Surgeon compensation in academic medicine.

Academic surgery is the best career one could ever aspire to have; however, given the long duration of training and the anticipated education debt, surgeon compensation has not kept pace with the compensation of other comparable careers. As surgeon compensation has experienced increased downward pressure, it has become of growing importance to those in academic medicine/surgery. Competitive compensation is necessary, even if not sufficient, for successful faculty recruitment and retention. The optimal compensation system should encourage the best possible patient care, inspire teamwork, maximize the department's or physician practice's ability to recruit and retain faculty, support all missions, and be viewed as equitable and transparent. The goal of an optimal compensation system is to have faculty minds focused on things other than compensation-those elements of their job that are most important, such as career development, multidisciplinary clinical programs, research, and education. One way to ensure that compensation stays in the background for academic surgeons is for leadership to keep this front and center. Compensation plans can influence behavior and time management and affect the clinical, academic, and educational contributions of surgeons and physicians of all specialties. As we strive to optimize the productivity and engagement of a health system's most valuable resource-those who deliver surgical care and create new knowledge-compensation is an important variable in need of constant attention.

The hidden costs of the intercollegiate membership of the Royal College of surgeons examinations: Can trainees afford it?

BACKGROUND: The Intercollegiate Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) examination is a mandatory requirement for higher specialty surgical training in the UK. However, there is a significant economic impact on trainees which raises the question of whether the costs of this exam hinder surgical career progression. This study explores the burden of these exams on trainees. METHODS: A 37-point questionnaire was distributed to all trainees who were preparing for or have sat MRCS examinations. Univariate analyses included the cost of the preparatory resources, extra hours worked to pay for these and the examinations, and the number of annual leave (AL) days taken to prepare. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to identify possible correlation between monetary expenditure and success rate. RESULTS: On average, trainees (n â€‹= â€‹145) spent £332.54, worked 31.2 â€‹h in addition to their rostered hours, and used 5.8 AL days to prepare for MRCS Part A. For MRCS Part B/ENT, trainees spent on average £682.92, worked 41.7 extra hours, and used 5 AL days. Overall, the average trainee spent 5-9% of their salary and one-fifth of their AL allowance to prepare for the exams. There was a positive correlation between number of attempts and monetary expenditure on Part A preparation (r(109)=0.536, p â€‹< â€‹0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There is a considerable financial and social toll of the MRCS examination on trainees. Reducing this is crucial to tackle workforce challenges that include trainee retention and burnout. Further studies exploring study habits can help reform study budget policies to ease this pressure on trainees.

Assessing the Benefits and Downsides of Physician Review Websites to Plastic Surgeons: A Cost-Benefit Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients often evaluate the reputations of plastic surgeons based on their performances on physician review websites. This article aims to compare rating methodologies and conduct a cost-benefit analysis of physician review websites to further understand how plastic surgeons and their patients can utilize review websites to inform their practice and care. METHODS: A review of online literature, blogs, and 17 of the most common physician review websites was conducted to identify information on review website methodology, cost, and benefits most pertinent to plastic surgeons and their patients. RESULTS: Physician review websites utilize various combinations of physician-related and unrelated criteria to evaluate plastic surgeons. Across 17 reviewed platforms, most (71%) utilize star ratings to rate physicians, 18% require an appointment to conduct a review, and 35% feature search engine optimization. Many websites (53%) allow physicians to pay for benefits or extension packages, with benefits offered including advertising, search engine optimization, competitor blocking, social media marketing, consultant services, and data analytics. Competitor blocking was provided by the most number of websites who offered additional services for pay (78%). CONCLUSIONS: Appointments are not required to post physician reviews on many review websites, and many websites allow physicians to purchase packages to enhance their search engine optimization or consumer reach. Accordingly, plastic surgeons' reputations on review websites may be influenced by factors extraneous to actual patient care. Patients and physicians should be cognizant that physician review websites may not be reflective of factors related to quality of patient care.

Rates of National Institutes of Health Funding for Surgeon-Scientists, 1995-2020.

Importance: Surgeon-scientists are uniquely positioned to facilitate translation between the laboratory and clinical settings to drive innovation in patient care. However, surgeon-scientists face many challenges in pursuing research, such as increasing clinical demands that affect their competitiveness to apply for National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding compared with other scientists. Objective: To examine how NIH funding has been awarded to surgeon-scientists over time. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used publicly available data from the NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results) database for research project grants awarded to departments of surgery between 1995 and 2020. Surgeon-scientists were defined as NIH-funded faculty holding an MD or MD-PhD degree with board certification in surgery; PhD scientists were NIH-funded faculty holding a PhD degree. Statistical analysis was performed from April 1 to August 31, 2022. Main Outcome: National Institutes of Health funding to surgeon-scientists compared with PhD scientists, as well as NIH funding to surgeon-scientists across surgical subspecialties. Results: Between 1995 and 2020, the number of NIH-funded investigators in surgical departments increased 1.9-fold from 968 to 1874 investigators, corresponding to a 4.0-fold increase in total funding (1995, $214 million; 2020, $861 million). Although the total amount of NIH funding to both surgeon-scientists and PhD scientists increased, the funding gap between surgeon-scientists and PhD scientists increased 2.8-fold from a $73 million difference in 1995 to a $208 million difference in 2020, favoring PhD scientists. National Institutes of Health funding to female surgeon-scientists increased significantly at a rate of 0.53% (95% CI, 0.48%-0.57%) per year from 4.8% of grants awarded to female surgeon-scientists in 1995 to 18.8% in 2020 (P < .001). However, substantial disparity remained, with female surgeon-scientists receiving less than 20% of NIH grants and funding dollars in 2020. In addition, although there was increased NIH funding to neurosurgeons and otolaryngologists, funding to urologists decreased significantly from 14.9% of all grants in 1995 to 7.5% in 2020 (annual percent change, -0.39% [95% CI, -0.47% to -0.30%]; P < .001). Despite surgical diseases making up 30% of the global disease burden, representation of surgeon-scientists among NIH investigators remains less than 2%. Conclusion and Relevance: This study suggests that research performed by surgeon-scientists continues to be underrepresented in the NIH funding portfolio, highlighting a fundamental need to support and fund more surgeon-scientists.

Current Status of National Institutes of Health Research Funding for Women Surgeon-Scientists.

Importance: Women have made substantial advancements in academic surgery, but research funding disparities continue to hamper their progress, and current literature on the status of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding awarded to women surgeon-scientists appears to be conflicting. Objective: To examine gender-based differences in NIH funding awarded to surgeon-scientists by comparing total grant amounts awarded and the distribution of grants by gender and research type. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was performed using a previously created database of NIH-funded surgeons from 2010 to 2020. Active physician data from the Association of American Medical Colleges were used to calculate total surgeon populations. This study was performed at the NIH using the NIH internal data platform, iSearch Grants. A total of 715 men and women surgeon-scientists funded by the NIH in 2010 and 1031 funded in 2020 were included in the analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the number of women among the total number of surgeons who received NIH grants and the total grant amounts awarded to them. Bivariate χ2 analyses were performed using population totals and substantiated by z tests of population proportions. Results: This study included 715 physicians (n = 579 men [81.0%]) in 2010 and 1031 physicians (n = 769 men [74.6%]) in 2020. In 2020, women comprised 27.4% of the surgical workforce and 25.4% of surgeons with research funding in the US, but they received only 21.7% of total NIH research funding awarded to all surgeons. The number of funded women surgeon-scientists, however, significantly increased from 2010 to 2020 (262 [25.4%] in 2020 vs 136 [19.0%] in 2010; P < .001) as did their funding ($189.7 million [21.7%] in 2020 vs $75.9 million [12.3%] in 2010; P < .001). Furthermore, the proportion of US women surgeons overall with NIH funding significantly increased in 2020 vs 2010 (0.7% vs 0.5%; P < .001). Basic science, clinical outcomes, and clinical trial R01 grants also increased among women surgeon-scientists. Women and men K grant holders had a similar mean (SD) number of R01 application attempts before success (2.7 [3.01] vs 2.3 [3.15]; P = .60) and similar K-to-R award conversion rates (23.5% vs 26.7%; P = .55). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found an increasing number of women surgeon-scientists receiving NIH funding in 2020 vs 2010 as well as increases in the median grant amounts awarded. Although these results are promising, a discrepancy remains in the proportion of women in the surgical workforce compared with those funded by the NIH and the total grant amounts awarded to them.

Economic value of podiatry service in limb salvage alliance.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, multidisciplinary "toe and flow" programs have gained great popularity, with proven benefits in limb salvage. Many vascular surgeons have incorporated podiatrists into their practices. The viability of this practice model requires close partnership, hospital support, and financial sustainability. We intend to examine the economic values of podiatrists in a busy safety-net hospital in the Southwest United States. METHODS: An administrative database that captured monthly operating room (OR) cases, clinic encounters, in-patient volume, and total work relative value units (wRVUs) in an established limb salvage program in a tertiary referral center were examined. The practice has a diverse patient population with >30% of minority patients. During a period of 3 years, there was a significant change in the number of podiatrists (from 1 to 4) within the program, whereas the clinical full-time employees for vascular surgeons remained relatively stable. RESULTS: The limb salvage program experienced >100% of growth in total OR volumes, clinic encounters, and total wRVUs over a period of 4 years. A total of 35,591 patients were evaluated in a multidisciplinary limb salvage clinic, and 5535 procedures were performed. The initial growth of clinic volume and operative volume (P < .01) were attributed by the addition of vascular surgeons in year one. However, recruitment of podiatrists to the program significantly increased clinic and OR volume by an additional 60% and >40%, respectively (P < .01) in the past 3 years. With equal number of surgeons, podiatry contributed 40% of total wRVUs generated by the entire program in 2019. Despite the fact that that most of the foot and ankle procedures that were regularly performed by vascular surgeons were shifted to the podiatrists, vascular surgeons continued to experience an incremental increase in operative volume and >10% of increase in wRVUs. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the value of close collaboration between podiatry and vascular in a limb salvage program extends beyond a patient's clinical outcome. A financial advantage of including podiatrists in a vascular surgery practice is clearly demonstrated.

A 22-year analysis of the Society for Vascular Surgery Foundation Mentored Research Career Development Award in fostering vascular surgeon-scientists.

OBJECTIVE: Vascular surgeon-scientists shape the future of our specialty through rigorous scientific investigation and innovation in clinical care and by training the next generation of surgeon-scientists. The Society for Vascular Surgery Foundation (SVSF) supports the development of surgeon-scientists through the Mentored Research Career Development Award (SVSF-CDA) program, providing supplemental funds to recipients of National Institutes of Health (NIH) K08/K23 grants. We evaluated the ongoing success of this mission. METHODS: The curriculum vitae of the 41 recipients of the SVSF supplemental funding from 1999 to 2021 were collected and reviewed to evaluate the academic achievements, define the programmatic accomplishments and return on investment, and identify areas for strategic improvement. RESULTS: For nearly 22 years, the SVSF has awarded supplemental funds for 31 K08 and 10 K23 grants to SVS members from 32 institutions. Of the 41 awardees, 34 have completed their K-funding and 7 are still being supported. Eleven awardees (27%) were women, including six of the current awardees (75%). However, only slight ethnic/racial diversity was found in the program. The awardees had obtained K-funding ∼4 years after becoming faculty. Eleven awardees (27%) were supported by Howard Hughes, NIH F32, or NIH T32 grants during training. To date, the SVSF has committed $12 million to the SVSF-CDA program. Among the 34 who have completed their K-funding, 21 (62%) successfully obtained NIH R01, Veterans Affairs, or Department of Defense funding. The awardees have secured >$114 million in federal funding, representing a 9.5-fold financial return on investment for the SVSF. In addition to research endeavors, 11 awardees (27%) hold endowed professorships and 19 (46%) have secured tenure at their institution. Many of the awardees hold or have held leadership positions, including 18 division chiefs (44%), 11 program directors (27%), 5 chairs of departments of surgery (12%), and 1 dean (2%). Eleven (27%) have served as president of a regional or national society, and 24 (59%) participate in NIH study sections. Of the 34 who have completed their K-funding, 15 (44%) have continued to maintain active independent research funding. CONCLUSIONS: The SVSF-CDA program is highly effective in the development of vascular surgeon-scientists who contribute to the leadership and growth of academic vascular surgery with a 9.5-fold return on investment. The number of female awardees has increased in recent years but ethnic/racial diversity has remained poor. Although 62% successfully transitioned to federal funding, fewer than one half have remained funded over time. Retention in research and increasing diversity for the awardees are major concerns and important areas of strategic focus for the SVSF.

Longitudinal analysis of National Institutes of Health funding for academic thoracic surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for academic (noncardiac) thoracic surgeons at the top-140 NIH-funded institutes in the United States was assessed. We hypothesized that thoracic surgeons have difficulty in obtaining NIH funding in a difficult funding climate. METHODS: The top-140 NIH-funded institutes' faculty pages were searched for noncardiac thoracic surgeons. Surgeon data, including gender, academic rank, and postfellowship training were recorded. These surgeons were then queried in NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results for their funding history. Analysis of the resulting grants (1980-2019) included grant type, funding amount, project start/end dates, publications, and a citation-based Grant Impact Metric to evaluate productivity. RESULTS: A total of 395 general thoracic surgeons were evaluated with 63 (16%) receiving NIH funding. These 63 surgeons received 136 grants totaling $228 million, resulting in 1772 publications, and generating more than 50,000 citations. Thoracic surgeons have obtained NIH funding at an increasing rate (1980-2019); however, they have a low percentage of R01 renewal (17.3%). NIH-funded thoracic surgeons were more likely to have a higher professorship level. Thoracic surgeons perform similarly to other physician-scientists in converting K-Awards into R01 funding. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to our hypothesis, thoracic surgeons have received more NIH funding over time. Thoracic surgeons are able to fill the roles of modern surgeon-scientists by obtaining NIH funding during an era of increasing clinical demands. The NIH should continue to support this mission.

A Guide to Industry Payments and an Algorithm for Their Management.

BACKGROUND: The Open Payments database was created to increase transparency of industry payment relationships within medicine. The current literature often examines only 1 year of the database. In this study, the authors use 5 years of data to show trends among industry payments to plastic surgeons from 2014 to 2018. In addition, the authors lay out the basics of conflict-of-interest reporting for the new plastic surgeon. Finally, the authors suggest an algorithm for the responsible management of industry relationships. METHODS: This study analyzed nonresearch payments made to plastic surgeons from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018. Descriptive statistics were calculated using R Statistical Software and visualized using Tableau. RESULTS: A total of 304,663 payments totaling $140,889,747 were made to 8148 plastic surgeons; 41 percent ($58.28 million) was paid to 50 plastic surgeons in the form of royalty or license payments. With royalties excluded, average and median payments were $276 and $25. The average yearly total per physician was $2028. Of the 14 payment categories, 95 percent of the total amount paid was attributable payments in one of six categories. Seven hundred thirty companies reported payments to plastic surgeons from 2014 to 2018; 15 companies (2 percent) were responsible for 80 percent ($66.34 million) of the total sum paid. Allergan was responsible for $24.45 million (29.6 percent) of this amount. CONCLUSIONS: Although discussions on the proper management of industry relationships continue to evolve, the data in this study illustrate the importance of managing industry relationships. The simple guidelines suggested create a basis for managing industry relationships in the career of the everyday plastic surgeon.

Industry Payments to Plastic Surgeons, 2013 to 2018: Who's Getting Paid?

BACKGROUND: The Physician Payments Sunshine Act of 2010 mandated that all industry payments to physicians be publicly disclosed. To date, industry support of plastic surgeons has not been longitudinally characterized. The authors seek to evaluate payment trends from 2013 to 2018 and characteristics across plastic surgeon recipients of industry payments. METHODS: The authors cross-referenced those in the 2019 American Society of Plastic Surgeons member database with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database physician profile identification number indicating industry funds received within the study period. We categorized surgeons by years since American Board of Plastic Surgery certification, practice region, and academic affiliation. RESULTS: A sum of $89,436,100 (247,614 payments) was received by 3855 plastic surgeons. The top 1 percent of earners (n = 39) by dollar amount received 52 percent of industry dollars to plastic surgeons; of these, nine (23 percent) were academic. Overall, 428 surgeons (11 percent) were academic and received comparable dollar amounts from industry as their nonacademic counterparts. Neither geographic location nor years of experience were independent predictors of payments received. The majority of individual transactions were for food and beverage, whereas the majority of industry dollars were typically for royalties or license. CONCLUSIONS: Over half of all industry dollars transferred went to just 1 percent of American Society of Plastic Surgeons members receiving payments between 2013 and 2018. Considerable heterogeneity exists when accounting for payment subcategories.

Plastic Surgeon Financial Compensation-Incentivization Models in Surgical Care Delivery: The Past, Present, and Future.

BACKGROUND: Surgeons are critical for the success of any health care enterprise. However, few studies have examined the potential impact of value-based care on surgeon compensation. METHODS: This review presents value-based financial incentive models that will shape the future of surgeon compensation. The following incentivization models will be discussed: pay-for-reporting, pay-for-performance, pay-for-patient-safety, bundled payments, and pay-for-academic-productivity. Moreover, the authors suggest the application of the congruence model-a model developed to help business leaders understand the interplay of forces that shape the performance of their organizations-to determine surgeon compensation methods applicable in value-based care-centric environments. RESULTS: The application of research in organizational behavior can assist health care leaders in developing surgeon compensation models optimized for value-based care. Health care leaders can utilize the congruence model to determine total surgeon compensation, proportion of compensation that is short term versus long term, proportion of compensation that is fixed versus variable, and proportion of compensation based on seniority versus performance. CONCLUSION: This review provides a framework extensively studied by researchers in organizational behavior that can be utilized when designing surgeon financial compensation plans for any health care entity shifting toward value-based care.

Reducing Operating Room Cost: Comparing Attending and Surgical Trainee Perceptions About the Implementation of Supply Receipts.

BACKGROUND: As operating room (OR) expenditures increase, faculty and surgical trainees will play a key role in curbing future costs. However, supply cost utilization varies widely among providers and, despite requirements for cost education during surgical training, little is known about trainees' comfort discussing these topics. To improve OR cost transparency, our institution began delivering real-time supply "receipts" to faculty and trainees after each surgical case. This study compares faculty and surgical trainees' perceptions about supply receipts and their effect on individual practice and cultural change. STUDY DESIGN: Faculty and surgical trainees (residents and fellows) from all adult surgical specialties at a large academic center were emailed separate surveys. RESULTS: A total of 120 faculty (30.0% response rate) and 119 trainees (35.7% response rate) completed the survey. Compared with trainees, faculty are more confident discussing OR costs (p < 0.001). Two-thirds of trainees report discussing OR costs with faculty as opposed to 77.0% of faculty who acknowledge having these conversations (p = 0.08). Both groups showed a strong commitment to reduce OR expenditures, with 87.3% of faculty and 90.0% of trainees expressing a responsibility to curb OR costs (p = 0.84). After 1 year of implementation, faculty continue to have high interest levels in supply receipts (82.4%) and many surgeons review them after each case (67.7%). In addition, 74.3% of faculty are now aware of how to lower OR costs and 52.5% have changed the OR supplies they use. Trainees, in particular, desire additional cost-reducing efforts at our institution (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Supply receipts have been well received and have led to meaningful cultural changes. However, trainees are less confident discussing these issues and desire a greater emphasis on OR cost in their curriculum.

Disparity in Medicare payments by gender and training track in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery.

BACKGROUND: Gender disparities in medicine have been demonstrated in the past, including differences in the attainment of roles in administration and in physician income. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine the differences in Medicare payments based on the provider gender and training track among female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgeons. STUDY DESIGN: Medicare payments from the Provider Utilization Aggregate Files were used to determine the payments made by Medicare to urogynecologists. This database was merged with the National Provider Identifier registry with information on subspecialty training, years since graduation, and the geographic pricing cost index used for Medicare payment adjustments. Physicians with <90% female patients and those who graduated medical school <7 years ago in obstetrics and gynecology or <8 years ago in urology were excluded. The effects of gender, specialty of training, number of services provided, years of practice, and geographic pricing cost index on physician reimbursement were evaluated using linear mixed modeling. RESULTS: A total of 578 surgeons with female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery subspecialty training met the inclusion criteria. Of those, 517 (89%) were trained as gynecologists, whereas 61 (11%) were trained as urologists. Furthermore, 265 (51%) of the gynecology-trained surgeons and 39 (80%) of the urology-trained surgeons were women. Among the urology-trained surgeons, the median female surgeon was paid $85,962 and their male counterparts were paid $121,531 (41% payment difference). In addition, urology-trained female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery surgeons performed a median of 1135 services and their male counterparts performed a median of 1793 services (57% volume difference). Similarly, among gynecology-trained surgeons, the median female payment was $59,277 with 880 services performed, whereas male gynecology-trained surgeons received a median of $66,880 with 791 services performed, representing a difference of 12% in payments and 11% in services. With linear mixed modeling, male physicians were paid more than female physicians while controlling for specialty training, number of services performed, years of practice, and geographic pricing cost index (P<.001). CONCLUSION: Although Medicare payments are based on an equation, differences in reimbursement by physician gender exist in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery with female surgeons receiving lower payments from Medicare. The differences in reimbursement could not be solely explained by differences in patient volume, area of practice, or years of experience alone, suggesting that, similar to other fields in medicine, female surgeons in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery are not paid as much as their male counterparts.