Differential Time-To-Promotion Trajectories Among Female and Male Neurosurgeons Contribute to Gender Disparities in Academic Rank Achievement.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the increasing representation of females in neurosurgical training, the fraction of female to male neurosurgeons decreases dramatically as faculty rank (Assistant, Associate, or Full Professor) increases. To assess this discrepancy, we quantified self-reported time-to-promotion trajectories for female and male neurosurgeons holding academic appointments. METHODS: In this cross-sectional institutional review board (IRB)-approved study, 147 female and 84 male neurosurgeons currently holding faculty positions in the US were contacted via email and invited to complete an anonymous, standardized survey. Respondents provided the calendar year of postgraduate training completion, promotion to different faculty ranks, geographic region of current practice (Western, Midwest, Southern, Northeast), and practice subspecialty. RESULTS: The response rate was 44.2% for females and 59.5% for males, with 114 participants included (65 female, 49 male). On average, female neurosurgeons required 25% longer to become an Associate Professor (P = 0.017), 34% longer to become a Full Professor (P = 0.004), 37% longer for promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor (P < 0.001), and 32% longer from Assistant to Full Professor (P = 0.012). Promotion timelines did not vary by region or specialty among male and female cohorts. Linear regressions revealed that female neurosurgeons with more recent training completion experienced shorter time-to-promotion to Associate and Full Professor compared to females of earlier generations (P = 0.005 and 0.001, respectively), while male timelines remained stable. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies a significant delay in time-to-promotion for female neurosurgeons compared to their male counterparts. Investigation and standardization of promotion timelines are necessary to ensure meaningful representation gains from the increased number of women entering neurosurgical training.

Price Transparency for Cervical Spinal Fusion Among High-Performing Spine Centers in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: As of January 1, 2021, all US hospitals are required by the Hospital Price Transparency Final Rule (HPTFR) to publish standard charges for all items and services, yet the state of price transparency for cervical spinal fusion is unknown. Here, we assess the nationwide price transparency landscape for cervical spinal fusion among high-performing spine centers in the United States. METHODS: In this cross-sectional economic evaluation, we queried publicly available price transparency websites of 332 "high-performing" spine centers, as defined by the US News and World Report. We extracted variables including gross charges for cervical spinal fusion, payor options, price reporting methodology, and prices relevant to consumers including listed cash prices and minimum and maximum negotiated charges. RESULTS: While nearly all 332 high-performing spine surgery centers (99.4%) had an online cost estimation tool, the HPTFR compliance rate was only 8.4%. Gross charges for cervical spinal fusion were accessible for 68.1% of hospitals, discounted cash prices for 46.4% of hospitals, and minimum and maximum charges for 10.8% of hospitals. There were large IQRs for gross charges ($48 491.98-$99 293.37), discounted cash prices ($26 952.25-$66 806.63), minimum charges ($10 766.11-$21 248.36), and maximum charges ($39 280.49-$89 035.35). There was geographic variability in the gross charges of cervical spinal fusion among high-performing spine centers within and between states. There was a significant association between "excellent" discharge to home status and lower mean gross charges. CONCLUSION: Although online cost reporting has drastically increased since implementation of the HPTFR, data reported for cervical spinal fusion remain inadequate and difficult to interpret by both providers and patients.