Changing gender gap and practice patterns in reproductive endocrinology and infertility subspecialists in the United States: a Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility report.

OBJECTIVE: To identify changes in current practice patterns, salaries, and satisfaction by gender and by years in practice among board-certified reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI) subspecialists in the United States. DESIGN: Cross-sectional web-based survey including 37 questions conducted by the Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): None. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The primary outcome measures were total compensation and practice patterns compared by gender and the type of practice. The secondary outcomes included demographics, the number of in vitro fertilization cycles, surgeries performed, and the morale of survey respondents. RESULT(S): There were 370 respondents (48.4% women and 51.4% men). Compared with a similar survey conducted 6 years earlier, a 27% increase in the number of female respondents was observed in this survey. There was a marginally significant trend toward lower compensation for female than male REI subspecialists (17% lower, $472,807 vs. $571,969). The gap was seen for responders with ≥10 years' experience, which is also when there was the largest gap between private and academic practice (mean $820,997 vs, $391,600). Most (77%) felt positively about the current state of the reproductive endocrinology field, and >90% would choose the subspecialty again. CONCLUSION(S): There has been a substantial increase in the number of recent female REI subspecialists showing less disparity in compensation, and the gap appears to be closing. There is an increasing gap in compensation between private and academic practices with ≥5 years of experience. Reproductive endocrinology and infertility remains a high morale specialty.

Gender inequality in salaries among reproductive endocrinology and infertility subspecialists in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether and by how much pay among board-certified or -eligible reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI) subspecialists in the United States differs by gender. DESIGN: Cross-sectional Web-based survey. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): None. INTERVENTION(S): Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The primary outcome measure was continuous income, which was calculated using the mid-point of salary and bonuses as reported in the survey. Secondary outcomes included income based on type of practice, years in practice, region of the country in practice, and race/ethnicity of survey respondent. RESULT(S): Among 215 responses, 49% were female and 95% were full Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility members. Fewer women reported being in private practice than men (45% vs. 64%). Female gender was associated with an income gap of 27% in unadjusted comparisons. When adjusted for years in practice and type of practice (private vs. other), the gap diminished to 21% but remained significant, with men reporting higher incomes than women. CONCLUSION(S): The gender pay gap present among physicians and obstetricians and gynecologists more widely persists among REI subspecialists even when accounting for characteristics related to differences in pay. Acknowledging the pay gap among REI subspecialists is the first step in working toward gender-neutral compensation for equivalent work.

Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Context: There has been a proliferation of clinical practice guidelines in endocrinology and a coincident increased interest in transparency regarding relationships between physicians and industry. Evidence Acquisition: We collected self-reported disclosures and Open Payments data for 169 authors of 26 clinical practice guidelines published between 2010 and 2017 by the Endocrine Society. Conflicts of interest in which pharmaceutical and device companies manufactured drugs or products pertinent to an author's specific clinical practice guideline(s) were deemed relevant. Open Payments data were grouped into research and nonresearch (consultancies, honoraria, travel, food) categories. Evidence Synthesis: We compared the policies of the Endocrine Society regarding seven conflict of interest recommendations issued by the National Academy of Medicine in 2011. Conclusion: Relevant nonresearch financial conflicts of interest were self-reported by 42% of authors of clinical practice guidelines. Open Payments were recorded for 74% (84 of 113) of US authors between 2013 and 2016. Payments to 84 US authors totaled $5.5 million for nonresearch activities and $30.9 million for research. The nonresearch payments were divided into consulting (46%), honoraria (26%), travel (25%), and food (3%). The Endocrine Society partially follows the National Academy of Medicine recommendations to limit conflicts of interest. Readers should be aware of how clinical practice guidelines are developed and the policies of the organizations and journals that publish them. Professional societies and journal editors should strive to ensure that their policies and practices promote objective and unbiased clinical practice guidelines.

Estimated Cost-Effectiveness, Cost Benefit, and Risk Reduction Associated with an Endocrinologist-Pharmacist Diabetes Intense Medical Management "Tune-Up" Clinic.

BACKGROUND: In 2012 U.S. diabetes costs were estimated to be $245 billion, with $176 billion related to direct diabetes treatment and associated complications. Although a few studies have reported positive glycemic and economic benefits for diabetes patients treated under primary care physician (PCP)-pharmacist collaborative practice models, no studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of an endocrinologist-pharmacist collaborative practice model treating complex diabetes patients versus usual PCP care for similar patients. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness and cost benefit of a collaborative endocrinologist-pharmacist Diabetes Intense Medical Management (DIMM) "Tune-Up" clinic for complex diabetes patients versus usual PCP care from 3 perspectives (clinic, health system, payer) and time frames. METHODS: Data from a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (A1c) ≥ 8% who were referred to the DIMM clinic at the Veterans Affairs San Diego Health System were used for cost analyses against a comparator group of PCP patients meeting the same criteria. The DIMM clinic took more time with patients, compared with usual PCP visits. It provided personalized care in three 60-minute visits over 6 months, combining medication therapy management with patient-specific diabetes education, to achieve A1c treatment goals before discharge back to the PCP. Data for DIMM versus PCP patients were used to evaluate cost-effectiveness and cost benefit. Analyses included incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) at 6 months, 3-year estimated total medical costs avoided and return on investment (ROI), absolute risk reduction of complications, resultant medical costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 10 years. RESULTS: Base case ICER results indicated that from the clinic perspective, the DIMM clinic costs $21 per additional percentage point of A1c improvement and $115-$164 per additional patient at target A1c goal level compared with the PCP group. From the health system perspective, medical cost avoidance due to improved A1c was $8,793 per DIMM patient versus $3,506 per PCP patient (P = 0.009), resulting in an ROI of $9.01 per dollar spent. From the payer perspective, DIMM patients had estimated lower total medical costs, a greater number of QALYs gained, and appreciable risk reductions for diabetes-related complications over 2-, 5- and 10-year time frames, indicating that the DIMM clinic was dominant. Sensitivity analyses indicated results were robust, and overall conclusions did not change appreciably when key parameters (including DIMM clinic effectiveness and cost) were varied within plausible ranges. CONCLUSIONS: The DIMM clinic endocrinologist-pharmacist collaborative practice model, in which the pharmacist spent more time providing personalized care, improved glycemic control at a minimal cost per additional A1c benefit gained and produced greater cost avoidance, appreciable ROI, reduction in long-term complication risk, and lower cost for a greater gain in QALYs. Overall, the DIMM clinic represents an advanced pharmacy practice model with proven clinical and economic benefits from multiple perspectives for patients with T2DM and high medication and comorbidity complexity. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Preliminary versions of the study data were presented in abstract form at the American Pharmacists Association Annual Meeting & Exposition; March 27, 2015; San Diego, California, and the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Annual Meeting; April 21, 2016; San Francisco, California. Study concept and design were contributed by Hirsch, Bounthavong, and Edelman, along with Morello and Morreale. Arjmand, Ourth, Ha, Cadiz, and Zimmerman collected the data. Data interpretation was performed by Ha, Morreale, and Morello, along with Cadiz, Ourth, and Hirsch. The manuscript was written primarily by Hirsch and Zimmerman, along with Arjamand, Ourth, and Morello, and was revised by Hirsch and Cadiz, along with Bounthavong, Ha, Morreale, and Morello.

Career Advancement: Meeting the Challenges Confronting the Next Generation of Endocrinologists and Endocrine Researchers.

CONTEXT: Challenges and opportunities face the next generation (Next-Gen) of endocrine researchers and clinicians, the lifeblood of the field of endocrinology for the future. A symposium jointly sponsored by The Endocrine Society and the Endocrine Society of Australia was convened to discuss approaches to addressing the present and future Next-Gen needs. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Data collection by literature review, assessment of previously completed questionnaires, commissioning of a new questionnaire, and summarization of symposium discussions were studied. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Next-Gen endocrine researchers face diminishing grant funding in inflation-adjusted terms. The average age of individuals being awarded their first independent investigator funding has increased to age 45 years. For clinicians, a workforce gap exists between endocrinologists needed and those currently trained. Clinicians in practice are increasingly becoming employees of integrated hospital systems, resulting in greater time spent on nonclinical issues. Workforce data and published reviews identify challenges specifically related to early career women in endocrinology. Strategies to Address Issues: Recommendations encompassed the areas of grant support for research, mentoring, education, templates for career development, specific programs for Next-Gen members by senior colleagues as outlined in the text, networking, team science, and life/work integration. Endocrine societies focusing on Next-Gen members provide a powerful mechanism to support these critical areas. CONCLUSIONS: A concerted effort to empower, train, and support the next generation of clinical endocrinologists and endocrine researchers is necessary to ensure the viability and vibrancy of our discipline and to optimize our contributions to improving health outcomes. Collaborative engagement of endocrine societies globally will be necessary to support our next generation moving forward.

Exploring the determinants of endocrinologist visits by patients with diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is today a major public health concern in terms of its financial and social burden. Previous studies have revealed that specialist care for patients with diabetes leads to more positive outcomes than care by general practitioners (GPs) alone. The aim of this study was to estimate the determinants of endocrinologist consultation by patients with diabetes. METHODS: We used a two-part model to explore both the decision to consult and the frequency of consultations. We used claim data collected for 65,633 affiliates of a French social security provider. Patients were aged over 18 and treated for diabetes (types I and II). We controlled for patients' socioeconomic characteristics, type of diabetes treatment, medical care, and health status. We also controlled for variables, such as the cost of a visit, the distance to the nearest endocrinologist's office, the density of medical practitioners and the prevalence of diabetes in the area. RESULTS: The results show that the parameters associated with the decision to consult an endocrinologist were considerably different from factors associated with the frequency of consultations. A marked positive effect of income on the decision to consult was found, whereas travel time to the office had a negative impact on both the decision to consult and the frequency of consultations. Increasing treatment complexity is associated with a higher probability of consulting an endocrinologist. We found evidence of a significant substitution effect between GPs and endocrinologists. Finally, consultation price is a barrier to seeing an endocrinologist. CONCLUSION: Given that financial barriers were identified in the relatively wealthy population analysed here, it is likely that this may be even more of an obstacle in the general population.