Will Radiology Salaries continue dropping?

[Law2Doc]

The tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut.

This. But only premeds believe that's when they top mowing. Think putting green height.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Law2Doc]

It is important to consider the likelihood that some areas of medicine, while reimbursments may drop, will be in a better position to thrive than others. For example, cancer and heart disease are the leading causes of death in the U.S., and frankly, this will not likely change dramatically over the next 50-60 years. With that in mind, Oncology and Cardiology are probably the safest from the mighty axe of the ACA.

You are missing the point. The problems in those fields being cut has nothing to do with volume or perceived future need/growth. Volumes have gone up in fields like radiology, where cuts have been the worst. It's based on reimbursements. You show me any field where business is booming, and I'll show you trouble spot where doctors are soon going to be expected to see more and more people for less and less money. Since it not a supply and demand issue, but rather a where can the Fed make judicious cuts issue, you have it exactly backwards. The fields that dont see enough volume to get noticed will be the ones least impacted by reimbursement cuts. To prove the point, cardiology, which you mentioned, is actually a field that's ALREADY starting to find itself hit hardest after radiology right now (largely because it's very image (echo) and procedure (stress tests and caths) based and those are similarly easy to cut reimbursements on).

This doesn't involve a drop in patient volumes or a glut of doctors. In term of patient volumes, healthcare is as robust as its ever been. It's a reimbursement issue -- the government, the biggest insurer, deciding how much less it wants to pay per procedure or study. If you do a big volume business like a million CTs or echoes in a year, losing X cents/dollars on each study is big money. But don't kid yourself that that's the only place they can think of to make cuts.

A specialty like psych, where they do very few procedures and more often work in outpatient settings will be the last to get hit -- they are, as DrBowtie suggested, the shortest blade of grass. But they will feel the cuts eventually.

 

[vadeem]

How dramatic are these cuts going to be and how soon will they become apparent? The 2013 physician medscape compensation report showed that, from 2011-2013, the majority of physicians reported an increase in reimbursement and only 2 specialties saw a slight decrease. Thoughts?
http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2013/public

An interesting note: Physicians that are least likely to choose their own specialty again are internists (19%), family physicians (28%), and obstetricians/gynecologists (37%). Ouch.

 

[Law2Doc]

... from 2011-2013, the majority of physicians reported an increase in reimbursement and only 2 specialties saw a slight decrease. Thoughts?
[]....

Study data was before ACA and the most recent set of cuts. This is a moving target. And those that respond to medscape surveys are always a self selecting group -- the guys actually struggling to bring home the bacon perhaps do not have time for these surveys, so you have to take them with a grain if salt. every specialty collects it's own data and these frequently are at odds with medscapes. Nobody really knows how dramatic cuts might be, but pretty much everyone in health care feels like they will eventually happen across the board. Lots of people are still gambling that they can earn their nut and get out first, though.

 

[ace12345]

Study data was before ACA and the most recent set of cuts. This is a moving target. And those that respond to medscape surveys are always a self selecting group -- the guys actually struggling to bring home the bacon perhaps do not have time for these surveys, so you have to take them with a grain if salt. every specialty collects it's own data and these frequently are at odds with medscapes. Nobody really knows how dramatic cuts might be, but pretty much everyone in health care feels like they will eventually happen across the board. Lots of people are still gambling that they can earn their nut and get out first, though.

Though I will say money is not my primary motivation for going into medicine, your information on this subject has been incredible. Given the situation, what would you recommend for current med and pre-med students going forward? Anything to consider - other than the above - or pathways to emphasize?

 

[link2swim06]

Though I will say money is not my primary motivation for going into medicine, your information on this subject has been incredible. Given the situation, what would you recommend for current med and pre-med students going forward? Anything to consider - other than the above - or pathways to emphasize?

Please note law2doc is historically very pessimistic with his posts (think worst case scenario).

Income for physician's is confusing. Over the past 10 years >50% of physicians have received an increase every year in their salaries but overall lose ground to inflation. But guess what....so do many professions. It's not like teachers and lawyers are getting 10% pay increases every year. The top 1% is getting richer and the middle class is shrinking.

Let me ask all pre-meds some questions.....

Do you enjoy medicine? If not....then no amount of money is going to make it 'worth it.' BUT If the answer is yes then move on to the next questions.

What else are you going to do that is going to make you as financially secure?

Do you really think there are many jobs were you only work 40 hour weeks?

What other jobs do you have amazing job security? What other jobs can you pick your location?

Ever heard of the grass is greener? Some doctors say 'they would never have done X specialty' in surveys....but is there ANY job where they wouldn't say the same thing?

Don't trust me, don't trust law2doc. Look at the numbers over the past 10 years and the discussion about future trends/ACA. Read up on the topics and make your own opinion and figure out if it's compatible with your goals in life. AKA do you want a financial secure family or strippers on a private jet?

Will you become "rich" in medicine? Yes and no. Yes, you will be able to buy a nice house, have a new car and send your kids to college without any strain on your wallet. But no you will not have a private jet and a private island.

 

[DrBowtie]

Quoting "salary" is misleading and not really applicable in comparing across specialties due to differences in compensation packages.

Generally more PC specialties are salaried by an entity where as specialties are eat what you kill or groups with profit sharing leading to wildly different incomes per month and quarter depending on accounts receivable status.

 

[Law2Doc]

Please note law2doc is historically very pessimistic with his posts (think worst case scenario).

Income for physician's is confusing. Over the past 10 years >50% of physicians have received an increase every year in their salaries but overall lose ground to inflation. But guess what....so do many professions. It's not like teachers and lawyers are getting 10% pay increases every year. The top 1% is getting richer and the middle class is shrinking.

Let me ask all pre-meds some questions.....

Do you enjoy medicine? If not....then no amount of money is going to make it 'worth it.' BUT If the answer is yes then move on to the next questions.

What else are you going to do that is going to make you as financially secure?

Do you really think there are many jobs were you only work 40 hour weeks?

What other jobs do you have amazing job security? What other jobs can you pick your location?

Ever heard of the grass is greener? Some doctors say 'they would never have done X specialty' in surveys....but is there ANY job where they wouldn't say the same thing?

Don't trust me, don't trust law2doc. Look at the numbers over the past 10 years and the discussion about future trends/ACA. Read up on the topics and make your own opinion and figure out if it's compatible with your goals in life. AKA do you want a financial secure family or strippers on a private jet?

Will you become "rich" in medicine? Yes and no. Yes, you will be able to buy a nice house, have a new car and send your kids to college without any strain on your wallet. But no you will not have a private jet and a private island.

I object to someone who probably read but a tiny percentage of my twenty thousand posts and chooses to assassinate my character by saying I'm "historically pessimistic". If you can't argue your position about the issue without criticizing others posting history, you probably don't have much of an argument. I've been both optimistic and pessimistic about many many things over the years.

But I agree he should "read up on the topic". He will find that the pundits who are actually IN medicine have a dim view of future physician salaries. It's not exactly a state secret that reimbursements are on the rise and impacting salaries.

 

[deleted116380]

But no you will not have a private jet and a private island.

Woah woah woah. No one...NO ONE...tells me what I can and cannot have. Strippers on a private jet? I will have that. THREE of them, flying at the same time. Bump this thread up in 13 years. It'll happen.

 

[link2swim06]

I object to someone who probably read but a tiny percentage of my twenty thousand posts and chooses to assassinate my character by saying I'm "historically pessimistic". If you can't argue your position about the issue without criticizing others posting history, you probably don't have much of an argument. I've been both optimistic and pessimistic about many many things over the years.

But I agree he should "read up on the topic". He will find that the pundits who are actually IN medicine have a dim view of future physician salaries. It's not exactly a state secret that reimbursements are on the rise and impacting salaries.

I started reading this forum on a near daily basis when I started college in 2006. Over the past 7+ years I have read and conversed with you many many times. I read far more than I post. It is hardly a tiny percent of your posts.

I am guessing you are a general surgery resident based on your long resident status on this forum and pessimistic outlook on pay.

Of course it is just my opinion that you are pessimistic. Others may disagree...but I don't want pre meds to be overly faithful in any single persons opinion. That is all.

 

[sourdoughllama]

Study data was before ACA and the most recent set of cuts. This is a moving target. And those that respond to medscape surveys are always a self selecting group -- the guys actually struggling to bring home the bacon perhaps do not have time for these surveys, so you have to take them with a grain if salt. every specialty collects it's own data and these frequently are at odds with medscapes. Nobody really knows how dramatic cuts might be, but pretty much everyone in health care feels like they will eventually happen across the board. Lots of people are still gambling that they can earn their nut and get out first, though.

The group more likely to respond would be those that are unhappy about their situation rather than the satisfied ones. People with complaints or something to prove always have time

 

[random1234]

So someone said that the problem isn't dropping salaries but the lack of job availability. But in pathology, the avg salary went down a lot because of the glut of pathologists. So shouldn't that theoretically happen to radiologists? I mean the job market crashed only 2 years ago, so enough time hasn't passed to observe what will happen to salaries. But when you increase the supply of something, the price of it goes down, usually...right?

 

[DrBowtie]

So someone said that the problem isn't dropping salaries but the lack of job availability. But in pathology, the avg salary went down a lot because of the glut of pathologists. So shouldn't that theoretically happen to radiologists? I mean the job market crashed only 2 years ago, so enough time hasn't passed to observe what will happen to salaries. But when you increase the supply of something, the price of it goes down, usually...right?

Only if the mechanism of pay is related to supply and not fixed by government set RVUs. Most are just increasing their volume to offset reimbursement cuts, which in turn means less new job growth.

There are some employed salary positions which are exploiting the poor job market with lower salaries but these are obviously not desirable.

Overall, many factors at play and to be frank most pre meds, med students and even residents know very little about billing and RVUs. It's not really taught anywhere and you have to go out of your way to learn the complexities.

 

[Winged Scapula]

The opportunities for women might actually be quite good. Certain women will only allow themselves to be seen by female physicians and nurses. The lifestyle might not be the greatest, but taking care of the wives of oil barons might be a pretty well paying gig.

Yep, not just this morning did I receive a recruitment email looking for a female, fellowship trained breast surgeon. "Salary will not be a constraint for the right candidate". Sounding pretty good right now.LOL.

At any rate, in regards to radiology: salaries may not be dropping *yet*. However, the new CMS reimbursement for imaging and image guided procedures have dropped 20% and many are now bundled. There is also no longer any differential in reimbursement between using a cheap spring loaded biopsy device and the larger gauge, vacuum assisted (which yields larger and arguably, better biopsy samples) core needle devices, so there is no incentive to use the latter because the costs are more and the reimbursement less. So IMHO you will see salaries drop as the reimbursements to rads groups and hospitals drop.

 

[TheWeeIceMan]

The group more likely to respond would be those that are unhappy about their situation rather than the satisfied ones. People with complaints or something to prove always have time

Not sure about that. One of the reasons why most UG and grad school employment statistics are so skewed is that those that don't have a job or are underemployed tend not to respond. Personally, I would think that salary surveys are more likely to be answered by those doing well. I would however, agree if you say that unsatisfied residents and attending tend to vent more on forums, like SDN.

 

[sourdoughllama]

Not sure about that. One of the reasons why most UG and grad school employment statistics are so skewed is that those that don't have a job or are underemployed tend not to respond. Personally, I would think that salary surveys are more likely to be answered by those doing well. I would however, agree if you say that unsatisfied residents and attending tend to vent more on forums, like SDN.

Fair assumption. I guess we'll never know which group actually responds haha

 

[SunsFun]

Not sure about that. One of the reasons why most UG and grad school employment statistics are so skewed is that those that don't have a job or are underemployed tend not to respond. Personally, I would think that salary surveys are more likely to be answered by those doing well. I would however, agree if you say that unsatisfied residents and attending tend to vent more on forums, like SDN.

That could be the case but if I was an attending concerned that public already thinks I am making too much money the last thing I would do is report a high salary.

 

[TheWeeIceMan]

That could be the case but if I was an attending concerned that public already thinks I am making too much money the last thing I would do is report a high salary.

Yeah, that would be the smart thing to do. People do like to brag though.

 

[SunsFun]

Yeah, that would be the smart thing to do. People do like to brag though.

You brag to your buddies or a girl at the bar. But when answering anonymous survey you put the lowest number that is reasonable enough for them to consider truthful

 

[sinombre]

Not sure about that. One of the reasons why most UG and grad school employment statistics are so skewed is that those that don't have a job or are underemployed tend not to respond. Personally, I would think that salary surveys are more likely to be answered by those doing well. I would however, agree if you say that unsatisfied residents and attending tend to vent more on forums, like SDN.

The AAMC reported salary numbers are pretty much universally higher than the Medscape numbers (AAMC gives you access to the data once you start medical school). That said, there's no information about where the AAMC data comes from. I'm making the assumption that they don't obtain it from a survey, but who knows.

I would think physicians making a lot of money, especially in a society where most people aren't exactly happy with how expensive healthcare is and probably think physicians are overpaid, would be skeptical to respond to Medscape surveys because they don't want the public to know how much money they actually make.

Edit: what SunsFun said.

 

[BestDoctorEver]

(AAMC gives you access to the data once you start medical school).

Is that something automatic?

 

[circulus vitios]

Is that something automatic?

https://www.aamc.org/cim/specialty/

 

[Law2Doc]

Yeah, that would be the smart thing to do. People do like to brag though.

That's my experience -- and that of psychology. when you are doing well, you are happy to talk about it. When you aren't you keep it close to the vest. Most of these surveys have been shown to skew high.

 

[sinombre]

Is that something automatic?

Yep. When you matriculate somewhere you use the account you used to apply to access it. In addition to the length of training info you can see without an account, you can see salary info, average scores, average hours worked, etc. Again, I have no idea how accurate the data is.

 

[notbobtrustme]

my boy who just finished anesthesia shared this with me.

He just took a 450k job in the suburbs of Chicago, around 50 hours a week with 2 overnights. He also said he was beating dudes off who wanted him to work in the boonies for 500k+.

 

[Syndicate]

my boy who just finished anesthesia shared this with me.

He just took a 450k job in the suburbs of Chicago, around 50 hours a week with 2 overnights. He also said he was beating dudes off who wanted him to work in the boonies for 500k+.

boonies?

 

[punkedoutriffs]

my boy who just finished anesthesia shared this with me.

He just took a 450k job in the suburbs of Chicago, around 50 hours a week with 2 overnights. He also said he was beating dudes off who wanted him to work in the boonies for 500k+.

With both fists?

 

[Syndicate]

You are missing the point. The problems in those fields being cut has nothing to do with volume or perceived future need/growth. Volumes have gone up in fields like radiology, where cuts have been the worst. It's based on reimbursements. You show me any field where business is booming, and I'll show you trouble spot where doctors are soon going to be expected to see more and more people for less and less money. Since it not a supply and demand issue, but rather a where can the Fed make judicious cuts issue, you have it exactly backwards. The fields that dont see enough volume to get noticed will be the ones least impacted by reimbursement cuts. To prove the point, cardiology, which you mentioned, is actually a field that's ALREADY starting to find itself hit hardest after radiology right now (largely because it's very image (echo) and procedure (stress tests and caths) based and those are similarly easy to cut reimbursements on).

This doesn't involve a drop in patient volumes or a glut of doctors. In term of patient volumes, healthcare is as robust as its ever been. It's a reimbursement issue -- the government, the biggest insurer, deciding how much less it wants to pay per procedure or study. If you do a big volume business like a million CTs or echoes in a year, losing X cents/dollars on each study is big money. But don't kid yourself that that's the only place they can think of to make cuts.

A specialty like psych, where they do very few procedures and more often work in outpatient settings will be the last to get hit -- they are, as DrBowtie suggested, the shortest blade of grass. But they will feel the cuts eventually.

It's all Obama's fault and his stupid National Health Insurance plan that will never work. Previous presidents have tried it before and haven't succeeded. What makes Obama so confident he can succeed?

Jeb Bush 2016

 

[ninjaman22]

It's all Obama's fault and his stupid National Health Insurance plan that will never work. Previous presidents have tried it before and haven't succeeded. What makes Obama so confident he can succeed?

Jeb Bush 2016

LOL!

 

[TheWeeIceMan]

my boy who just finished anesthesia shared this with me.

He just took a 450k job in the suburbs of Chicago, around 50 hours a week with 2 overnights. He also said he was beating dudes off who wanted him to work in the boonies for 500k+.

Probably why they were paying so much.

 

[BlueLabel]

I object to someone who probably read but a tiny percentage of my twenty thousand posts and chooses to assassinate my character by saying I'm "historically pessimistic". If you can't argue your position about the issue without criticizing others posting history, you probably don't have much of an argument. I've been both optimistic and pessimistic about many many things over the years.

But I agree he should "read up on the topic". He will find that the pundits who are actually IN medicine have a dim view of future physician salaries. It's not exactly a state secret that reimbursements are on the rise and impacting salaries.

I have little doubt that you're accurately reporting the current trend. But what strikes me as extremely depressing about all this is how misdirected the focus is on cutting physician salaries as a method of health care cost containment.

I read an article recently that explained that physician salaries account for roughly 10% of total healthcare costs (and this has been consistent for some time). What this means is slashing physician salaries by, say, 20% would only reduce healthcare spending by 2% while utterly demoralizing some of our most essential professionals. Can any reasonable person truly believe this is a good course of action? And yet, this is essentially what it seems policymakers aim to achieve over the next few decades.

I don't want to call you a "pessimist", but what makes you so sure that effective political advocacy on the part of physician groups will be unable to move the dial on this, both with the public and in Washington? Preserving physician salaries may seem politically unpalatable, but it certainly is far more reasonable policy. Without any reason to think otherwise, I would say I'm "optimistic" that the paradigm will shift before the situation becomes too dire.

 

[BlueLabel]

my boy who just finished anesthesia shared this with me.

He just took a 450k job in the suburbs of Chicago, around 50 hours a week with 2 overnights. He also said he was beating dudes off who wanted him to work in the boonies for 500k+.

Just out of curiosity, is he a subspecialist?

 

[nets445]

I have little doubt that you're accurately reporting the current trend. But what strikes me as extremely depressing about all this is how misdirected the focus is on cutting physician salaries as a method of health care cost containment.

I read an article recently that explained that physician salaries account for roughly 10% of total healthcare costs (and this has been consistent for some time). What this means is slashing physician salaries by, say, 20% would only reduce healthcare spending by 2% while utterly demoralizing some of our most essential professionals. Can any reasonable person truly believe this is a good course of action? And yet, this is essentially what it seems policymakers aim to achieve over the next few decades.

I don't want to call you a "pessimist", but what makes you so sure that effective political advocacy on the part of physician groups will be unable to move the dial on this, both with the public and in Washington? Preserving physician salaries may seem politically unpalatable, but it certainly is far more reasonable policy. Without any reason to think otherwise, I would say I'm "optimistic" that the paradigm will shift before the situation becomes too dire.

Easy solution: Just don't accept Medicare/Medicaid

 

[TheWeeIceMan]

I have little doubt that you're accurately reporting the current trend. But what strikes me as extremely depressing about all this is how misdirected the focus is on cutting physician salaries as a method of health care cost containment.

I read an article recently that explained that physician salaries account for roughly 10% of total healthcare costs (and this has been consistent for some time). What this means is slashing physician salaries by, say, 20% would only reduce healthcare spending by 2% while utterly demoralizing some of our most essential professionals. Can any reasonable person truly believe this is a good course of action? And yet, this is essentially what it seems policymakers aim to achieve over the next few decades.

I don't want to call you a "pessimist", but what makes you so sure that effective political advocacy on the part of physician groups will be unable to move the dial on this, both with the public and in Washington? Preserving physician salaries may seem politically unpalatable, but it certainly is far more reasonable policy. Without any reason to think otherwise, I would say I'm "optimistic" that the paradigm will shift before the situation becomes too dire.

I just don't see the general public caring in the slightest that physicians incomes are dropping, especially in a time when many people are stuggling just to find jobs. Most people already seem to think that physicians make too much money and then equate that with their increased insurance costs. I would bet that even if you got the message through that physician pay makes up very little of overall healthcare spending, people will still say "well, they still make too much." As for Washington, they seem to see physicians as the easiest target to screw with. I don't see that changing as long at the gov't is still broke as hell and looking to cut costs. This stuff irritates me too, but I just don't know how much physician groups can change the tide of public opinion at this point.

I'm still optimistic that physicians will make much more than the average person for the foreseeable future, though.

 

[notbobtrustme]

Just out of curiosity, is he a subspecialist?

nope, he just did anesthesiology and decided against a pain medicine fellowship because of the job offers.

 

[sweetamazement]

nope, he just did anesthesiology and decided against a pain medicine fellowship because of the job offers.

Wow, that job offer seems super high paying. I thought anesthesiologists only make 250-300k.

 

[Syndicate]

Wow, that job offer seems super high paying. I thought anesthesiologists only make 250-300k.

Average was 320k several years ago

 

[BlueLabel]

Wow, that job offer seems super high paying. I thought anesthesiologists only make 250-300k.

Even if true, it's just an average

 

[medicalmnt]

G-wagon for me.

Everything is based off the economy and its always up and down. Businessmen used to make $900k a while ago and dropped to $200k and now they're rising back up. I'd just stick to whatever you want to do and you'll end up making how much you deserve. There's no way salaries will drop into $100k range considering how large debts are becoming.

 

[sinombre]

Average was 320k several years ago

AAMC reports an average of 427k. Again, big discrepancy between AAMC and medscape/whatever free self-reported data is available online.

 

[Syndicate]

AAMC reports an average of 427k. Again, big discrepancy between AAMC and medscape/whatever free self-reported data is available online.

Yea. I will trust AAMC more though since it is THE "American Association of Medical Colleges." Sounds more credible than www1.physiciansalary.com

 

[IslandStyle808]

It's all Obama's fault and his stupid National Health Insurance plan that will never work. Previous presidents have tried it before and haven't succeeded. What makes Obama so confident he can succeed?

Jeb Bush 2016

Previous presidents could not even get any major revamp plans past congress for 80+ years, he at least got something past them. The process of changing health care will always continue and presidents in the future will keep trying to do so. The problem is that we focus so much on individual rights, and that this is such a populous and heterogeneous country, having the majority of people agree on such a change is extremely difficult.

 

[gumdrops]

Maybe this is my naivete or whatever but does the Affordable Health Care Act really matter in terms of the responsibilities of most physicians? Our population is increasing and we have a larger aging segment. There would inevitably be more work for all of us, which means medicine would be less cushy regardless of the specialty. Those patients would have to be seen even if it ate into our dinner or yoga/golf time. I hope I'm not too jaded or burned out in ten years to remember this but I went into medicine because I wished to undertake the responsibility of putting patients first.

Those who are entering lifestyle specialties and the like probably have different goals than someone like me who aspires to primary care but I still think it's appalling that so many people are using the issues with the AHCA as a subterfuge for their greed and laziness, regardless of the problems with the bill. Not saying that people on this thread are doing this but this problem seems to be endemic among those in medical training.

 

[EMDO2018]

The next republican president in office, which will probably be 2016, will kill the Affordable care act.

 

[BlueLabel]

Maybe this is my naivete or whatever but does the Affordable Health Care Act really matter in terms of the responsibilities of most physicians? Our population is increasing and we have a larger aging segment. There would inevitably be more work for all of us, which means medicine would be less cushy regardless of the specialty. Those patients would have to be seen even if it ate into our dinner or yoga/golf time. I hope I'm not too jaded or burned out in ten years to remember this but I went into medicine because I wished to undertake the responsibility of putting patients first.

Those who are entering lifestyle specialties and the like probably have different goals than someone like me who aspires to primary care but I still think it's appalling that so many people are using the issues with the AHCA as a subterfuge for their greed and laziness, regardless of the problems with the bill. Not saying that people on this thread are doing this but this problem seems to be endemic among those in medical training.

First off, it's the ACA (Affordable Care Act) or PPACA if you want. In my opinion the real solution to this problem is quite simply to unfreeze the number of residency slots from 1997 levels. That would result in more new physicians, thus addressing the problem. Of course, like all HC reform, this is a political goal, and therefore will be extremely difficult to realize.

Even so, something I think you're missing is that many physicians are working longer hours, seeing more patients, performing more procedures, but due to declining reimbursement, aren't making any more money, or are actually making less. So the issue isn't as much to do with hours per se as the fact that so many are having to run faster than ever just to stay in place. Especially for physicians who have worked in the field for many years, I'm sure this reduction of the value of their work is especially painful. So don't be so quick to villainize the profession we hope to enter.

 

[gumdrops]

First off, it's the ACA (Affordable Care Act) or PPACA if you want. In my opinion the real solution to this problem is quite simply to unfreeze the number of residency slots from 1997 levels. That would result in more new physicians, thus addressing the problem. Of course, like all HC reform, this is a political goal, and therefore will be extremely difficult to realize.

Even so, something I think you're missing is that many physicians are working longer hours, seeing more patients, performing more procedures, but due to declining reimbursement, aren't making any more more money, or are actually making less. So the issue isn't as much to do with hours per se as the fact that so many are having to run faster than ever just to stay in place. Especially for physicians who have worked in the field for many years, I'm sure this reduction of the value of their work is especially painful. So don't be so quick to villainize the profession we hope to enter.

My apologies for the mistake. Don't know why I remembered it as such but it was pretty dumb to get on my soapbox without getting the name of the act correct first.

I am aware of what you're saying about doctors working harder for less pay. Nor am I villainizing the entire profession. I'm just annoyed that the ACA is commonly cited as a reason by many younger physicians for entering lifestyle specialties. It is fine to admit that you want patients who pay with cash or to be home every day at 5 PM. You're still providing valuable services. The ACA is certainly squeezing people who do very good work. It's also used as unfair justification by other folks. Carry on.

 

[ninjaman22]

The next republican president in office, which will probably be 2016, will kill the Affordable care act.

There won't be any Republican President for a while.

 

[gumdrops]

There won't be any Republican President for a while.

Not saying that because of political affiliation but because Republicans have backed themselves into a corner ideologically and need to really re-evaluate where the vast majority of Americans stand on several issues in order to have any sort of broad populist appeal again.

 

[Burla]

I think everyone just needs to calm down. Everything is gonna be alright. There are threads like this going back the last decade and salaries haven't taken a huge hit like people predicted. If only making between $180,000-$500,000 is an issue reevaluate your career options and choose another one where you're guaranteed a $500,000 + salary so you can be happy.

 

[Law2Doc]

... There are threads like this going back the last decade and salaries haven't taken a huge hit like people predicted. If only making between $180,000-$500,000 is an issue reevaluate your career options and choose another one where you're guaranteed a $500,000 + salary so you can be happy.

I think a 10-20% drop in the last few years constitutes "a huge hit", even if the end salary sounds platable to college students.