NIH Funding of Researchers in Surgery: Decreased Career Development Awards Over Time.

BACKGROUND: Over time, NIH funding has become increasingly competitive. In addition, academic surgeons' research competes with time required for patient care, operating, and administrative work. Due to these competing interests for surgeons, we hypothesize that the percentage of NIH grants awarded to researchers from departments of surgery is decreasing. METHODS: The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool was queried for the number and value of new and renewal R01 grants, and career development awards noting which surgery departments received awards from 1998 to -2018. Statistical analysis was performed using univariate and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: The number of career development awards granted to researchers from departments of surgery decreased significantly over time (P = 0.007) while new R01's and R01 renewal awards were stable. The number of grants awarded to researchers from all procedural departments were compared to non-procedural departments and again, career development awards decreased significantly (P = 0.005) over time but new R01's and R01 renewals stayed stable. Looking at the difference in average dollar amount received for new R01, renewal R01, or career development awards between department of surgery awardees and non-surgery over time, there was no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: NIH funding is becoming increasingly competitive and surgeons have many competing interests. Our study found that there has been a significant decrease in career development awards to department of surgery awardees and procedural specialists. The decrease in receipt of these awards is particularly concerning given that they are meant to provide protected time for developing researchers and thus have potential consequences for future research.

Surgical Residents' Perceptions of the Impact of Productivity-Based Faculty Compensation at an Academic Medical Center.

BACKGROUND: Academic medical centers have increasingly adopted productivity-based compensation models for faculty. The potential exists for conflict between financial incentives and the quality of surgical resident education. This study aims to examine surgical residents' perceptions regarding the impact of productivity-based compensation on education. METHODS: Following implementation of a productivity-based compensation plan, a survey of surgical residents (general surgery, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, urology, orthopedic surgery, and neurosurgery) was conducted to examine perceptions of its impact on didactics, patient care, surgical technique, teaching in the operating room, and financial considerations. Survey data were prospectively collected and analyzed. A retrospective analysis of relative value units (RVUs) was also performed. RESULTS: Following implementation of the productivity-based compensation plan, annual work RVUs increased by 8.9% in surgery as a whole, with increases observed within all surgical subspecialties. A total of 100 surveys were sent and 35 were completed (35% response rate and at least 30% within each surgical subspecialty). Forty-nine percent of participants perceived an increased focus on clinical productivity by faculty. Thirty-seven percent reported learning more about RVUs and Current Procedural Terminology coding. Most residents reported that the compensation plan did not have an impact on their education with respect to didactics (77%), patient care (94%), surgical technique (97%), and teaching in the operating room (83%). CONCLUSIONS: Increased clinical productivity in the setting of an RVU-based compensation plan was not perceived by most surgical residents to have impacted their education. In some cases, this model may enhance education in relation to RVUs, Current Procedural Terminology coding, and the financial aspects of surgery.

Gender disparities in academic vascular surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have identified significant gender discrepancies in grant funding, leadership positions, and publication impact in surgical subspecialties. We investigated whether these discrepancies were also present in academic vascular surgery. METHODS: Academic websites from institutions with vascular surgery training programs were queried to identify academic faculty, and leadership positions were noted. H-index, number of citations, and total number of publications were obtained from Scopus and PubMed. Grant funding amounts and awards data were obtained from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Society for Vascular Surgery websites. Industry funding amount was obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. Nonsurgical physicians and support staff were excluded from this analysis. RESULTS: We identified 177 female faculty (18.6%) and 774 male faculty (81.4%). A total of 41 (23.2%) female surgeons held leadership positions within their institutions compared with 254 (32.9%) male surgeons (P = .009). Female surgeons held the rank of assistant professor 50.3% of the time in contrast to 33.9% of men (P < .001). The rank of associate professor was held at similar rates, 25.4% vs 20.7% (P = .187), respectively. Fewer women than men held the full professor rank, 10.7% compared with 26.2% (P < .001). Similarly, women held leadership positions less often than men, including division chief (6.8% vs 13.7%; P < .012) and vice chair of surgery (0% vs 2.2%; P < .047), but held more positions as vice dean of surgery (0.6% vs 0%; P < .037) and chief executive officer (0.6% vs 0%; P < .037). Scientific contributions based on the number of each surgeon's publications were found to be statistically different between men and women. Women had an average of 42.3 publications compared with 64.8 for men (P < .001). Female vascular surgeons were cited an average of 655.2 times, less than half the average citations of their male counterparts with 1387 citations (P < .001). The average H-index was 9.5 for female vascular surgeons compared with 13.7 for male vascular surgeons (P < .001). Correcting for years since initial board certification, women had a higher H-index per year in practice (1.32 vs 1.02; P = .005). Female vascular surgeons were more likely to have received NIH grants than their male colleagues (9.6% vs 4.0%; P = .017). Although substantial, the average value of NIH grants awarded was not statistically significant between men and women, with men on average receiving $915,590.74 ($199,119.00-$2,910,600.00) and women receiving $707,205.35 ($61,612.00-$4,857,220.00; P = .416). There was no difference in the distribution of Society for Vascular Surgery seed grants to women and men since 2007. Industry payments made publicly available according to the Sunshine Act for the year 2018 were also compared, and female vascular surgeons received an average of $2155.28 compared with their male counterparts, who received almost four times as much at $8452.43 (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although there is certainly improved representation of women in vascular surgery compared with several decades ago, a discrepancy still persists. Women tend to have more grants than men and receive less in industry payments, but they hold fewer leadership positions, do not publish as frequently, and are cited less than their male counterparts. Further investigation should be aimed at identifying the causes of gender disparity and systemic barriers to gender equity in academic vascular surgery.

Men Receive Three Times More Industry Payments than Women Academic Orthopaedic Surgeons, Even After Controlling for Confounding Variables.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, orthopaedic surgeons received nearly USD 300 million from industry, with the top 10% of recipients making more than 95% of the total amount. The degree to which gender may be associated with industry compensation has not been well explored; however, this may be confounded by a number of variables, including academic productivity, experience, and other factors. We wished to explore the variability in payment distribution by gender after controlling for these factors. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Do men or women academic orthopaedic surgeons receive more payments from industry? (2) To what degree do any observed differences between the genders persist, even after accounting for identifiable factors, including academic rank, scholarly productivity, regional location of university, subspecialty selection as identified by fellowships completed, and years since completion of residency? METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional retrospective analysis of surgeons practicing in orthopaedic surgery academic departments in the United States. Academic orthopaedic surgery departments were identified using the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database. Publicly available data on gender, academic rank, scholarly productivity, regional location of university, fellowships completed, and years since residency graduation were collected from institutional websites. Industry funding data for 2016 were obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database, and scholarly productivity data through 2017 were collected from Scopus. A total of 2939 academic orthopaedic surgeons, 2620 (89%) men and 319 (11%) women from 126 programs were identified. Men and women surgeons were different in most of the variables collected, and all except region of university were associated with differences in industry payments. RESULTS: The median payment for men surgeons was greater than that for women (USD 1027 [interquartile range USD 125-USD 9616] versus USD 177 [IQR USD 47-USD 1486]; difference of medians, USD 850; p < 0.001]. After accounting for potentially confounding variables like faculty rank, years since residency, H-index and subspecialty choice, women faculty members still received only 29% of payments received by otherwise comparable men orthopaedists (beta coefficient for gender = 0.29 [95% CI 0.20 to 0.44; p < 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: Women academic orthopaedic surgeons received only 29% of the industry payments received by men, even after controlling for faculty rank, years since residency, H-index, and subspecialty selection. This gender-related disparity may hinder the career advancement of women orthopaedic surgeons. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Increased transparency by companies can help guide orthopaedic surgeons who wish to receive industry funding.

Salary Disparities in Academic Urogynecology: Despite Increased Transparency, Men Still Earn More Than Women.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the compensation differences between male and female academic urogynecologists at public institutions. METHODS: Urogynecologists at public universities with publicly available salary data as of June 2019 were eligible for the study. We collected characteristics, including sex, additional advanced degrees, years of training, board certification, leadership roles, number of authored scientific publications, and total National Institutes of Health funding projects and number of registered clinical trials for which the physician was a principal or co-investigator. We also collected total number of Medicare beneficiaries treated and total Medicare reimbursement as reported by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. We used linear regression to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: We identified 85 academic urogynecologists at 29 public state academic institutions with available salary data eligible for inclusion in the study. Males were more likely to be an associate or a full professor (81%) compared with females (55%) and were more likely to serve as department chair, vice chair, or division director (59%) compared with females (30%). The mean annual salary was significantly higher among males ($323,227 ± $97,338) than females ($268,990 ± $72,311, P = 0.004). After adjusting for academic rank and leadership roles and years since residency, the discrepancy persisted, with females compensated on average $37,955 less annually. CONCLUSIONS: Salaries are higher for male urogynecologists than female urogynecologists, even when accounting for variables such as academic rank and leadership roles. Physician compensation is complex; the differences observed may be due to variables that are not captured in this study. Nevertheless, the magnitude of disparity found in our study warrants further critical assessment of potential biases within the field.

Mentorship of US Medical Students: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Mentoring of medical students remains a core pillar of medical education, yet the changing landscape of medicine has called for new and innovative mentoring models to guide students in professional development, career placement, and overall student well-being. The objective of this review is to identify and describe models of mentorship for US medical students. METHODS: We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Education Resources Information Center, and Cochrane Databases of Systematic Reviews following PRISMA guidelines. We included original, English-language studies of any research design including descriptive studies that described a mentorship program at a US medical school designed for medical students. RESULTS: Our search yielded 3743 unique citations. Thirty articles met our inclusion criteria. There was significant diversity of the identified programs with regard to program objectives and size. The traditional dyad model of mentorship was the most frequently cited model, with a combination of models (dyad and group mentorship) cited as the second most common. Outcome measures of the programs were largely survey based, with satisfaction being the most measured outcome. Overall, satisfaction was highly rated throughout all the measured mentoring programs. Seven programs provided objective outcomes measures, including improved residency match data and increased scholarly productivity. The programs with objective outcomes measures were smaller, and 6/7 of them focused on a specific clinical area. Five of these programs relied on the traditional dyad model of mentorship. Cost and faculty time were the most frequently cited barriers to these programs. DISCUSSION: Our review demonstrates that mentoring programs for medical students can positively improve medical school satisfaction and career development. These results underscore the need for continued innovative mentoring programs to foster optimal student development in the setting of the increasingly competitive residency match process, growing expectations about student research productivity, and the national focus for overall student wellness.

Analysis of Open Payments Receipts Among Surgical Faculty at a Large Academic Institution.

BACKGROUND: Section 6002 of the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as "The Sunshine Act," is legislation designed to provide transparency to the relationship between physicians and industry. Since 2013, medical product and pharmaceutical manufacturers were required to report any payments made to physicians to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). We predicted that most clinical faculty at our institution would be found on the Open Payments website. We elected to investigate payments in relationship to divisions within the department of surgery and the level of professorship. METHODS: All clinical faculty (n = 86) within the department of surgery at our institution were searched within the database: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/. The total amount of payments, number of payments, and the nature of payments (food and beverage, travel and lodging, consulting, education, speaking, entertainment, gifts and honoraria) were recorded for 2017. Comparison by unpaired t-test (or ANOVA) where applicable, significance defined as P < 0.05. RESULTS: Of the 86 faculty studied, 75% were found within the CMS Open Payments database in 2017. The mean amount of payment was $4024 (range $13-152,215). Median amount of payment was $434.90 (range $12.75-152,214.70). Faculty receiving outside compensation varied significantly by division and academic rank (P < 0.05). Plastic surgery had the highest percentage of people receiving any form of payment ($143-$1912) and GI surgery had the largest payments associated with device management ($0-$152,215). The variation seen by rank was driven by a small number of faculty with receipt of large payments at the associate professor level. The median amount of payment was $428.53 (range $13.97-2306.05) for assistant professors, $5328.03 (range $28.30-152,214.70) for Associate Professors, and $753.82 (range $12.75-17,708.65) for full professors. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of open payments to CMS provides transparency between physicians and industry. The significant relationship of division and rank with open payments database is driven by relatively few faculty. The majority (94%) received either no payments or less than $10,000.

Gender Differences in Academic Rank and NIH Funding among Academic Maternal-Fetal Medicine Physicians in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: This article evaluates gender differences in academic rank and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding among academic maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) physicians. STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study of board-certified academic MFM physicians. Physicians were identified in July 2017 from the MFM fellowship Web sites. Academic rank and receipt of any NIH funding were compared by gender. Data on potential confounders were collected, including years since board certification, region of practice, additional degrees, number of publications, and h-index. RESULTS: We identified 659 MFM physicians at 72 institutions, 312 (47.3%) male and 347 (52.7%) female. There were 246 (37.3%) full, 163 (24.7%) associate, and 250 (37.9%) assistant professors. Among the 154 (23.4%) MFM physicians with NIH funding, 89 (57.8%) were male and 65 (42.2%) were female (p = 0.003). Adjusting for potential confounders, male MFM physicians were twice as likely to hold a higher academic rank than female MFM physicians (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.04 [95% confidence interval, 1.39-2.94], p < 0.001). There was no difference in NIH funding between male and female MFM physicians (aOR, 1.23 [0.79-1.92], p = 0.36). CONCLUSION: Compared with female academic MFM physicians, male academic MFM physicians were twice as likely to hold a higher academic rank but were no more likely to receive NIH funding.

To Pay or Not to Pay Community Preceptors? That Is a Question .

Phenomenon: Pairing medical students with community-based preceptors has provided unique medical education advantages. However, due to an increase in the number of M.D.-granting medical schools and medical school class sizes, academic medical institutions have struggled to recruit community preceptors to teach their students. This task has been made more difficult due to rising pressures upon institutions and clinicians-for example, increased productivity demands, greater volume and oversight of electronic health record documentation, and competition for community preceptors from both D.O. and non-U.S.-based medical schools. Although academic institutions have historically relied largely on altruistic motives and intrinsic rewards to actively engage and retain community-based preceptors, alternative models have arisen, chiefly those in which community-based preceptors are explicitly compensated for teaching. Approach: To study this phenomenon, representatives of the Alliance for Clinical Education developed and deployed a 31-item survey accompanied with a subset of free text questions to the collective membership of its 8-member constituent organizations. Survey questions explored if community preceptors were compensated indirectly or directly and what types of compensation were provided, if any. There were 188 surveys analyzed, with an estimated response rate of 18.2%. Findings: Twenty-six percent of respondents indicated they compensate community preceptors directly and/or indirectly. Respondents discussed their motivations for payment (or nonpayment), mechanisms for paying, aspirations to pay, and expectations of the recipient. No statistically significant association was found when comparing responses of paid versus not paid by region. Free text responses provided additional insight regarding payment considerations, institutional competition, recruitment/retention, recognition, and education issues. Insights: Increasingly, medical schools are finding it necessary to provide funding for community preceptors in order to retain them. New creative forms of compensation to community preceptors may prove important in the future for this vital aspect of medical student education.

An Academic Relative Value Unit System for Incentivizing the Academic Productivity of Surgery Faculty Members.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate a new academic relative-value unit (aRVU) scoring system linked to faculty compensation and analyze its association with overall departmental academic productivity. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Faculty are often not incentivized or financially compensated for educational and research activities crucial to the academic mission. METHODS: We launched an online, self-reporting aRVU system in 2015 to document and incentivize the academic productivity of our faculty. The system captured 65 specific weighted scores in 5 major categories of research, education, innovation, academic service, and peer review activities. The aRVU scores were rank-aggregated annually, and bonuses were distributed to faculty members in 3 tiers: top 10%, top third, and top half. We compared pre-aRVU (academic year 2015) to post-aRVU (academic year 2017) departmental achievement metrics. RESULTS: Since 2015, annual aRVU bonuses totaling $493,900 were awarded to 59 faculty members (58% of eligible department faculty). Implementing aRVUs was associated with significant increases in several key departmental academic achievement metrics: presentations (579 to 862; P = 0.02; 49% increase), publications (390 to 446; P = 0.02; 14%), total research funding ($4.6 M to $8.4 M; P < 0.001; 83%), NIH funding ($0.6 M to $3.4 M; P < 0.001; 467%), industry-sponsored clinical trials (8 to 23; P = 0.002; 188%), academic society committee positions (226 to 298; P < 0.001; 32%), and editorial leadership positions (50 to 74; P = 0.01; 48%). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing an aRVU system was associated with increases in departmental academic productivity. Although other factors undoubtedly contributed to these increases, an aRVU program may represent an important mechanism for tracking and rewarding academic productivity in surgery departments.

A Structured Compensation Plan Improves But Does Not Erase the Sex Pay Gap in Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between the sex pay gap in a large academic department of surgery and a recently instituted structured compensation plan. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A recent large study found that after controlling for measures of academic and clinical productivity, male physicians earned nearly $20,000 more annually than female physicians. Increased salary transparency has been proposed as a method to reduce this disparity. METHODS: A new structured compensation plan was developed to improve transparency of compensation and financial viability of each division. The total compensations of each faculty member before and after the new compensation plan were calculated. Salaries were compared with the Association of Academic Medical Colleges (AAMC) median value based on specialty, region, academic rank, stratified by sex and compared. Work relative value units (wRVUs) were calculated for each faculty member during the entire study period, stratified by sex and compared. RESULTS: Among 44 eligible surgeons (33 men and 11 women), a sex pay gap existed with male surgeon salaries significantly higher than female surgeon salaries [56% (8 to 213) vs 26% (1 to 64); P < 0.00001] despite similar RVU production (men 8725 ±â€Š831 vs women 7818 ±â€Š911, P = 0.454). The new compensation plan did not significantly change male surgeon salaries [56% (8 to 213) vs 58% (26 to 159); P = 0.552] but did significantly increase the salaries of female surgeons [26% (1 to 64) vs 42% (10 to 80); P = 0.026]. CONCLUSION: A structured compensation plan can improve the sex pay gap in a short period of time. More transparency in surgical compensation plans is essential to understand the most equitable way to compensate all surgeons.

Analysis of Gender-based Differences in Surgery Faculty Compensation, Promotion, and Retention: Establishing Equity.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to evaluate gender-based differences in faculty salaries before and after implementation of a university-wide objective compensation plan, Faculty First (FF), in alignment with Association of American Medical Colleges regional median salary (AAMC-WRMS). Gender-based differences in promotion and retention were also assessed. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Previous studies demonstrate that female faculty within surgery are compensated less than male counterparts are and have decreased representation in higher academic ranks and leadership positions. METHODS: At a single institution, surgery faculty salaries and work relative value units (wRVUs) were reviewed from 2009 to 2017, and time to promotion and retention were reviewed from 1998 to 2007. In 2015, FF supplanted specialty-specific compensation plans. Salaries and wRVUs relative to AAMC-WRMS, time to promotion, and retention were compared between genders. RESULTS: Female faculty (N = 24) were compensated significantly less than males were (N = 62) before FF (P = 0.004). Female faculty compensation significantly increased after FF (P < 0.001). After FF, female and male faculty compensation was similar (P = 0.32). Average time to promotion for female (N = 29) and male faculty (N = 82) was similar for promotion to associate professor (P = 0.49) and to full professor (P = 0.37). Promotion was associated with significantly higher retention for both genders (P < 0.001). The median time of departure was similar between female and male faculty (P = 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: A university-wide objective compensation plan increased faculty salaries to the AAMC western region median, allowing correction of gender-based salary inequity. Time to promotion and retention was similar between female and male faculty.

Update regarding the society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) grant distribution and impact on recipient's academic career.

BACKGROUND: Small seed grants strongly impact academic careers, result in future funding, and lead to increased involvement in surgical societies. We hypothesize that, in accordance with the SAGES Research and Career Development committee mission, there has been a shift in grant support from senior faculty to residents and junior faculty. We hypothesize that these junior physician-researchers are subsequently remaining involved with SAGES and advancing within their academic institutions. METHODS: All current and previous SAGES grant recipients were surveyed through Survey Monkey™. Questions included current academic status and status at time of grant, ensuing funding, publication and presentation of grant, and impact on career. Results were verified through a Medline query. SAGES database was examined for involvement within the society. Respondent data were compared to 2009 data. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety four grants were awarded to 167 recipients. Of those, 75 investigators responded for a response rate 44.9%. 32% were trainees, 43% assistant professors, 16% associate professors, 3% full professors, 3% professors with tenure, and 3% in private practice. This is a shift from 2009 data with a considerable increase in funding of trainees by 19% and assistant professors by 10% and a decrease in funding of associate professors by 5% and professors by 10%. 41% of responders who were awarded the grant as assistant or associate professors had advanced to full professor and 99% were currently in academic medicine. Eighty-two percent indicated that they had completed their project and 93% believed that the award helped their career. All responders remained active in SAGES. CONCLUSION: SAGES has chosen to reallocate an increased percentage of grant money to more junior faculty members and residents. It appears that these grants may play a role in keeping recipients interested in the academic surgical realm and involved in the society while simultaneously helping them advance in faculty rank.

US Postgraduate Trainee Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Representation and Faculty Compensation By Specialty.

This study compares postgraduate trainee racial, ethnic, and gender representation and faculty compensation for 21 clinical specialties using 2015-2022 data.

The Role of PhD Faculty in Advancing Research in Departments of Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the academic contribution as measured by number of publications, citations, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding from PhD scientists in US departments of surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The number of PhD faculty working in US medical school clinical departments now exceeds the number working in basic science departments. The academic impact of PhDs in surgery has not been previously evaluated. METHODS: Academic metrics for 3850 faculties at the top 55 NIH-funded university and hospital-based departments of surgery were collected using NIH RePORTER, Scopus, and departmental websites. RESULTS: MD/PhDs and PhDs had significantly higher numbers of publications and citations than MDs, regardless of academic or institutional rank. PhDs had the greatest proportion of NIH funding compared to both MDs and MD/PhDs. Across all academic ranks, 50.2% of PhDs had received NIH funding compared with 15.2% of MDs and 33.9% of MD/PhDs (P < 0.001). The proportion of PhDs with NIH funding in the top 10 departments did not differ from those working in departments ranked 11 to 50 (P = 0.456). A greater percentage of departmental PhD faculty was associated with increased rates of MD funding. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of dedicated research faculty with PhDs supports the academic mission of surgery departments by increasing both NIH funding and scholarly productivity. In contrast to MDs and MD/PhDs, PhDs seem to have similar levels of academic output and funding independent of the overall NIH funding environment of their department. This suggests that research programs in departments with limited resources may be enhanced by the recruitment of PhD faculty.

Sex Differences in Radiologist Salary in U.S. Public Medical Schools.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate salary differences between male and female academic radiologists at U.S. medical schools. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Laws in several U.S. states mandate public release of government records, including salary information of state employees. From online salary data published by 12 states, we extracted the salaries of all academic radiologists at 24 public medical schools during 2011-2013 (n = 573 radiologists). In this institutional review board-approved cross-sectional study, we linked these data to a physician database with information on physician sex, age, faculty rank, years since residency, clinical trial involvement, National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, scientific publications, and clinical volume measured by 2013 Medicare payments. Sex difference in salary, the primary outcome, was estimated using a multilevel logistic regression adjusting for these factors. RESULTS: Among 573 academic radiologists, 171 (29.8%) were women. Female radiologists were younger (48.5 vs 51.6 years, p = 0.001) and more likely to be assistant professors (50.9% [87/171] vs 40.8% [164/402], p = 0.026). Salaries between men and women were similar in unadjusted analyses ($290,660 vs $289,797; absolute difference, $863; 95% CI, -$18,363 to $20,090), and remained so after adjusting for age, faculty rank, years since residency, clinical trial involvement, publications, total Medicare payments, NIH funding, and graduation from a highly ranked medical school. CONCLUSION: Among academic radiologists employed at 24 U.S. public medical schools, male and female radiologists had similar annual salaries both before and after adjusting for several variables known to influence salary among academic physicians.

Psychiatry Departments Under Constrained Funding Mechanisms or What Is a Chairperson to Do?

OBJECTIVE: The authors surveyed academic departments of psychiatry to examine what effect decreases in funding levels may be having. METHODS: An internet survey of all departments of psychiatry was conducted at US medical schools. The response rate was 43 of 120 programs. Both large more research intensive and smaller more clinical departments responded. RESULTS: Majorities of departments reported that funding decreases negatively impacted faculty recruitment, research, faculty retention, and teaching programs. Approximately, one-third reported laying-off non-tenured faculty members and almost half, staff members. Graduate Medical Education (GME) funding was also a challenge. Departments reported responding by attempting to develop alternative funding sources. Few departments in the sample were doing significant fund raising. CONCLUSIONS: Academic departments find themselves stressed financially and are constricting some functions that are thought important. They are, in general, not able to replace lost funding. The research enterprise appears to be disproportionately affected and results in problems recruiting faculty. GME programs thus far seem less affected. Overall, funding issues appear to be causing serious issues that will have long-term consequences.