First, WSJ reported on the starting salaries of physicians and now they are reporting on the trend of increasing signing bonuses given to physicians.
At first I was eager to learn how much physicians make (as I mentioned previously, medical students, residents, and fellows are often clueless about their future net-worth and either ballpark it too high or too low). Now I’m experiencing anger that “we” are still talking about doctors’ income (note I didn’t use the term salary), when we really should be looking at all aspects of health care industry when it comes to reform. Somebody has beef with physician salaries. I also feel that either I’m being lied to by WSJ or I’ve been hoodwinked, over and over again.
I just went through a job search this past year as a graduating fellow (why does WSJ use the term “rookie” – that was when I was an intern!). And although I know that infectious diseases is one of the lower paying medical specialities, I did not hear of base salary averages (not including benefits or productivity bonuses mind you) close to what is being reported. So, I must conclude that the report from Merritt Hawkins & Associates includes seasoned physicians not just “rookies”, that it does not include those who remain in academia, and that there’s a heavy bias from locations like McClellan, Texas, where the business of medicine thrives.
Otherwise, I’ve been seriously hoodwinked! No other explanation. If only these reports came out before I signed my contract…
Remember that the "report" in question is by a recruiting company, representing hospitals/groups that are almost certainly looking with some desperation to fill holes in staffing. Signing bonuses are a luxury only the most hard-pressed places can afford in this ecoonomy, most places are cutting back somewhat.