Association Between Workforce Gender Distribution and Lifetime Earning Potential in the Pediatric Subspecialties.

OBJECTIVE: Examine the relationship between the gender distribution of the pediatric subspecialty workforce and lifetime earning potential. METHODS: We estimated lifetime earning potential for pediatric academic subspecialists using mean debt and compensation data from national physician surveys for 2019 to 2020 and examined the relationship between the workforce gender composition and lifetime earning potential across the pediatric subspecialties using linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Subspecialties with a higher proportion of women had lower lifetime earning potential (-$55,215 in lifetime earning potential/1% increase in the percentage of female subspecialists; P value .002, 95% CI -$24,429 to -$86,000). Similarly, a higher proportion of female first-year fellows was associated with lower lifetime earning potential (-$61,808 in lifetime earning potential/1% increase in the percentage of female first-year fellows; P value .026, 95% CI -$9,210 to -$114,405). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with patterns seen in other areas of adult medicine and surgery, pediatric subspecialties with higher proportions of women, such as adolescent medicine and endocrinology, tended to have lower lifetime earning potentials than subspecialties with higher proportions of men, such as cardiology and critical care. Lower earning subspecialties also tended to train higher proportions of women, suggesting that this trend may worsen over time as pediatrics in general and individual subspecialties in particular become increasingly female predominant.

Differences in Lifetime Earning Potential for Pediatric Subspecialists.

OBJECTIVES: Our 2011 report, reflecting data from 2007-2008, demonstrated that, for many pediatric subspecialties, pursuing fellowship training was a negative financial decision when compared with practicing as a general pediatrician. We provide an updated analysis on the financial impact of pediatric fellowship training and model interventions that can influence the results. METHODS: We estimated the financial returns a graduating pediatric resident might anticipate from fellowship training followed by a career as a pediatric subspecialist and compared them with the returns expected from starting a career as a general pediatrician immediately after residency. We evaluated the potential effects of eliminating medical school debt, shortening the length of fellowship training, and implementing a federal loan repayment program for pediatric subspecialists. We compared the financial returns of subspecialty training in 2018-2019 to those from our previous report. RESULTS: Pursuing fellowship training generated widely variable financial returns when compared with general pediatrics that ranged from +$852 129 for cardiology to -$1 594 366 for adolescent medicine. Twelve of 15 subspecialties analyzed yielded negative financial returns. The differences have become more pronounced over time: the spread between the highest and lowest earning subspecialties widened from >$1.4 million in 2007-2008 to >$2.3 million in 2018-2019. The negative financial impact of fellowship training could be partially ameliorated by shortening the length of training or by implementing pediatric subspecialist specific loan repayment programs. CONCLUSIONS: This report can be used to help guide trainees, educators, and policy makers. The interventions discussed could help maintain an adequate and balanced pediatric workforce.

Differences in Lifetime Earning Potential Between Pediatric and Adult Physicians.

OBJECTIVES: Compare lifetime earning potential between academic pediatric and adult medicine generalists and subspecialists. Evaluate the effect of decreasing the length of training for pediatric subspecialties whose length of training is longer than that for the adult medicine counterpart. METHODS: Using compensation and debt data from national physician surveys for 2019-2020, we estimated and compared the lifetime earning potential for academic pediatric and adult physicians. RESULTS: Lifetime earning potential was higher for adult physicians than for pediatric physicians across all comparable areas of both general and subspecialty academic practice. The lifetime earning potentials for adult physicians averaged 25% more, or $1.2 million higher, than those of the corresponding pediatric physicians. These differences predominantly were not attributable to unequal training length: when we modeled a shortened length of training for pediatric subspecialists, lifetime earning potential for adult subspecialists still averaged 19% more than that for pediatric subspecialists. For both pediatric and adult medicine, the primarily inpatient, procedure-oriented subspecialties had higher lifetime earning potential than the outpatient, less procedure-oriented subspecialties. CONCLUSIONS: Wide differences in lifetime earning potential between pediatric and adult physicians reflected lower compensation in pediatrics, rather than any differences in training length. Inpatient-based, more procedure-oriented subspecialties had higher lifetime earning potential than outpatient-based, less procedure-oriented subspecialties. Interventions that improve the lifetime earning potential of general pediatrics and the pediatric subspecialties, as well as the less procedure-oriented subspecialties across both pediatric and adult medicine, have the potential to impact both clinical practice and access to care.