties, which makes it puzzling that fields with minimal patient contact are so popular.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Maybe, but now we're facing a glut of radiologists and a shortage of physicians who do do things like you know talk to patients. Based on that I'd still argue that these things are worth considering in picking physicians. And hey, if you want to be a radiologist because you really enjoy radiology, more power to you. However, I'd say that the majority of medical students and applicants should be interested in patient contact specialties, which makes it puzzling that fields with minimal patient contact are so popular.

They weren't always so popular. Back in the DARK ages (see what I did there?), they were having a LOT of trouble attracting people to rads. It didn't pay that well, and you had to sit in a dark room, alone, reading plain films. Things started to take off with the advent of digital films and the subsequent increase in productivity that allowed.

Now, they're making good money, have decent hours, and don't have to do rectal exams. If/when the pay falls again, you can bet it'll be much less competitive.

If we want to attract more people to primary care specialties (psych included) all we have to do is provide a reasonable lifestyle and a crapload of money. They will come. It's not ALL about money, but for most people, it's a consideration. Look at the recent popularity of EM. Good pay (200-250 at least), no call, and few hours (<40/wk for most places). Pretty sweet gig...right now.

I think we should do a salary survey of only private practice psychiatrists who work 40+ hours/week and see at least an average of 2 patients per hour. I'd bet our specialty would be much more enticing then.
 
A salary survey of private practice psychiatrists would start to turn the tables and attract more interest I'm sure. But staying low on the radar is nice too. Let those who are truly interested do psych, and those chasing money do derm, rads, and gas.

EM was once a sweet gig, until I did a month of EM, and the docs were yawning a lot and so was I. It's not sweet. It's very fatiguing. The body wants to shut down by 2am. No thanks man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
There is a very good chance during our careers, whether it's a good thing or not, that we are going to move towards some sort of government healthcare system, and there is a very good chance that such a system would either implicitly or explicitly hostile towards private practice psychiatry models. While I have my opinions of the merits of such a system, and they may differ from what many of you think, that's immaterial to the fact that it's very likely to happen at some point.
 
There is a very good chance during our careers, whether it's a good thing or not, that we are going to move towards some sort of government healthcare system, and there is a very good chance that such a system would either implicitly or explicitly hostile towards private practice psychiatry models. While I have my opinions of the merits of such a system, and they may differ from what many of you think, that's immaterial to the fact that it's very likely to happen at some point.

What does this even mean? You predict that it is very likely that the gov is going to to make cash practices illegal?

Oh, and those other Derm practices? Plastics? General Dentists? Orthodontists?

...or are you predicting that private practice in general will be outlawed and physicians must work for hospitals?

At that point, med will have likely changed to such a degree, for so many specialties, that it would hardly resemble itself. I will balance out your opinion by saying that it is unlikely to occur any time soon.

Edit: or does your prediction only apply to the specialty of psychiatry?
 
Last edited:
Yeah there's no way the government could make such a leap as to make private practice psychiatry illegal. Not in our lifetimes.
 
I'm certain gov healthcare, if it actually survives (it might not) will change things, but I highly doubt private practice will be dead.

My own personal approach is I'm going to stay with the university for now, let things sort themselves, see what happens, and like a surfer waiting to see how the waves turn out, I'll decide then if I leave the university for private practice. I see no point in fighting the ocean. I'll ride it adjusting myself with the tide.

A problem with where I work now is that they make you lock in with them and you can't practice outside of them. While I'm perfectly happy with where I'm at, I could damn well be making more money if I were on my own. So why not do that? I don't have to worry about a lot of BS such as angry employees or getting the sidewalks shoveled in winter, I'm working with some of the world's top doctors, and for being faculty, I'm making a heck of a lot for that with opportunities to make more than twice what I've seen other psychiatrists make in a teaching institution.

But the thought of being the captain of the ship instead of just a crew-member, that does sometimes pique my curiosity, especially since I've run a few businesses in my life and wouldn't mind doing it again.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure where I said anything about making private practice psychiatry "illegal." I think it could become very unattractive.

There are plenty of ways in which private practice could be discouraged or less advantageous. In a "medicare-for-all" type set-up, it's not hard to imagine requiring all physicians to accept the public insurance, and it would be unlikely that it would reimburse at a good enough rate to make private practice psychiatry a very attractive model. Most private practices do not take medical assistance patients now, and plenty do not even take medicare.

A government model could also put so many requirements on patient interactions (from complicated EMR requirements, large outcome tracking requirements, etc.), that doing so in a private practice would be excessively expensive and not worth the trouble.

If the "medical home" models continue to take off, they could similarly create an environment in which private practice psychiatry is not so advantageous.

I don't think it's such a stretch to imagine that in 2032 the incentives in our health care system are going to be remarkably different than they are right now. Given that every other nation in the free world has drifted towards more government involvement in healthcare, the likelihood of us following a similar path is not remote.

You don't have to like it. But you do have to be aware that it's a very real possibility.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I think the more realistic attack (and far more fiscally fruitful) is to put the squeeze on end of life care. Your gimped out granny s/p 8 CVA's doesn't need to be put on dialysis.
 
Private practice will exist for quite some time, but to a limited extent? maybe...

Even in the worst offending countries where government totally socializes healthcare, private practice exists. For example, The British Medical Association officially states that general practitioners who work for the National Health Service may practice privately and face "no limit on receiving income from private practice and commercial contract work provided NHS commitments are met." However, for senior doctors "the gross private practice earnings of consultants and associate specialists with whole-time NHS contracts may not normally be permitted to exceed 10 per cent of their gross whole-time salary."

So conceivably government can say that we doctors can't earn more than X% from private practice, but any time soon? Highly highly doubt it. But if all doctors become members of a government "insurance" program, anything can happen. Look at how whopper's academic employment won't let him do any outside work. And that's an academic institution. Government could be much worse.

Pharmaceuticals really like private practices, and may not let government limit them. Lobby groups run government, not the government. PPs put good money into phrama coffers.
 
Last edited:
As leo made the UK comparison (which is probably not a good one as the US will never have a system like the UK ever) I will say that almost everyone works for the NHS because of the guaranteed income and the good pension (for now), but most also make significantly more than 10% of their income from private practice, in many specialties (e.g. ortho, plastics, ophtho etc) specialists make 2-3 times as much from private work as through their NHS work. for psychiatry most of the money is in forensic type work e.g. reports for insurance companies, medicolegal reports, court reports, compensation claims, mental health tribunals etc. and much of the forensic psychiatry is private anyway. incidentally, unlike in the US where child psychiatrists make more than their general adult counterparts, in the UK the converse is true. This is most likely because child psychiatrists are not qualified to see adult patients and thus are limited to children and adolescents unless they do dual accreditation.

There is not going to be any 'government' healthcare but I do agree that if we don't end up with a republican government it is likely the burdens of having a private practice will disincentivize it. This is to an extent good as the quality of care is so much more variable in private practice with much more shoddy care than good care and patients off the radar etc.

There is great need for more psychiatrists. There is no great need for cash only psychiatrists. If all the cash only psychiatrists disappeared overnight, no one would notice, or if they did it might be for the better. I don't think there is anything wrong with having a cash only practice, but I don't think anyone should delude themselves they are actual doing something meaningful with their lives.
 
I don't think there is anything wrong with having a cash only practice, but I don't think anyone should delude themselves they are actual doing something meaningful with their lives.

I don't understand this. If I'm only going to see, say, 500 stable outpatient patients, what difference does it make how they pay? Are you saying that the person who can afford to pay $300 out of pocket is "less sick" than the person on Medicaid?

To me, it seems that a sick patient is a sick patient...but if I can maximize my own profit while treating sick patients, I'd probably opt for that option. Kind of.

Anyways, to each his own, but I definitely wouldn't say private practice psychiatrists aren't doing anything meaningful with their lives, especially in certain subspecialties or areas...
 
Re private psychiatry, IMO psych has one of the biggest potential to actually keep on a certain private course because there's a "cosmetic" appeal to it - you don't have to be mentally ill to visit a psychiatrist, you may just need for your mental health to function better, and there's nothing wrong with that, and I'm fairly sure the government will never cover that. I think the potential is there. I'd say the potential in psych is absolutely ginormous if we manage to unlock a lot of the secrets of the brain, but this might not happen in our lifetimes.
 
I don't understand this. If I'm only going to see, say, 500 stable outpatient patients, what difference does it make how they pay? Are you saying that the person who can afford to pay $300 out of pocket is "less sick" than the person on Medicaid?

To me, it seems that a sick patient is a sick patient...but if I can maximize my own profit while treating sick patients, I'd probably opt for that option. Kind of.

Anyways, to each his own, but I definitely wouldn't say private practice psychiatrists aren't doing anything meaningful with their lives, especially in certain subspecialties or areas...

come on, dig you know there is a big difference. you only have to look at the sorts of patient seen in community mental health clinics, in the county outpatient clinics or compare inpatients in county/state hospitals with those in university hospitals to see that as a general rule those uninsured on on medicaid/medicare are sicker. also if you have a chronic severe mental illness and are going cash only it is quite likely someone other than yourself is paying for your care which is an indicator of social support. social support is predictor of the course and severity of psychosis and other mental disorders. Further, African Americans are overrepresented in patients with schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder, and their illness likely more severe, and of course these patients are not seen in cash only practices. Finally, the sickest patients can't as you acknowledge be treated in cash only private practice as they need a comprehensive multidisciplinary care package often involving a psychiatric nurse, social worker, therapist, etc etc which most people could not afford cash only and most cash only psychiatrists do not have access to.

and like you said, these patients are likely 'stable', i.e. not all that sick. I was obviously being inflammatory when I said 'nothing meaningful' - it's of course up to the individual to define what gives them purpose, and of course you might do something that helps more people than someone else, but when you are trained to be able to help so many people and then don't help them you have to think 'what am I really doing here?' I don't want to sound too much like a dirty socialist, but by providing off the radar care, pandering the whiny meanderings of bored housewives and or medicating the children of depressed mothers, you are selecting to care for those who are most able to pay, not those who are most in need. Instead of contributing to the provision of mental health services you reduce access to care, deepens the divisions of inequality, and ultimately, exacerbate the situation where you see the kind of psychopathology in the US that you have not seen in western Europe since the beginning of the 20th century.

This mostly holds true for C&A too, it's no surprise psychopathology is much more common and often more severe in the deprived and poorest communities, and if you're parents are going to pay for you to see a shrink when you have your first break you're not going to be as sick as someone who ends up with a longer duration of untreated psychosis and worse prognosis etc.
 
as an addendum - the issue is not so much about providing care to the rich, it is about not providing care to the poor. I appreciate there are some patients who might be better treated in a cash only model (e.g. those with personality disorders benefiting from extended psychotherapy) but most cash only practice does not provide this sort of service and usually descends into 15-minute med checks, suboxone for all, benzos, adderall free for all (well if you pay $300) etc None of this sounds like good quality care to me.
 
I have a cash only PP (part-time) offering various psychotherapies (psychodynamic, CBT, hypnotherapy). And all of my patients definitely need help. But I also work for the county serving those with no insurance. And IMO both groups need help.
 
I don't think there is anything wrong with having a cash only practice, but I don't think anyone should delude themselves they are actual doing something meaningful with their lives.
I will presume your reference to "meaning" either has to do with the perceived rogue lucrativeness of cash practices or the unrewarding and trite care of the less acute patient population? Maybe a combination of the two?

Setting up a cash practice isn't as easy as calling yourself a rogue psychiatrist and wearing a superhero shirt with the letter "R" under your work attire. A cash practice that sees 0 patients x $300/hr = $0/hr, which is most likely outcome for your average psychiatrist without any business acumen.

Futhermore, if a patient wishes to pay out-of-pocket to be seen within several days, that is their choice. Some patients have the means to pay for prompt services, more time, and may want additional privacy in their medical record.

Also keep in mind that psychiatrists passionate in psychotherapy with a lot of experience may justifiably set their rates higher than what insurance companies feel they are worth. To accomplish this, you must go cash.

In my opinion, cash private is simply a higher standard of care for the less acute population. If you want to provide these services, you must set the appropriate rates. Otherwise, be prepared to sit on the guilt-ridden sidelines of charging money for services and watch the practice of your dreams collapse to the ground.
 
I have a cash only PP (part-time) offering various psychotherapies (psychodynamic, CBT, hypnotherapy). And all of my patients definitely need help. But I also work for the county serving those with no insurance. And IMO both groups need help.

While much of what splik is saying is right, this is more in line with what I've seen. Sick patients DO turn up in cash-only PP, at least in the areas I've been in. Sometimes it's because they have a rich uncle. Sometimes it's because there is such a big shortage that they can file for in-network coverage from their insurance despite the doctor not being "in-network." In all cases, they're far from "depressed housewives," but even if they were, depressed housewives need help too.

All that being said, I 100% agree that we need to improve access for the poor. Unfortunately, what we're headed toward as a country, whether we like it or not, is a two-tiered (or even 3-tiered) system. One government run tier for the poor with long wait times and shoddy care. Another private tier with insurance for the middle class. And a final cash-only tier for the upper class. We're almost there now.

Anyways, I don't want to derail the thread any further into a debate on this. It doesn't really matter that much...to each his own.
 
As I say I'm no longer against private practice but it does have its problems. I can see that people are attracted to the greater autonomy over practice and the potential to make more money. The US system where most people accrue such huge debts and get paid so little during residency no doubt contributes to that (although I don't think that making medschool free/cheaper would actually help as some have suggested). I think some people feel they can't provide the sort of care they want outside of a private practice setting because they won't be appropriately renumerated or the insurance bureaucracy makes it a headache to deal with insurance panels etc. The problem is whilst I am sure there are many great psychiatrists who do a fantastic job in private practice, it seems there are many more who provide really bad care. They may have had excellent training and no what they are doing even. But just like those bankrolled by pharma, sometimes money talks. If the clinic becomes the market place, the patient is a customer, and the customer is always right. Cue doing things that are financially good - e.g. prescribing more meds than is appropriate, prescribing benzos, adderall, etc that people don't need, giving people diagnoses they want like adult ADD, bipolar d/o, and PTSD etc. Physician behavior is motivated by profit and more often than not it pays to offer substandard care, to give patients what they want instead of what they need, and to be unethical.
 
Getting back to the thread - the ROAD specialties are essentially the non-patient care specialties. They are not just attractive in terms of money and schedule, but that they are as dubbed in The House of God non-patient care (NPC) specialties. I think psychiatry was also listed as one, but I don't think we can count psychiatry as a non-patient care specialty these days, certainly not during residency.

Incidentally psychiatry was most popular right after WWII (because of the success of psychiatrists in treating patients with war neurosis with hypnosis, brief analytic therapies), the massive psychiatric burden following the war and therapeutic optimism. In the 1960s during the Great Society in the anti-psychiatry era with deinstutionalization, the rise of community psychiatry, and psychiatrists being politically active as agents of social change rather than social control psychiatry again peaked. With the failure of community care, the decline of psychodynamic psychiatry, and the rise of biological psychiatry, psychiatry became increasingly unpopular. In the past 9 years or so, as psychiatry training has tried to include more psychotherapy and rebalance itself, there has been a small but significant increase in interest.

So curiously, psychiatry is less attractive when it appears more 'medical' and 'biological' which most people would not have thought as one reason why medstudents often don't like it is because they perceive it as less scientific, medical or biological. Actually it turns out psychiatry is most attractive when it highlights what is different, what it does best - intergrating mind and body, biopsychosocial assessment, psychotherapeutic approach etc. This makes sense as if you were really wanted to be a 'proper doc' you would go and do something like IM etc, you're not going to convince someone psychiatry is as 'medical' as IM because its not.
 
To all of you who want to do cash only practices with rich patients, be careful. Rich patients can present with their own difficulties, especially when you have a difficult patient who is extremely wealthy and powerful and now has a hard-on to make your life hell or blames you for the suicide of a loved one.
 
I thought that this was interesting - if somewhat saddening - blog about recent trends by director of NIMH:

Last week a short piece in the British medical journal, The Lancet, described an "identity crisis" in psychiatry. In the U.K., the number of medical students choosing psychiatry has dropped more than 50 percent since 2009 and over the past decade the number of psychiatrists has dropped by 26 percent while the number of physicians overall has increased more than 31 percent. Ninety-five percent of posts for junior physicians across all specialties are generally filled; but psychiatry posts, as of last summer, were running more than one third unfilled.

Tom Brown, Assistant Registrar of Recruitment at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, U.K., told The Lancet: "Common perceptions within the medical profession include the view that psychiatry is just not scientific enough, is too remote from the rest of medicine, is often viewed negatively by other medical professionals, and is a specialty too often characterised by difficult doctor-patient relationships and limited success rates of therapeutic interventions."

Meanwhile, psychiatry in the U.S. is undergoing a quiet resurgence which appears to run counter to the British experience. This might not have been apparent last month at match day, the day when medical students match with their post-graduate residencies. Match day is always a moment to track the popularity of different medical specialties. This year, slightly less than 4 percent of graduating students chose psychiatry, which is a bit lower than recent years. But this number hides an extraordinary trend: psychiatry has become the hot specialty for MD-PhD students who want to do research.

The number of MD-PhD students choosing psychiatry has more than doubled in the past decade. This year, 50 percent of the students who matched with the Yale psychiatry residency were MD-PhDs. At Columbia, 20 percent of psychiatric residents in recent years have been MD-PhDs. In other psychiatry residency programs, while the number of applicants has not increased, the number of MD-PhDs has. Why is this important? Getting into an MD-PhD training program is even more competitive than getting into medical school. The training includes intensive research experience, and many (but not all) graduates go on to do independent research either in the clinic or in a laboratory setting. In the past, most of these elite students have chosen a medical specialty such as oncology or a high paying surgical specialty such as ophthalmology.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2012/the-future-of-psychiatry-clinical-neuroscience.shtml
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2012/the-future-of-psychiatry-clinical-neuroscience.shtml

So while psychiatry becomes less popular it increasingly becomes more (biologically) research oriented. Which we knew, but this says the same thing in a new way.
 
come on, dig you know there is a big difference. you only have to look at the sorts of patient seen in community mental health clinics, in the county outpatient clinics or compare inpatients in county/state hospitals with those in university hospitals to see that as a general rule those uninsured on on medicaid/medicare are sicker. also if you have a chronic severe mental illness and are going cash only it is quite likely someone other than yourself is paying for your care which is an indicator of social support. social support is predictor of the course and severity of psychosis and other mental disorders. Further, African Americans are overrepresented in patients with schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder, and their illness likely more severe, and of course these patients are not seen in cash only practices. Finally, the sickest patients can't as you acknowledge be treated in cash only private practice as they need a comprehensive multidisciplinary care package often involving a psychiatric nurse, social worker, therapist, etc etc which most people could not afford cash only and most cash only psychiatrists do not have access to.

and like you said, these patients are likely 'stable', i.e. not all that sick. I was obviously being inflammatory when I said 'nothing meaningful' - it's of course up to the individual to define what gives them purpose, and of course you might do something that helps more people than someone else, but when you are trained to be able to help so many people and then don't help them you have to think 'what am I really doing here?' I don't want to sound too much like a dirty socialist, but by providing off the radar care, pandering the whiny meanderings of bored housewives and or medicating the children of depressed mothers, you are selecting to care for those who are most able to pay, not those who are most in need. Instead of contributing to the provision of mental health services you reduce access to care, deepens the divisions of inequality, and ultimately, exacerbate the situation where you see the kind of psychopathology in the US that you have not seen in western Europe since the beginning of the 20th century.

This mostly holds true for C&A too, it's no surprise psychopathology is much more common and often more severe in the deprived and poorest communities, and if you're parents are going to pay for you to see a shrink when you have your first break you're not going to be as sick as someone who ends up with a longer duration of untreated psychosis and worse prognosis etc.

entirely agreed.
 
To all of you who want to do cash only practices with rich patients, be careful. Rich patients can present with their own difficulties, especially when you have a difficult patient who is extremely wealthy and powerful and now has a hard-on to make your life hell or blames you for the suicide of a loved one.

True, though if you are interested in this I recommend training somewhere like MGH where rich and royal patients fly from near and far demanding to be treated else they'll chain themselves to the hospital, speak to your supervisors, etc.
 
Cue doing things that are financially good - e.g. prescribing more meds than is appropriate, prescribing benzos, adderall, etc that people don't need, giving people diagnoses they want like adult ADD, bipolar d/o, and PTSD etc. Physician behavior is motivated by profit and more often than not it pays to offer substandard care, to give patients what they want instead of what they need, and to be unethical.

Then again, pay for performance in other models is likely moving in this direction, no, with health care as a service industry, Press Ganey reports, etc.?
 
To all of you who want to do cash only practices with rich patients, be careful. Rich patients can present with their own difficulties, especially when you have a difficult patient who is extremely wealthy and powerful and now has a hard-on to make your life hell or blames you for the suicide of a loved one.

Just tape this article up over your desk if you're tempted to provide private practice to the rich and entitled: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/us/doctor-found-guilty-in-michael-jacksons-death.html?pagewanted=all
 
I do think there is a huge difference in providing care to the extremely rich vs the middle to upper-middle class. Around me, the middle and upper middle class makes up the bulk of the cash psych business, although most of it is child.

I don't think you see quite the extent of the problem with this middle America crowd as you do with the 1%.
 
As alluded to above, I think the benefit of cash only private practice is being able to do what you want to do without worrying about insurance companies and administrative groups who say what you do doesn't have value, and of course by that I'm talking about doing primarily psychotherapy. It seems like the people who are part of bigger systems are more likely to do this med management only stuff because that's what these systems want you to do, and lots of us don't want to do that. So, as a person who's probably going to do private practice (and maybe some day cash only private practice), greed isn't my sole motivation. And as digitalnoize indicated, I don't intend to see the super rich. Rather, I'll see people who have some extra money who value the work I do, which groups like the VA, Kaiser, the state and insurance companies don't necessarily.
 
The nice thing about cash only PP psych is I don't have to give a damn what you folks think about cash only PP psych.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
What I find interesting is that I'm a pretty large program (we graduate more than 15 residents a year), and I can only think of one person who has a one day a week private practice, and even he takes insurance. The ONLY folks around here who do cash only are analysts who have been in practice for more than 20 years, as even most of our newer MDs who do therapy take insurance. Clearly I'm in a very different market than some of you are, but cash only is basically a myth here except for a very small number of folks. 90% of our folks take a job in a health care system. It's hard for me to get my head around places that have enough affluence to support cash-only psychiatry. So it might make more sense to you as to why I don't see private practice as the future of psychiatry, because it barely exists where I'm at.
 
What I find interesting is that I'm a pretty large program (we graduate more than 15 residents a year), and I can only think of one person who has a one day a week private practice, and even he takes insurance. The ONLY folks around here who do cash only are analysts who have been in practice for more than 20 years, as even most of our newer MDs who do therapy take insurance. Clearly I'm in a very different market than some of you are, but cash only is basically a myth here except for a very small number of folks. 90% of our folks take a job in a health care system. It's hard for me to get my head around places that have enough affluence to support cash-only psychiatry. So it might make more sense to you as to why I don't see private practice as the future of psychiatry, because it barely exists where I'm at.

Regional differences are important, but I'd also recognize that there is a generation of older psychiatrists, many of whom are cash only, that are moving into retirement. We define what the next generation of private practices will be like.
 
As for the original ROAD question, yes, psych should be on that list because we actually have time to enjoy the money we make and we make excellent income for the hours we work ;)

(I have to admit, being able to practice medicine without dealing with insurance companies or hospital budget cuts will be wonderful.)
 
What I find interesting is that I'm a pretty large program (we graduate more than 15 residents a year), and I can only think of one person who has a one day a week private practice, and even he takes insurance. The ONLY folks around here who do cash only are analysts who have been in practice for more than 20 years, as even most of our newer MDs who do therapy take insurance. Clearly I'm in a very different market than some of you are, but cash only is basically a myth here except for a very small number of folks. 90% of our folks take a job in a health care system. It's hard for me to get my head around places that have enough affluence to support cash-only psychiatry. So it might make more sense to you as to why I don't see private practice as the future of psychiatry, because it barely exists where I'm at.

Hmm, maybe I'm in a good area (which hopefully stays that way). All the relatively recent grads I know in private practice take insurance, but there are a lot of them. And the general word I've heard on the street is that they all regret not doing it sooner because it's even better than they thought it would be. We had someone who graduated just a few years ago who started her own practice come and talk to us last year, and she said her practice was full within a few months. Before she visited, I thought it was more impossible than it is as well. I wonder if the markets there where you are, and no one's looking for it.
 
Hmm, maybe I'm in a good area (which hopefully stays that way). All the relatively recent grads I know in private practice take insurance, but there are a lot of them. And the general word I've heard on the street is that they all regret not doing it sooner because it's even better than they thought it would be. We had someone who graduated just a few years ago who started her own practice come and talk to us last year, and she said her practice was full within a few months. Before she visited, I thought it was more impossible than it is as well. I wonder if the markets there where you are, and no one's looking for it.

From the numbers I've seen, I don't see why you couldn't take a couple insurances and still make good money. 15min med checks are running, what, around $70-80? Anyone?

If so, 3 of those per hour x 8h x 5d = 8400/week = 33,600/month - 30% overhead = $23,520/month. That's a lot. We'll knock off a few k for no shows and what not, and you're still safely in the 15k per month range.

Am I way off on my med check fee numbers? I've googled a bunch and that seems to be the lower end of what I've seen, if anything...
 
Then again, pay for performance in other models is likely moving in this direction, no, with health care as a service industry, Press Ganey reports, etc.?

One of the major challenges in health services administration is incentivizing practice. It is well established that physicians are motivated by money and pecuniary gain typically trumps patient care which correlates with how vigorously physicians deny it. But pay for performance, payment by results, quality outcome frameworks etc - all fail. By incentivizing one thing, you end up deincentivizing another. In my current non-clinical life I have explored and evaluated many different models of renumerating physicians in order to improve quality of care. None are satisfactory. Whatever you do, something's gotta give. We need to accept that healthcare is not a product like any other, and is not a market like any other. We cannot and should not just give patients what they want when that is not in their best interests. It is not politically correct but patients are idiots, I speak from personal experience (Physician patients are even bigger idiots). We do not do what is necessarily the right thing for us, and it is wrong to expect physicians/other healthcare providers to collude. Healthcare decisions are not rational, thus rational decision making models, which free market models are do not apply. Sometimes the best thing for the patient is not what s/he thinks is best. This is more true for psychiatry than other specialties.

There is no easy answer to how to renumerate good practice. I do not have a solution. All I suggest is we don't pretend physicians are not motivated by profit, often above patients, and freely acknowledge the shortcomings of any one system of promoting quality through physician incentives. patient satisfaction seems the most perverse in psychiatry. Not giving out benzos or admitting my borderline patient may be best practice, but I could get paid less for doing what is best in a system where salary is based on patient satisfaction scores.
 
In my geographical area, many attendings stray away from private practice and instead contract out with corporation mental health clinics. They normally schedule 3-4 patients per hour and there are many no show's each day. Regardless of no show's, the psychiatrist is paid about $120 to $140 per hour. If you work 6 hours per day, 5 days per week, and take 4 weeks vacation, you are getting about $187,000. I think it would be reasonable to do private practice therapy in the afternoons which would come out to about another $40,000 (5 patients per week...a very low number which essentially is a patient at 3PM each day). In the end, you clear $227,000. The only fall back is paying for your health insurance.
 
The salary surveys put the average between 180k-210k per year, depending on which survey you read. That aligns fairly well with what I've seen in practice so far, as well as our recent, informal SDN poll.

The thing to remember is to calculate the HOURLY wage. Most psychiatrists work 40-50 hours per week. This is not true for many other specialties.

$180/52weeks/40 to 50hours = ~$69-86/hour give or take. The going rate for cash private practice seems to be, from a survey of websites, $200-300/hour.

Either way, psychiatrists get compensated very well for their time. A general surgeon might pull in $250k/yr but they're working 60 hours or so to do it, at least. This is also ~$80/hour.

The ROAD specialties can be higher, yes, but psych has good pay, and a very controllable lifestyle, despite the emotional demands. I would argue that the emotion demands of Radiology are just as difficult, but different. It is hard to sit alone in a dark room all day, every day...

100% this.

The earning potential is definitely there, we just generally choose to work between 36-40 (though, the Medscape survey indicates that we work even less!) hours per week.

I've always said this but psychiatry is a gem and definitely a "sleeper" discipline in terms of lifestyle.
 
As to the bolded, you are remarkably uninformed and off the mark. You're not even looking in the right direction. (This isn't opinion, but objective numbers at least from my end.)

# of EM residency spots have increased like 20% in the last few years haven't they? With that said, there should still be a demand in the short to medium term considering how many ERs are having trouble finding a BE/BC EM physician.
 
How has the stigma of psychiatry changed since its inception? Is it better now vs the past? Will it continue to get better?
 
Mental health has become much more of a visible issue in our society with more and more prominent people not being afraid to discuss it in the lime-light. Celebrities like Catherine Zeta-Jones, J.K. Rowling, Ron Artest, Mary J. Blige, Demi Lovato, Cindy Crawford, and Lady Gaga have each come forth to discuss their issues of mental health.The very tragic passing of Robin Williams and Philip Seymour Hoffman highlights the need to bring down the stigma of mental health.

In other words, it's much more acceptable to talk in public about psychiatry and mental health, and I feel it's much less acceptable to pass judgement on people struggling with mental illness. In places like New York City and LA, for example, it's the cool thing to have a psychiatrist - the richer you are, the more people look at your weird if you don't have one.

Yes, it will continue to improve.... with everyone's effort.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The demographic least likely to see a psychiatrist is older men, particularly with a strong religious background. I have noticed that in my years of practice, the percent of new patients in this demographic is growing. Other psychiatrists have also reported similar experiences. Nobody I know is telling me that they are experiencing greater amounts of anti-psychiatry.

However, don't be fooled. First, this is by no means a scientific observation. Secondly, there is still plenty of stigma, it is just going down gradually, probably at a faster and faster rate than before.

The other thing I always like to say about stigma is that, there is always some stigma about health care in general. There are the anti-vaxxers, the all natural types who don't like "chemicals in my body" etc and the list goes on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
There are risks to the profession too. At my hospital, there have been no major incidents involving MDs but we have had serious attacks on nurses and PCAs in particular. A couple of those attacks have ended in very big lawsuits and serious injuries. We do have a large "forensic" floor where many patients come from the local state prison for evaluation. I was excited about psychiatry until a couple of these recent incidents... I don't know if I could expose myself to that kind of risk.
 
There are risks to the profession too. At my hospital, there have been no major incidents involving MDs but we have had serious attacks on nurses and PCAs in particular. A couple of those attacks have ended in very big lawsuits and serious injuries. We do have a large "forensic" floor where many patients come from the local state prison for evaluation. I was excited about psychiatry until a couple of these recent incidents... I don't know if I could expose myself to that kind of risk.

I don't think this is great logic, you point towards violence towards patient care techs and nurses, but your not going to be in that role. Psych units operate in a way such that physicians are by far the least likely type of staff to be involved in a physical altercation. If someone is getting violent or aggressive on the unit, the MDs are able (and expected) to jump ship.
 
Top