Radiology Salary Steady

[deleted564680]

Hey all, I compiled some AMGA salary data for radiology and was able to get data all the way back about 10 years. The AMGA is one of the top two survey companies that obtain "the most accurate" salary info for hiring (the other being MGMA). Now, the caveats to this is that these are mean salaries for all radiologists/physicians. The entire report (costs money) would show starting, years 1-5, 5-10, etc. as well as pp vs academic and region/state specific data.

Inflation was 2.12% per year from 2005-2015 and 1.74% in the period of 2010-2015, and diagnostic rads just barely outpaces inflation (2.09% per year over 5 years and 2.38% per year over 10 years). I have data on ALL specialties and rads is in the bottom quartile of salary growth. It appears that physicians complaining about pay are more complaining about the extra work/hours required for the same/similar pay rather than their gross pay actually going down.

I would definitely enjoy some comments on this topic, but I thought I would post this since it seems that at least rads is still somewhat healthy on the salary growth scale even through a bad economy and bad job market.

I was going to post actual gross salary numbers but I know there have been issues in the past with posting numbers on forums so I will hold off for now.

Interventional Rads has a healthy rate of 4.15%/year over the past 5 years but was bolstered by an 11.4% jump from 2014 to 2015.

Some fields with highest growth the last 5 years are Crit. Care (9.5%/year), Neurosurgery (6.56%/year), GI (6.00%/year), Derm (5.89%/year), and Heme/Onc (5.83%/year).

Also, other fields of note last 5 years: EM (4.24%/year), Anesthesiology (2.70%/year), Pathology (0.63%), Cardiology (2.74%)

Let me know if you all want any other info.

And hopefully we can have a meaningful discussion without the obligatory "it's not about the money" posts because that's not the point I'm trying to make. I'm merely trying to assess the health of the field.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[psychMDhopefully]

Soooo....... Average salary?

 

[deleted564680]

Apparently when Medicare made a round of cuts to rads 5 years or so ago, one of the reasons they cited was something of the effect of "online forums showing how much money radiologists make" so since then everyone has been reluctant on any rads forums to produce any salary data. Probably one of the reasons why the rads forums are so secretive in general.

Rads is well compensated compared to most specialties but I hesitate to give the actual number. It's lower than NSG, Ortho, CT surg, int. cards and roughly equal to Rad onc, GI, and derm as of 2015.

 

[qxrt]

Rads is well compensated compared to most specialties but I hesitate to give the actual number. It's lower than NSG, Ortho, CT surg, int. cards and roughly equal to Rad onc, GI, and derm as of 2015.

No, rads salary is definitely below rad onc, GI, and derm too.

 

[Postictal Raiden]

How does the average STARTING salary compare to that of 10-15 years ago? Did it keep up with inflation?

 

[deleted564680]

Haha I can only go by the mean average salary data and it's roughly the same as rad onc, derm, and GI. Obviously there are variations by city, state, etc.

I don't have data on starting salaries just overall averages. The overall salary was just above inflation over the past 10 yrs so possibly the starting was as well.

 

[vm26]

[QUOTE
Rads is well compensated compared to most specialties but I hesitate to give the actual number. It's lower than NSG, Ortho, CT surg, int. cards and roughly equal to Rad onc, GI, and derm as of 2015.[/QUOTE]

Guess one issue is how much harder we are working to be at this level than 10 years ago compared with other specialties...I began working as an attending in the past few years and overall I feel like I do bust my hump at work, can be quite stressful, but do feel that I am appropriately compensated. Hard to compare to what other specialties are experiencing

 

[deleted564680]

.

 

[deleted564680]

Really good point. It seems like all specialties are complaining about the increased workload, but the data shows that all fields have increased at or above inflation on a per year basis. Perhaps it's something like gaining 2-3% of salary a year but working 5-10% harder per year as in more volume/hours/stress/etc.? I can't speak to this because I don't know how it was 10 or more years ago, but I do hear grumblings even from fields like Derm and GI that everyone usually says has awesome pay, growth, and lifestyle.

 

[The Cure]

Pgy-3 rads resident here. I believe that the higher earners usually do not participate in salary surveys. Rads making below the 50th percentile may not have taken huge salary cuts over the last ten years (those that participate in the surveys). These are mostly academic or other salaried positions. But higher earners definitely have taken pay cuts. My bro in law is in private practice. His group is working harder as has been discussed. But they have also taken steady pay cuts over the last ten years. In 2015, his group made about 15% less than in 2012, and about 50% less than in 2005. Granted, the group is probs in 90th percentile of rads earners, and what they were making in 2005 was probably unjust.

 

[LPpostbacc]

Is this what's behind the decrease in popularity of rads as a specialty? I know there were several spots available again this year after the match. Thanks.

 

[shark2000]

Is this what's behind the decrease in popularity of rads as a specialty? I know there were several spots available again this year after the match. Thanks.

It is a combination of things but probably the most important one is the perceived shortage of jobs in desirable locations.

 

[mpdoc2]

Is this what's behind the decrease in popularity of rads as a specialty? I know there were several spots available again this year after the match. Thanks.

Rads median salary is 20% lower than radonc median salaries. (This is based on a salary survey at a recent ACR meeting where both rads and radonc were present). But the main reason that rads has become less competitive to enter (hence a higher proportion of IMGs being accepted to radiology programs) is that there's a glut in supply of new radiology graduates and most can't find jobs unless they do a couple of fellowships.

 

[deleted564680]

Rads median salary is 20% lower than radonc median salaries. (This is based on a salary survey at a recent ACR meeting where both rads and radonc were present). But the main reason that rads has become less competitive to enter (hence a higher proportion of IMGs being accepted to radiology programs) is that there's a glut in supply of new radiology graduates and most can't find jobs unless they do a couple of fellowships.

But...rad onc is super boring

 

[mpdoc2]

But...rad onc is super boring

I'd do something I like more, over a 20% increase in salary. Remember at least 60% of it will be taxed. Most in radonc had the option to do radiology (a less competitive field) but they found radonc more interesting.

 

[Fab5Hill33]

1. Radiology became less competitive because of the perceived future lack of jobs by medical students. I think one of the craziest things med students do (and I did it myself) is try to predict the market 5-6 years down the line. It's understandable though, because they have put in so much time, effort and money into their education. But the fact is that it is impossible to predict the future. Radiology residents who trained during the less competitive years in the mid-90's had dozens of job offers and made a boat load of money. Med students who matched during the mid-late 2000's when Radiology was the most competitive ended up graduating in a tight job market.

2. I completely disagree with this narrative that "most can't find jobs unless they do a couple of fellowships." Biggest lie out there. And the fact that med students believe it has also contributed to the decreased interest and competitiveness of radiology. Yes, you pretty much have to do a fellowship. Nobody will hire you straight out of residency. But I haven't met anyone who couldn't get a job after fellowship. Not a one. I know of residents (and friends of mine) who wanted to live in SF or Chicago and took a lower salary and a crappier job. But that's just the market - simple supply and demand. The derm and ortho residents are also getting low-balled in SF and Chicago for the same reason. The population in those cities only needs so many of those specialists, yet everyone wants to live there.

But let's get one thing clear: there are no unemployed radiologists who had to do another fellowship because they couldn't find a job. None. Anyone who tells you otherwise is just bitter that they didn't get their dream job with the ideal location and salary.

Rads median salary is 20% lower than radonc median salaries. (This is based on a salary survey at a recent ACR meeting where both rads and radonc were present). But the main reason that rads has become less competitive to enter (hence a higher proportion of IMGs being accepted to radiology programs) is that there's a glut in supply of new radiology graduates and most can't find jobs unless they do a couple of fellowships.

 

[Brahnold Bloodaxe]

1. Radiology became less competitive because of the perceived future lack of jobs by medical students. I think one of the craziest things med students do (and I did it myself) is try to predict the market 5-6 years down the line. It's understandable though, because they have put in so much time, effort and money into their education. But the fact is that it is impossible to predict the future. Radiology residents who trained during the less competitive years in the mid-90's had dozens of job offers and made a boat load of money. Med students who matched during the mid-late 2000's when Radiology was the most competitive ended up graduating in a tight job market.

2. I completely disagree with this narrative that "most can't find jobs unless they do a couple of fellowships." Biggest lie out there. And the fact that med students believe it has also contributed to the decreased interest and competitiveness of radiology. Yes, you pretty much have to do a fellowship. Nobody will hire you straight out of residency. But I haven't met anyone who couldn't get a job after fellowship. Not a one. I know of residents (and friends of mine) who wanted to live in SF or Chicago and took a lower salary and a crappier job. But that's just the market - simple supply and demand. The derm and ortho residents are also getting low-balled in SF and Chicago for the same reason. The population in those cities only needs so many of those specialists, yet everyone wants to live there.

But let's get one thing clear: there are no unemployed radiologists who had to do another fellowship because they couldn't find a job. None. Anyone who tells you otherwise is just bitter that they didn't get their dream job with the ideal location and salary.

I don't see anything crazy about trying to predict the job market prior to selecting a residency. I'd argue you'd be crazy not to try, since what's at stake is your entire future and potentially millions of dollars of lifetime earnings. When was the last time someone would have made a wrong decision by choosing ortho, derm, gastro, urology, or EM based on job market predictions over things like pathology or nephrology? Certainly it must have been at least 20 years ago, if ever! I don't see that changing any time soon. Anyone who thinks choosing EM over pathology, for example, is going to end up in a wash jobs wise due to the world's utter unpredictability is someone I dearly want to play poker with.

This is actually all the more true today, because the corrective mechanism of no jobs->fewer med students interested->fewer people going into field->eventually more jobs for those that do is completely broken. Now you have bottomless ocean of FMGs with zero debt and fry order cook salaries in their home countries who are more than willing to snatch up those residences for that sweet sweet visa, regardless of how the job market looks like on the other side of the pipeline. There is no need or incentive for residency programs to cut slots in fields with dead job markets, because they will always have bodies from the third world ready to fill those slots abandoned by US MDs.

 

[Fab5Hill33]

First off, I hope you read my parenthetical statement that I, myself, tried to "predict the future" when I was a med student. And I would completely agree that you should educate yourself before any important decision.

But let's stop with the hyperbole ("millions of dollars of lifetime earnings"). Please don't act like I don't get the importance of it. You're not the only one here who's invested their life in medicine. I get it. I was once in your shoes. And money is damn important to me. I don't want to do "ok", I want to be rich (and I'm well on my way). But the difference between some of those fields like derm, gastro, urology, and radiology is absolutely negligible. Ortho vs peds. That's a different story.

You probably just haven't lived enough life to realize it, but our net worths are far more affected by things that are out of our control. What part of the country we ended up for residency, how much our spouse makes, how many kids we have, etc. than whether we did Radiology or Dermatology.

And, lastly, please stop the "woe is me" attitude regarding FMGs taking your jobs. Save it for the next Trump rally. For the record, I'm not an FMG. But there's ALWAYS been your so-called "bottomless" ocean of FMGs. And there never was any "corrective action" for jobs and there never has been a significant cut in residency spots in any specialty. I think you're wildly mistaken on how the system works.

Save me a seat at your poker table.

I don't see anything crazy about trying to predict the job market prior to selecting a residency. I'd argue you'd be crazy not to try, since what's at stake is your entire future and potentially millions of dollars of lifetime earnings. When was the last time someone would have made a wrong decision by choosing ortho, derm, gastro, urology, or EM based on job market predictions over things like pathology or nephrology? Certainly it must have been at least 20 years ago, if ever! I don't see that changing any time soon. Anyone who thinks choosing EM over pathology, for example, is going to end up in a wash jobs wise due to the world's utter unpredictability is someone I dearly want to play poker with.

This is actually all the more true today, because the corrective mechanism of no jobs->fewer med students interested->fewer people going into field->eventually more jobs for those that do is completely broken. Now you have bottomless ocean of FMGs with zero debt and fry order cook salaries in their home countries who are more than willing to snatch up those residences for that sweet sweet visa, regardless of how the job market looks like on the other side of the pipeline. There is no need or incentive for residency programs to cut slots in fields with dead job markets, because they will always have bodies from the third world ready to fill those slots abandoned by US MDs.

 

[mpdoc2]

1. Radiology became less competitive because of the perceived future lack of jobs by medical students. I think one of the craziest things med students do (and I did it myself) is try to predict the market 5-6 years down the line. It's understandable though, because they have put in so much time, effort and money into their education. But the fact is that it is impossible to predict the future. Radiology residents who trained during the less competitive years in the mid-90's had dozens of job offers and made a boat load of money. Med students who matched during the mid-late 2000's when Radiology was the most competitive ended up graduating in a tight job market.

2. I completely disagree with this narrative that "most can't find jobs unless they do a couple of fellowships." Biggest lie out there. And the fact that med students believe it has also contributed to the decreased interest and competitiveness of radiology. Yes, you pretty much have to do a fellowship. Nobody will hire you straight out of residency. But I haven't met anyone who couldn't get a job after fellowship. Not a one. I know of residents (and friends of mine) who wanted to live in SF or Chicago and took a lower salary and a crappier job. But that's just the market - simple supply and demand. The derm and ortho residents are also getting low-balled in SF and Chicago for the same reason. The population in those cities only needs so many of those specialists, yet everyone wants to live there.

But let's get one thing clear: there are no unemployed radiologists who had to do another fellowship because they couldn't find a job. None. Anyone who tells you otherwise is just bitter that they didn't get their dream job with the ideal location and salary.

I agree with you that if they were ok with working anywhere in the country they probably would have found a job. Some probably wouldn't want to go to the middle of Mississipi for fear of being shot by a Trump supporter.

 

[Brahnold Bloodaxe]

I like how my completely reasonable assertion that FMGs are no different from anyone else and affect the labor market immediately triggered allusions to crazed Trump supporters shooting people. I guess when you can't argue against 2+2=4 your only option is to say that 2+2=racissss. Well done lads. Carry on.

 

[mpdoc2]

I like how my completely reasonable assertion that FMGs are no different from anyone else and affect the labor market immediately triggered allusions to crazed Trump supporters shooting people. I guess when you can't argue against 2+2=4 your only option is to say that 2+2=racissss. Well done lads. Carry on.

I think we were following two separate trains of thought.

 

[PL198]

First off, I hope you read my parenthetical statement that I, myself, tried to "predict the future" when I was a med student. And I would completely agree that you should educate yourself before any important decision.

But let's stop with the hyperbole ("millions of dollars of lifetime earnings"). Please don't act like I don't get the importance of it. You're not the only one here who's invested their life in medicine. I get it. I was once in your shoes. And money is damn important to me. I don't want to do "ok", I want to be rich (and I'm well on my way). But the difference between some of those fields like derm, gastro, urology, and radiology is absolutely negligible. Ortho vs peds. That's a different story.

You probably just haven't lived enough life to realize it, but our net worths are far more affected by things that are out of our control. What part of the country we ended up for residency, how much our spouse makes, how many kids we have, etc. than whether we did Radiology or Dermatology.

And, lastly, please stop the "woe is me" attitude regarding FMGs taking your jobs. Save it for the next Trump rally. For the record, I'm not an FMG. But there's ALWAYS been your so-called "bottomless" ocean of FMGs. And there never was any "corrective action" for jobs and there never has been a significant cut in residency spots in any specialty. I think you're wildly mistaken on how the system works.

Save me a seat at your poker table.

Woe is me is somewhat accurate because the older rads have clearly screwed over young ones. You have dudes in their 60s who were making stupid money in the 90s and early 2000s, and still working now. And they work more hours because they blew all their dough in the golden ages so their group doesn't hire new rads. So new rads are the ones paying because old guy made terrible life choices when he made twice the money for half the work compared to people now.

I also doubt the carribeans and DO schools were pumping out students as fast as they are now when those older attendings were students. Hell a lot of the DO schools probably didn't even exist.

So I'm not expecting a pity party, but the forces working against a young rad vs an old one are quite different in magnitude IMO

 

[mpdoc2]

Woe is me is somewhat accurate because the older rads have clearly screwed over young ones. You have dudes in their 60s who were making stupid money in the 90s and early 2000s, and still working now. And they work more hours because they blew all their dough in the golden ages so their group doesn't hire new rads. So new rads are the ones paying because old guy made terrible life choices when he made twice the money for half the work compared to people now.

I also doubt the carribeans and DO schools were pumping out students as fast as they are now when those older attendings were students. Hell a lot of the DO schools probably didn't even exist.

So I'm not expecting a pity party, but the forces working against a young rad vs an old one are quite different in magnitude IMO

The best fields to goto where the older ppl haven't been doing the younger guys in is derm.

 

[scootad.]

It's not a matter of older rads having it in for the newer ones. It's human nature. Wanting to maximize profits for themselves. Has nothing to do with any malicious intent to screw you over. Trust me, its no different in surgical fields. The other issue is rads can work till they croak, because most of the work is done sitting at a desk. In my group we have a rad in his early 80s still working full time. Some people just like to work because it gives their life meaning as lame as it sounds. Now will you catch me working in my 80s? Hell no.

 

[PL198]

It's not a matter of older rads having it in for the newer ones. It's human nature. Wanting to maximize profits for themselves. Has nothing to do with any malicious intent to screw you over. Trust me, its no different in surgical fields. The other issue is rads can work till they croak, because most of the work is done sitting at a desk. In my group we have a rad in his early 80s still working full time. Some people just like to work because it gives their life meaning as lame as it sounds. Now will you catch me working in my 80s? Hell no.

I understand that, but I'm saying if they worked 20 years at those insane earnings, they'd have crazy amounts of wealth for someone who works for their money and wouldn't need to work another 20 into their late 60s and 70s. So my point is they blew their dough and new rads are paying for it. I don't see how you could look at it any other way. The money they were making back then, if after 20 years you don't have enough, buddy income isn't the problem in this equation.

I wouldn't want an 80 yr old president and I wouldn't want an 80 yr old doc looking at my films.

 

[scootad.]

I hear you, but no use cryin about it. I'm sure there are plenty who blew their dough (as docs are notoriously stupid with money), but my point was there are others who enjoy working till the end. Regardless of whether they need the money or not. And no, they don't give a hoot whether you think its fair or not, whatever fair means.

 

[Dave89]

I agree that it's really not younger docs' or residents' place to insinuate that wanting to work and earn more is wrong, greedy, etc. But the FMG and IMG threats are real, and the stupid "they took errr jerbs" routine isn't clever. Everyone in licensed fields benefits from economic protectionism, and US grads have every right to pursue our own economic interests.

 

[Doctor_anonymous]

I agree that it's really not younger docs' or residents' place to insinuate that wanting to work and earn more is wrong, greedy, etc. But the FMG and IMG threats are real, and the stupid "they took errr jerbs" routine isn't clever. Everyone in licensed fields benefits from economic protectionism, and US grads have every right to pursue our own economic interests.

I could not agree more. The threat of mid levels and of IMGs and FMGs flooding US med market is a disaster for job security and wealth. People love taking shots at “the rich doctors” while praising businessmen who make 500-1m a year. Praising the company owners. Praising billionaires. Then scapegoating the “greedy rich doctors” who try and provide a good service to society. They also misdirect their anger toward “the system” aka insurance companies and the “administrators” and put the physician in their crosshairs instead.

The threat is real. The ninnies that clamor for more residency spots and the woke who think FMGs getting 2.7 GPA in undergrad then just hopping on a plane to a Caribbean school to get a pill mill back door medical degree deserve any sympathy from the ones who did it the traditional way are sorely mistaken. I do not share that sympathy. I want a tight labor market and I want a slow and steady inflation of residency spots as the market demands.

There is a push now for huge inflation of residency funding and spots. Please reach out to your senators and ask them to oppose these measures. The “physician shortage” is largely a fictitious shortage save a few examples in rural areas where no one can make a decent salary living and will not change that fact no matter how many spots open up.

(To the trigger happy jackass out there: Spare me your snarky “way to resurrect this thread routine”)

 

[deleted941485]

I could not agree more. The threat of mid levels and of IMGs and FMGs flooding US med market is a disaster for job security and wealth. People love taking shots at “the rich doctors” while praising businessmen who make 500-1m a year. Praising the company owners. Praising billionaires. Then scapegoating the “greedy rich doctors” who try and provide a good service to society. They also misdirect their anger toward “the system” aka insurance companies and the “administrators” and put the physician in their crosshairs instead.

The threat is real. The ninnies that clamor for more residency spots and the woke who think FMGs getting 2.7 GPA in undergrad then just hopping on a plane to a Caribbean school to get a pill mill back door medical degree deserve any sympathy from the ones who did it the traditional way are sorely mistaken. I do not share that sympathy. I want a tight labor market and I want a slow and steady inflation of residency spots as the market demands.

There is a push now for huge inflation of residency funding and spots. Please reach out to your senators and ask them to oppose these measures. The “physician shortage” is largely a fictitious shortage save a few examples in rural areas where no one can make a decent salary living and will not change that fact no matter how many spots open up.

(To the trigger happy jackass out there: Spare me your snarky “way to resurrect this thread routine”)

The AAMC has wasted no time reminding everyone how "dire" the physician shortage is in this country. The biggest pieces of garbage might be in education and residency training industry.

 

[FutureSurgical]

I could not agree more. The threat of mid levels and of IMGs and FMGs flooding US med market is a disaster for job security and wealth. People love taking shots at “the rich doctors” while praising businessmen who make 500-1m a year. Praising the company owners. Praising billionaires. Then scapegoating the “greedy rich doctors” who try and provide a good service to society. They also misdirect their anger toward “the system” aka insurance companies and the “administrators” and put the physician in their crosshairs instead.

The threat is real. The ninnies that clamor for more residency spots and the woke who think FMGs getting 2.7 GPA in undergrad then just hopping on a plane to a Caribbean school to get a pill mill back door medical degree deserve any sympathy from the ones who did it the traditional way are sorely mistaken. I do not share that sympathy. I want a tight labor market and I want a slow and steady inflation of residency spots as the market demands.

There is a push now for huge inflation of residency funding and spots. Please reach out to your senators and ask them to oppose these measures. The “physician shortage” is largely a fictitious shortage save a few examples in rural areas where no one can make a decent salary living and will not change that fact no matter how many spots open up.

(To the trigger happy jackass out there: Spare me your snarky “way to resurrect this thread routine”)

I agree it's an allocation issue, rather than a true shortage. So how would you address this? And push more physicians into primary care?

 

[point542]

I agree it's an allocation issue, rather than a true shortage. So how would you address this? And push more physicians into primary care?

Until primary care in rural locations becomes more attractive, there will always be an allocation problem. Either the salary has to go up or rural/underserved locations become more desirable. The latter is unlikely to happen (not a knock on rural places but most people don't prefer living/working there), so the salaries would have to go up by a healthy margin which probably won't happen either.