Deborah Reale

cfDNA screening failures occur in 1% to 12% of samples, a rate that has an inverse relationship to gestational age. Recent studies have shown an increased risk for screening failures among obese women. To determine the optimal gestational age for cfDNA testing among obese women, Mary C. Livergood, MD, and colleagues at the Mercy Hospital in St. Louis, Missouri, performed a retrospective cohort study of those undergoing cfDNA testing at one center from 2011 through 2016. Study results recently were published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.¹

Details of the study

Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for a cfDNA screening failure (referred to as a “no call” in the study) were determined for each body mass index (BMI) weight class (TABLE). Each BMI weight class also was compared with the aOR of normal-weight women (BMI <25.0 kg/m²). The predicted probability of a no call was determined for each week of gestational age for normal weight and obese women and the results were compared.¹

table_image.png

Among the 2,385 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 4.4% (n = 105) received a no call. Compared with normal weight women, the aOR of no call increased as weight increased from overweight (aOR, 2.31 [95% CI, 1.21–4.42]) to obesity class III (aOR, 8.55 [95% CI, 4.16–17.56]).¹

At 21 weeks’ gestation, a cut-point was identified for obesity class II/III women (ie, there was no longer a significant difference in the probability of no call when compared with normal-weight women). From 8 to 16 weeks’ gestation, there was a 4.5% reduction in the probability of a no call for obesity class II/III women (aOR, 14.9; 95% CI, 8.95–20.78 and aOR, 10.4; 95% CI, 7.20–13.61; P_trend<.01).¹

Although the authors conclude that a cut-point of 21 weeks’ gestation allowed for optimal sampling of cfDNA in obese women, they also acknowledge that this cut-point limits a woman’s reproductive choices. However, they say that delaying cfDNA testing in obese women is a reasonable strategy to reduce the probability of screening failure.¹

cfDNA screening failures occur in 1% to 12% of samples, a rate that has an inverse relationship to gestational age. Recent studies have shown an increased risk for screening failures among obese women. To determine the optimal gestational age for cfDNA testing among obese women, Mary C. Livergood, MD, and colleagues at the Mercy Hospital in St. Louis, Missouri, performed a retrospective cohort study of those undergoing cfDNA testing at one center from 2011 through 2016. Study results recently were published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.¹

Details of the study

Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for a cfDNA screening failure (referred to as a “no call” in the study) were determined for each body mass index (BMI) weight class (TABLE). Each BMI weight class also was compared with the aOR of normal-weight women (BMI <25.0 kg/m²). The predicted probability of a no call was determined for each week of gestational age for normal weight and obese women and the results were compared.¹

table_image.png

Among the 2,385 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 4.4% (n = 105) received a no call. Compared with normal weight women, the aOR of no call increased as weight increased from overweight (aOR, 2.31 [95% CI, 1.21–4.42]) to obesity class III (aOR, 8.55 [95% CI, 4.16–17.56]).¹

At 21 weeks’ gestation, a cut-point was identified for obesity class II/III women (ie, there was no longer a significant difference in the probability of no call when compared with normal-weight women). From 8 to 16 weeks’ gestation, there was a 4.5% reduction in the probability of a no call for obesity class II/III women (aOR, 14.9; 95% CI, 8.95–20.78 and aOR, 10.4; 95% CI, 7.20–13.61; P_trend<.01).¹

Although the authors conclude that a cut-point of 21 weeks’ gestation allowed for optimal sampling of cfDNA in obese women, they also acknowledge that this cut-point limits a woman’s reproductive choices. However, they say that delaying cfDNA testing in obese women is a reasonable strategy to reduce the probability of screening failure.¹

cfDNA screening failures occur in 1% to 12% of samples, a rate that has an inverse relationship to gestational age. Recent studies have shown an increased risk for screening failures among obese women. To determine the optimal gestational age for cfDNA testing among obese women, Mary C. Livergood, MD, and colleagues at the Mercy Hospital in St. Louis, Missouri, performed a retrospective cohort study of those undergoing cfDNA testing at one center from 2011 through 2016. Study results recently were published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.¹

Details of the study

Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for a cfDNA screening failure (referred to as a “no call” in the study) were determined for each body mass index (BMI) weight class (TABLE). Each BMI weight class also was compared with the aOR of normal-weight women (BMI <25.0 kg/m²). The predicted probability of a no call was determined for each week of gestational age for normal weight and obese women and the results were compared.¹

table_image.png

Among the 2,385 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 4.4% (n = 105) received a no call. Compared with normal weight women, the aOR of no call increased as weight increased from overweight (aOR, 2.31 [95% CI, 1.21–4.42]) to obesity class III (aOR, 8.55 [95% CI, 4.16–17.56]).¹

At 21 weeks’ gestation, a cut-point was identified for obesity class II/III women (ie, there was no longer a significant difference in the probability of no call when compared with normal-weight women). From 8 to 16 weeks’ gestation, there was a 4.5% reduction in the probability of a no call for obesity class II/III women (aOR, 14.9; 95% CI, 8.95–20.78 and aOR, 10.4; 95% CI, 7.20–13.61; P_trend<.01).¹

Although the authors conclude that a cut-point of 21 weeks’ gestation allowed for optimal sampling of cfDNA in obese women, they also acknowledge that this cut-point limits a woman’s reproductive choices. However, they say that delaying cfDNA testing in obese women is a reasonable strategy to reduce the probability of screening failure.¹

The mean income for ObGyns rose by 10% in 2015 over 2014 ($277,000 compared with $249,000), according to a recent report from Medscape.¹ This jump follows a gradual increase over the last few years ($243,000 in 2013; $242,000 in 2012; $220,000 in 2011).¹⁻³ The report included responses from 19,183 physicians across 26 specialties, 5% (nearly 1,000) of whom were ObGyns.¹

The highest earners among all physician specialties were orthopedists ($443,000), cardiologists, and dermatologists. The lowest earners were pediatricians ($204,000), endocrinologists, and family physicians. The highest ObGyn earners lived in the Southwest ($307,000), the North Central region, and the West.¹

Merritt Hawkins & Associates, a national physician search and consulting firm, recently evaluated the annual starting salaries and year-over-year increases of 3,342 of its physician and advanced practitioner recruiting assignments. They found that ObGyns had the second greatest increase in starting salaries among specialties, at 16%. They also found obstetrics and gynecology to be among the top 5 specialties most in demand.⁴

The gender picture
As in past years, male ObGyns reported higher earnings than their female counterparts: full-time male ObGyns earned $304,000 while full-time female ObGyns earned $256,000.¹

According to a report published in the British Medical Journal in June 2016, there are drastic differences between the incomes of white and black male and female physicians in the United States.⁵ White male physicians had an adjusted median annual income of $253,042 (95% confidence interval [CI], $248,670−$257,413), compared with $188,230 ($170,844−$205,616) for black male physicians, $163,234 (95% CI, $159,912−$166,557) for white female physicians, and $152,784 (95% CI, $137,927−$167,641) for black female physicians.

How does employment status factor in? Of the self-employed, men earn $310,000 while women earn $285,000. Men who are employed report earning $293,000, with women reporting $244,000.⁵ (This includes full-time workers but does not control for the number of hours worked.) When Medscape evaluated full- versus part-time work (<40 hours per week), results indicated that, among primary care and most other specialties, more female physicians (25%) are part-timers than males (12%).⁶ However, among ObGyns, 13% of women report part-time employment versus 16% of men.¹

Time with patients. Medscape reports that, among all physicians, 41% of men spent 17 minutes or more with their patients, compared with 49% of women. For office-based ObGyns, 31% of men and 39% of women spent 17 minutes or more with patients.¹

Can disparity in leadership positions explain gender-related salary discrepancy?
In 2015, 48% of all medical students were female.⁷ In residency, the ratio of men to women is similar: For 2013−2014, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) reported that 46% of all residents were female.⁸ For ObGyn residency, however, the AMA’s FREIDA Online specialty training search (detailing 2014 general program information) indicates that, of the 5,018 active residents and fellows in ObGyn, 81.4% are female.⁹

Although the ObGyn field is becoming female-dominated, leadership within the specialty remains male dominated, points out Laura E. Baecher-Lind, MD, MPH, Director of the Division of General Obstetrics & Gynecology at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Baecher-Lind authored a study in 2012 in which she explored whether the proportions of ObGyn leadership positions held by women reflect the proportion of women who entered the field at the same time as current leaders.¹⁰ She found that very few academic department chair positions in ObGyn are held by women, although that number is gradually increasing.¹⁰ In addition, her study results indicated that women should hold 71 of the total of 194 ObGyn leadership positions. In actuality, 41 of the leadership positions were held by women (21.1%, P<.001) when based on the proportion of women entering residency programs. When considering only leaders who graduated during the years in which residency matching data were available, she found that women should hold 28 of 74 leadership positions, but they actually held 20 (27.0%, P = .05).¹⁰

Could the salary discrepancy disappear if more women held leadership positions? OBG <scaps>Management</scaps> posed this question to Dr. Baecher-Lind. “I suspect that the gender pay gap would persist,” she said. “Studies indicate that women hold implicit gender bias as strongly as men. This bias leads to devaluing women’s skills and accomplishments compared with men’s and is a strong contributor to the leadership and pay gaps in this country and in our specialty. We need to be mindful of this implicit bias and work against it with policies such as salary transparency and salary audits to encourage parity.”¹¹

What are ObGyns’ greatest practice concerns?
The Medicus Firm reported in its 2016 Physician Practice Preference and Relocation Survey that the top 3 major practice concerns for practicing physicians were compensation, work-life balance, and work-related burnout and stress.¹² They found that physicians in general were slightly more satisfied with their 2015 income than their 2014 income, but less optimistic about the future. Only 29% projected that their 2016 income would increase over their 2015 earnings.

With ObGyn salaries on the up in 2015, less than half (46%) of ObGyns reported to Medscape that they feel fairly compensated; these physicians made $62,000 more than those who believed their pay was unfair.¹ Fifty-four percent of employed male ObGyns and 64% of employed female ObGyns reported feeling fairly compensated, compared with 43% and 32%, respectively, who were self-employed.

ObGyns indicated in the 2016 Medscape report that the prime causes of stress were bureaucratic tasks and spending too many hours at work. More than half (52%) of ObGyns spend 30 to 45 hours per week seeing patients, and 40% spend more time than that.¹ According to employment status, 56% of those who are self-employed and 58% of those who are employed spend 10 hours or more per week on administrative tasks.¹

Lucia DiVenere, MA, Officer, Government and Political Affairs, at the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in Washington, DC, offers a brief look, with an in-depth focus to come in an upcoming issue, at the growing concern of burnout among physicians and how it can affect both ObGyns and their patients. She outlines ACOG’s efforts to help ObGyns maintain work-life balance in “ObGyn burnout: ACOG takes aim.”

ObGyn burnout: ACOG takes aim

RTEmagicC_DiVenere.JPG.JPG

Lucia DiVenere, MA

The good news: More women have access to coverage for health care than ever before--better insurance coverage for pregnancy, contraceptives, and well-woman care.

The bad news: America faces a shortage of ObGyns to provide that care, a shortage not likely to go away soon.

One of the imperatives of this dynamic is that we need to help every practicing ObGyn perform at his or her very best: your highest level of quality care, your best productivity, and your best ability to survive and thrive in an always changing and often challenging work environment.

This imperative is undermined when ObGyns are so stressed, overworked, overworried, and undersupported that you experience the very real effects of physician burnout.

Studies show that: 

 

• ObGyns experience high rates of burnout 
• rates of burnout are increasing over time
• women, the majority gender in obstetrics and gynecology, experience higher rates of burnout than their male counterparts. 

Between 2011 and 2014, rates of physician burnout increased from 45.5% to 54.4%.¹ Fifty-one percent of ObGyns reported experiencing burnout in 2015, with women reporting 55% compared to 46% for men.²

This insert is a quick look at this important issue, which can seriously erode an ObGyn's ability to provide high-quality care and continue enjoying practice. It can take a real toll on your personal health and well-being, too. In an upcoming issue of OBG Management, I will take a deeper dive, previewing the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and American Medical Association resources to help you avoid burnout, plus highlighting ObGyns who provide insight and inspiration. I also will interview ACOG President Tom Gellhaus, MD, who is dedicating his presidency to providing you with opportunities to experience new and meaningful aspects of the ObGyn specialty. I will discuss ACOG's programs to help you combat burnout, as well as how you can:

 

• help underserved women around the globe through medical missions
• bring your leadership and passion for women's health to your state and national capitals
• explore your artistic side.

ObGyn burnout amounts to a public health challenge in women's health care. ACOG takes your well-being seriously, so that you can continue to ensure the well-being of women.

 

---

Lucia DiVenere, MA, is Officer, Government and Political Affairs, at the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Washington, DC.

Ms. DiVenere reports no financial relationships relevant to this article. .

 

---

References

 

1. Shanafelt TD, Hasan O, Dyrbye LN, et al. Changes in burnout and satisfaction with work-life balance in physicians and the general US working population between 2011 and 2014. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2015;90(12):1600-1613.
2. Peckham C. Medscape Lifestyle Report 2016: Bias and Burnout. Medscape website. http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/lifestyle/2016/public/overview. Published January 13, 2016. Accessed June 14, 2016.

Effects of the ACA on ObGyns
As of February 2016, 12.7 million Americans selected plans through the Health Insurance Marketplace of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).¹ Physicians often have no choice in whether or not they participate in Health Insurance Exchanges; however, in 2016, 24% of ObGyns said they plan to participate in exchanges, 25% do not, and the rest are unsure.¹

It is still unclear how the ACA affects physician income.¹ When ObGyns who participated in Health Insurance Exchanges in 2015 were asked whether their income was affected, approximately 60% reported no change, 30% reported a decrease, and 9% said it increased.¹

Medicus reported that physicians’ approval of the ACA has declined since last year. In their 2016 report, 71% of respondents gave the ACA a passing grade (A, B, C, or D), compared with 83% in 2015 and 77% in 2014. Fewer than 3% of 2016 respondents gave the ACA an “A.”¹²

Medscape reported that 36% of ObGyns have seen an increase in the number of patients due to the ACA.¹ A 2015 report from the Kaiser Family Foundation and The Commonwealth Fund assessing the experiences and attitudes of primary care providers after the first year of ACA coverage found no association with lower- and higher-quality care whether or not patient load had increased.¹³ Among those in the Medscape report who said that quality of care had worsened, 21% had a greater patient load; 18% reported no increase in patient load. Seventy-eight percent of physicians whose patient load increased said that quality had stayed the same or improved; 82% of those who experienced no increase in patient load reported that quality had stayed the same or improved.¹

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

The mean income for ObGyns rose by 10% in 2015 over 2014 ($277,000 compared with $249,000), according to a recent report from Medscape.¹ This jump follows a gradual increase over the last few years ($243,000 in 2013; $242,000 in 2012; $220,000 in 2011).¹⁻³ The report included responses from 19,183 physicians across 26 specialties, 5% (nearly 1,000) of whom were ObGyns.¹

The highest earners among all physician specialties were orthopedists ($443,000), cardiologists, and dermatologists. The lowest earners were pediatricians ($204,000), endocrinologists, and family physicians. The highest ObGyn earners lived in the Southwest ($307,000), the North Central region, and the West.¹

Merritt Hawkins & Associates, a national physician search and consulting firm, recently evaluated the annual starting salaries and year-over-year increases of 3,342 of its physician and advanced practitioner recruiting assignments. They found that ObGyns had the second greatest increase in starting salaries among specialties, at 16%. They also found obstetrics and gynecology to be among the top 5 specialties most in demand.⁴

The gender picture
As in past years, male ObGyns reported higher earnings than their female counterparts: full-time male ObGyns earned $304,000 while full-time female ObGyns earned $256,000.¹

According to a report published in the British Medical Journal in June 2016, there are drastic differences between the incomes of white and black male and female physicians in the United States.⁵ White male physicians had an adjusted median annual income of $253,042 (95% confidence interval [CI], $248,670−$257,413), compared with $188,230 ($170,844−$205,616) for black male physicians, $163,234 (95% CI, $159,912−$166,557) for white female physicians, and $152,784 (95% CI, $137,927−$167,641) for black female physicians.

How does employment status factor in? Of the self-employed, men earn $310,000 while women earn $285,000. Men who are employed report earning $293,000, with women reporting $244,000.⁵ (This includes full-time workers but does not control for the number of hours worked.) When Medscape evaluated full- versus part-time work (<40 hours per week), results indicated that, among primary care and most other specialties, more female physicians (25%) are part-timers than males (12%).⁶ However, among ObGyns, 13% of women report part-time employment versus 16% of men.¹

Time with patients. Medscape reports that, among all physicians, 41% of men spent 17 minutes or more with their patients, compared with 49% of women. For office-based ObGyns, 31% of men and 39% of women spent 17 minutes or more with patients.¹

Can disparity in leadership positions explain gender-related salary discrepancy?
In 2015, 48% of all medical students were female.⁷ In residency, the ratio of men to women is similar: For 2013−2014, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) reported that 46% of all residents were female.⁸ For ObGyn residency, however, the AMA’s FREIDA Online specialty training search (detailing 2014 general program information) indicates that, of the 5,018 active residents and fellows in ObGyn, 81.4% are female.⁹

Although the ObGyn field is becoming female-dominated, leadership within the specialty remains male dominated, points out Laura E. Baecher-Lind, MD, MPH, Director of the Division of General Obstetrics & Gynecology at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Baecher-Lind authored a study in 2012 in which she explored whether the proportions of ObGyn leadership positions held by women reflect the proportion of women who entered the field at the same time as current leaders.¹⁰ She found that very few academic department chair positions in ObGyn are held by women, although that number is gradually increasing.¹⁰ In addition, her study results indicated that women should hold 71 of the total of 194 ObGyn leadership positions. In actuality, 41 of the leadership positions were held by women (21.1%, P<.001) when based on the proportion of women entering residency programs. When considering only leaders who graduated during the years in which residency matching data were available, she found that women should hold 28 of 74 leadership positions, but they actually held 20 (27.0%, P = .05).¹⁰

Could the salary discrepancy disappear if more women held leadership positions? OBG <scaps>Management</scaps> posed this question to Dr. Baecher-Lind. “I suspect that the gender pay gap would persist,” she said. “Studies indicate that women hold implicit gender bias as strongly as men. This bias leads to devaluing women’s skills and accomplishments compared with men’s and is a strong contributor to the leadership and pay gaps in this country and in our specialty. We need to be mindful of this implicit bias and work against it with policies such as salary transparency and salary audits to encourage parity.”¹¹

What are ObGyns’ greatest practice concerns?
The Medicus Firm reported in its 2016 Physician Practice Preference and Relocation Survey that the top 3 major practice concerns for practicing physicians were compensation, work-life balance, and work-related burnout and stress.¹² They found that physicians in general were slightly more satisfied with their 2015 income than their 2014 income, but less optimistic about the future. Only 29% projected that their 2016 income would increase over their 2015 earnings.

With ObGyn salaries on the up in 2015, less than half (46%) of ObGyns reported to Medscape that they feel fairly compensated; these physicians made $62,000 more than those who believed their pay was unfair.¹ Fifty-four percent of employed male ObGyns and 64% of employed female ObGyns reported feeling fairly compensated, compared with 43% and 32%, respectively, who were self-employed.

ObGyns indicated in the 2016 Medscape report that the prime causes of stress were bureaucratic tasks and spending too many hours at work. More than half (52%) of ObGyns spend 30 to 45 hours per week seeing patients, and 40% spend more time than that.¹ According to employment status, 56% of those who are self-employed and 58% of those who are employed spend 10 hours or more per week on administrative tasks.¹

Lucia DiVenere, MA, Officer, Government and Political Affairs, at the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in Washington, DC, offers a brief look, with an in-depth focus to come in an upcoming issue, at the growing concern of burnout among physicians and how it can affect both ObGyns and their patients. She outlines ACOG’s efforts to help ObGyns maintain work-life balance in “ObGyn burnout: ACOG takes aim.”

ObGyn burnout: ACOG takes aim

RTEmagicC_DiVenere.JPG.JPG

Lucia DiVenere, MA

The good news: More women have access to coverage for health care than ever before--better insurance coverage for pregnancy, contraceptives, and well-woman care.

The bad news: America faces a shortage of ObGyns to provide that care, a shortage not likely to go away soon.

One of the imperatives of this dynamic is that we need to help every practicing ObGyn perform at his or her very best: your highest level of quality care, your best productivity, and your best ability to survive and thrive in an always changing and often challenging work environment.

This imperative is undermined when ObGyns are so stressed, overworked, overworried, and undersupported that you experience the very real effects of physician burnout.

Studies show that: 

 

• ObGyns experience high rates of burnout 
• rates of burnout are increasing over time
• women, the majority gender in obstetrics and gynecology, experience higher rates of burnout than their male counterparts. 

Between 2011 and 2014, rates of physician burnout increased from 45.5% to 54.4%.¹ Fifty-one percent of ObGyns reported experiencing burnout in 2015, with women reporting 55% compared to 46% for men.²

This insert is a quick look at this important issue, which can seriously erode an ObGyn's ability to provide high-quality care and continue enjoying practice. It can take a real toll on your personal health and well-being, too. In an upcoming issue of OBG Management, I will take a deeper dive, previewing the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and American Medical Association resources to help you avoid burnout, plus highlighting ObGyns who provide insight and inspiration. I also will interview ACOG President Tom Gellhaus, MD, who is dedicating his presidency to providing you with opportunities to experience new and meaningful aspects of the ObGyn specialty. I will discuss ACOG's programs to help you combat burnout, as well as how you can:

 

• help underserved women around the globe through medical missions
• bring your leadership and passion for women's health to your state and national capitals
• explore your artistic side.

ObGyn burnout amounts to a public health challenge in women's health care. ACOG takes your well-being seriously, so that you can continue to ensure the well-being of women.

 

---

Lucia DiVenere, MA, is Officer, Government and Political Affairs, at the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Washington, DC.

Ms. DiVenere reports no financial relationships relevant to this article. .

 

---

References

 

1. Shanafelt TD, Hasan O, Dyrbye LN, et al. Changes in burnout and satisfaction with work-life balance in physicians and the general US working population between 2011 and 2014. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2015;90(12):1600-1613.
2. Peckham C. Medscape Lifestyle Report 2016: Bias and Burnout. Medscape website. http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/lifestyle/2016/public/overview. Published January 13, 2016. Accessed June 14, 2016.

Effects of the ACA on ObGyns
As of February 2016, 12.7 million Americans selected plans through the Health Insurance Marketplace of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).¹ Physicians often have no choice in whether or not they participate in Health Insurance Exchanges; however, in 2016, 24% of ObGyns said they plan to participate in exchanges, 25% do not, and the rest are unsure.¹

It is still unclear how the ACA affects physician income.¹ When ObGyns who participated in Health Insurance Exchanges in 2015 were asked whether their income was affected, approximately 60% reported no change, 30% reported a decrease, and 9% said it increased.¹

Medicus reported that physicians’ approval of the ACA has declined since last year. In their 2016 report, 71% of respondents gave the ACA a passing grade (A, B, C, or D), compared with 83% in 2015 and 77% in 2014. Fewer than 3% of 2016 respondents gave the ACA an “A.”¹²

Medscape reported that 36% of ObGyns have seen an increase in the number of patients due to the ACA.¹ A 2015 report from the Kaiser Family Foundation and The Commonwealth Fund assessing the experiences and attitudes of primary care providers after the first year of ACA coverage found no association with lower- and higher-quality care whether or not patient load had increased.¹³ Among those in the Medscape report who said that quality of care had worsened, 21% had a greater patient load; 18% reported no increase in patient load. Seventy-eight percent of physicians whose patient load increased said that quality had stayed the same or improved; 82% of those who experienced no increase in patient load reported that quality had stayed the same or improved.¹

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

The mean income for ObGyns rose by 10% in 2015 over 2014 ($277,000 compared with $249,000), according to a recent report from Medscape.¹ This jump follows a gradual increase over the last few years ($243,000 in 2013; $242,000 in 2012; $220,000 in 2011).¹⁻³ The report included responses from 19,183 physicians across 26 specialties, 5% (nearly 1,000) of whom were ObGyns.¹

The highest earners among all physician specialties were orthopedists ($443,000), cardiologists, and dermatologists. The lowest earners were pediatricians ($204,000), endocrinologists, and family physicians. The highest ObGyn earners lived in the Southwest ($307,000), the North Central region, and the West.¹

Merritt Hawkins & Associates, a national physician search and consulting firm, recently evaluated the annual starting salaries and year-over-year increases of 3,342 of its physician and advanced practitioner recruiting assignments. They found that ObGyns had the second greatest increase in starting salaries among specialties, at 16%. They also found obstetrics and gynecology to be among the top 5 specialties most in demand.⁴

The gender picture
As in past years, male ObGyns reported higher earnings than their female counterparts: full-time male ObGyns earned $304,000 while full-time female ObGyns earned $256,000.¹

According to a report published in the British Medical Journal in June 2016, there are drastic differences between the incomes of white and black male and female physicians in the United States.⁵ White male physicians had an adjusted median annual income of $253,042 (95% confidence interval [CI], $248,670−$257,413), compared with $188,230 ($170,844−$205,616) for black male physicians, $163,234 (95% CI, $159,912−$166,557) for white female physicians, and $152,784 (95% CI, $137,927−$167,641) for black female physicians.

How does employment status factor in? Of the self-employed, men earn $310,000 while women earn $285,000. Men who are employed report earning $293,000, with women reporting $244,000.⁵ (This includes full-time workers but does not control for the number of hours worked.) When Medscape evaluated full- versus part-time work (<40 hours per week), results indicated that, among primary care and most other specialties, more female physicians (25%) are part-timers than males (12%).⁶ However, among ObGyns, 13% of women report part-time employment versus 16% of men.¹

Time with patients. Medscape reports that, among all physicians, 41% of men spent 17 minutes or more with their patients, compared with 49% of women. For office-based ObGyns, 31% of men and 39% of women spent 17 minutes or more with patients.¹

Can disparity in leadership positions explain gender-related salary discrepancy?
In 2015, 48% of all medical students were female.⁷ In residency, the ratio of men to women is similar: For 2013−2014, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) reported that 46% of all residents were female.⁸ For ObGyn residency, however, the AMA’s FREIDA Online specialty training search (detailing 2014 general program information) indicates that, of the 5,018 active residents and fellows in ObGyn, 81.4% are female.⁹

Although the ObGyn field is becoming female-dominated, leadership within the specialty remains male dominated, points out Laura E. Baecher-Lind, MD, MPH, Director of the Division of General Obstetrics & Gynecology at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Baecher-Lind authored a study in 2012 in which she explored whether the proportions of ObGyn leadership positions held by women reflect the proportion of women who entered the field at the same time as current leaders.¹⁰ She found that very few academic department chair positions in ObGyn are held by women, although that number is gradually increasing.¹⁰ In addition, her study results indicated that women should hold 71 of the total of 194 ObGyn leadership positions. In actuality, 41 of the leadership positions were held by women (21.1%, P<.001) when based on the proportion of women entering residency programs. When considering only leaders who graduated during the years in which residency matching data were available, she found that women should hold 28 of 74 leadership positions, but they actually held 20 (27.0%, P = .05).¹⁰

Could the salary discrepancy disappear if more women held leadership positions? OBG <scaps>Management</scaps> posed this question to Dr. Baecher-Lind. “I suspect that the gender pay gap would persist,” she said. “Studies indicate that women hold implicit gender bias as strongly as men. This bias leads to devaluing women’s skills and accomplishments compared with men’s and is a strong contributor to the leadership and pay gaps in this country and in our specialty. We need to be mindful of this implicit bias and work against it with policies such as salary transparency and salary audits to encourage parity.”¹¹

What are ObGyns’ greatest practice concerns?
The Medicus Firm reported in its 2016 Physician Practice Preference and Relocation Survey that the top 3 major practice concerns for practicing physicians were compensation, work-life balance, and work-related burnout and stress.¹² They found that physicians in general were slightly more satisfied with their 2015 income than their 2014 income, but less optimistic about the future. Only 29% projected that their 2016 income would increase over their 2015 earnings.

With ObGyn salaries on the up in 2015, less than half (46%) of ObGyns reported to Medscape that they feel fairly compensated; these physicians made $62,000 more than those who believed their pay was unfair.¹ Fifty-four percent of employed male ObGyns and 64% of employed female ObGyns reported feeling fairly compensated, compared with 43% and 32%, respectively, who were self-employed.

ObGyns indicated in the 2016 Medscape report that the prime causes of stress were bureaucratic tasks and spending too many hours at work. More than half (52%) of ObGyns spend 30 to 45 hours per week seeing patients, and 40% spend more time than that.¹ According to employment status, 56% of those who are self-employed and 58% of those who are employed spend 10 hours or more per week on administrative tasks.¹

Lucia DiVenere, MA, Officer, Government and Political Affairs, at the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in Washington, DC, offers a brief look, with an in-depth focus to come in an upcoming issue, at the growing concern of burnout among physicians and how it can affect both ObGyns and their patients. She outlines ACOG’s efforts to help ObGyns maintain work-life balance in “ObGyn burnout: ACOG takes aim.”

ObGyn burnout: ACOG takes aim

RTEmagicC_DiVenere.JPG.JPG

Lucia DiVenere, MA

The good news: More women have access to coverage for health care than ever before--better insurance coverage for pregnancy, contraceptives, and well-woman care.

The bad news: America faces a shortage of ObGyns to provide that care, a shortage not likely to go away soon.

One of the imperatives of this dynamic is that we need to help every practicing ObGyn perform at his or her very best: your highest level of quality care, your best productivity, and your best ability to survive and thrive in an always changing and often challenging work environment.

This imperative is undermined when ObGyns are so stressed, overworked, overworried, and undersupported that you experience the very real effects of physician burnout.

Studies show that: 

 

• ObGyns experience high rates of burnout 
• rates of burnout are increasing over time
• women, the majority gender in obstetrics and gynecology, experience higher rates of burnout than their male counterparts. 

Between 2011 and 2014, rates of physician burnout increased from 45.5% to 54.4%.¹ Fifty-one percent of ObGyns reported experiencing burnout in 2015, with women reporting 55% compared to 46% for men.²

This insert is a quick look at this important issue, which can seriously erode an ObGyn's ability to provide high-quality care and continue enjoying practice. It can take a real toll on your personal health and well-being, too. In an upcoming issue of OBG Management, I will take a deeper dive, previewing the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and American Medical Association resources to help you avoid burnout, plus highlighting ObGyns who provide insight and inspiration. I also will interview ACOG President Tom Gellhaus, MD, who is dedicating his presidency to providing you with opportunities to experience new and meaningful aspects of the ObGyn specialty. I will discuss ACOG's programs to help you combat burnout, as well as how you can:

 

• help underserved women around the globe through medical missions
• bring your leadership and passion for women's health to your state and national capitals
• explore your artistic side.

ObGyn burnout amounts to a public health challenge in women's health care. ACOG takes your well-being seriously, so that you can continue to ensure the well-being of women.

 

---

Lucia DiVenere, MA, is Officer, Government and Political Affairs, at the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Washington, DC.

Ms. DiVenere reports no financial relationships relevant to this article. .

 

---

References

 

1. Shanafelt TD, Hasan O, Dyrbye LN, et al. Changes in burnout and satisfaction with work-life balance in physicians and the general US working population between 2011 and 2014. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2015;90(12):1600-1613.
2. Peckham C. Medscape Lifestyle Report 2016: Bias and Burnout. Medscape website. http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/lifestyle/2016/public/overview. Published January 13, 2016. Accessed June 14, 2016.

Effects of the ACA on ObGyns
As of February 2016, 12.7 million Americans selected plans through the Health Insurance Marketplace of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).¹ Physicians often have no choice in whether or not they participate in Health Insurance Exchanges; however, in 2016, 24% of ObGyns said they plan to participate in exchanges, 25% do not, and the rest are unsure.¹

It is still unclear how the ACA affects physician income.¹ When ObGyns who participated in Health Insurance Exchanges in 2015 were asked whether their income was affected, approximately 60% reported no change, 30% reported a decrease, and 9% said it increased.¹

Medicus reported that physicians’ approval of the ACA has declined since last year. In their 2016 report, 71% of respondents gave the ACA a passing grade (A, B, C, or D), compared with 83% in 2015 and 77% in 2014. Fewer than 3% of 2016 respondents gave the ACA an “A.”¹²

Medscape reported that 36% of ObGyns have seen an increase in the number of patients due to the ACA.¹ A 2015 report from the Kaiser Family Foundation and The Commonwealth Fund assessing the experiences and attitudes of primary care providers after the first year of ACA coverage found no association with lower- and higher-quality care whether or not patient load had increased.¹³ Among those in the Medscape report who said that quality of care had worsened, 21% had a greater patient load; 18% reported no increase in patient load. Seventy-eight percent of physicians whose patient load increased said that quality had stayed the same or improved; 82% of those who experienced no increase in patient load reported that quality had stayed the same or improved.¹

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

The mean income for ObGyns rose by 2% in 2014 over 2013 to $249,000, according to the 2015 Medscape Compensation Report.¹ This slight rise continues a gradual increase over the past few years ($242,000 in 2012; $220,000 in 2011).^1–4 The 2015 report took into account survey responses from 19,657 physicians across 26 specialties, 5% (982) of whom were ObGyns.

The highest earners among all physician specialties were orthopedists ($421,000), cardiologists, and gastroenterologists. The lowest earners were pediatricians, family physicians, endocrinologists, and internists ($196,000).  The highest ObGyn earners lived in the Northwest ($289,000) and Great Lakes ($268,000) regions; the lowest earners lived in the Mid-Atlantic ($230,000) and Northeast ($235,000) areas.¹

Survey findings
Career satisfaction for ObGyns is dipping
In 2011, 69%, 53%, and 48% of ObGyns indicated they would choose a career in medicine again, select the same specialty, and pick the same practice setting, respectively.⁴ In the 2015 survey, 67% of ObGyns reported that they would still choose medicine; however, only 40% would pick obstetrics and gynecology as their specialty, and only 22% would select the same practice setting.¹

Employment over private practice: Who feels best compensated?
Overall, 63% of all physicians are now employed, with only 23% reporting to be in private practice. Employment appears to be more popular for women: 59% of men and 72% of women responded that they work for a salary. Slightly more than a third (36%) of men and about a quarter (23%) of women are self-employed.⁵

The gender picture. Half of all ObGyns are women, and almost half of medical school graduates are women, yet male ObGyns continue to make more money than their female counterparts.^1,5,6 The 9% difference between compensation rates for self-employed male and female ObGyns ($265,000 vs $242,000, respectively) is less than the 14% difference between their employed colleagues ($266,000 vs $229,000, respectively).¹ Women tend to work shorter hours, fewer weeks, and see fewer patients than men, which could account for the lower compensation rate for female ObGyns. Studies suggest that greater schedule flexibility and fewer hours are key factors that improve satisfaction rates for female physicians.⁵

Male and female ObGyns tend to agree on their income satisfaction: less than half are satisfied (male, 44%; female, 46%). Many more employed ObGyns (55%) than self-employed ObGyns (31%) believe that they are fairly compensated.¹ 

RTEmagicC_0715_OBG_Salaries_h.jpg.jpg

Which practice settings pay better?
Compensation rates for ObGyns in 2015 are greatest for those in office-based multispecialty group practice ($280,000), followed by those who work in¹:

The lowest paid practice settings are office-based solo practices ($218,000) and hospital-employed ObGyns ($209,000).

In 2013, ObGyns who earned the most worked for health care organizations ($273,000); those who earned the least worked for outpatient clinics ($207,000).¹

Do you take insurance, Medicare, Medicaid?
More employed (82%) than self-employed (53%) ObGyns will continue to take new and current Medicare or Medicaid patients, which is a rise from data published in the 2014 report (employed, 72%; self-employed, 46%).¹

More than half (58%) of all physicians received less than $100 from private insurers for a new-patient office visit in 2014. Among ObGyns, 26% said they would drop insurers that pay poorly; 29% replied that they would not drop an insurer because they need all payers.¹

The rate of participation in Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) has increased from 25% in 2013 to 35% in 2014, with 8% more expecting to join an ACO in 2015. Concierge practice (2%) and cash-only practice (5%) were reportedly not significant payment models for ObGyns in 2014.¹

Only 26% of ObGyns are planning to participate in health insurance exchanges; 23% said they are not participating, and 51% are not sure whether they will participate. Close to half (41%) of ObGyns believe their income will decrease because of health insurance exchanges, whereas 54% do not anticipate a change in income.¹

Do you offer ancillary services?
When asked, 11% of employed ObGyns and 28% of self-employed ObGyns revealed that they have offered new ancillary services within the past 3 years. These ancillary services can include mammography, bone density testing, ultrasound, in-house laboratory services, bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, and weight management.¹

How much time do you spend with patients?
In 2014, 62% of ObGyns reported spending 9 to 16 minutes with a patient during a visit. This is compared to 56% of family physicians and 44% of internists (TABLE).^1,5

RTEmagicC_0715_OBG_Salaries_t.jpg.jpg

More than one-half (52%) of ObGynsspend 30 to 45 hours per week seeing patients. Fewer (38%) spend more than 45 hours per week, and 9% spend less than 30 hours per week with patients. This decline may be due to the increasing proportion of women and older physicians who tend to work shorter hours and fewer weeks.¹

In the general physician population, 24% of women and 13% of men work part time, whereas 16% of both male and female ObGyns work part time. ObGyns aged 65 years or older constitute 35% of part-timers; 9% of those aged 35 to 49 years, and 11% of those aged 50 to 64 years, work part time. Only 2% of those younger than age 35 work part time.¹

What is most rewarding?
When given several choices to select as the most rewarding aspect of their jobs, more female ObGyns (47%) than males (41%) reported that their physician-patient relationships are the major source of satisfaction. More men (10%) than women (7%) cite that making good money at a job they like is most gratifying. Only 3% of men and 2% of women reported no reward to being an ObGyn.¹

Survey methodology
Medscape reports that the recruitment period for the 2015 Physician Compensation Report was from December 30, 2014, through March 11, 2015. Data were collected via a third-party online survey collection site. The margin of error for the survey was ±0.69%.¹

Share your thoughts on this article! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

The mean income for ObGyns rose by 2% in 2014 over 2013 to $249,000, according to the 2015 Medscape Compensation Report.¹ This slight rise continues a gradual increase over the past few years ($242,000 in 2012; $220,000 in 2011).^1–4 The 2015 report took into account survey responses from 19,657 physicians across 26 specialties, 5% (982) of whom were ObGyns.

The highest earners among all physician specialties were orthopedists ($421,000), cardiologists, and gastroenterologists. The lowest earners were pediatricians, family physicians, endocrinologists, and internists ($196,000).  The highest ObGyn earners lived in the Northwest ($289,000) and Great Lakes ($268,000) regions; the lowest earners lived in the Mid-Atlantic ($230,000) and Northeast ($235,000) areas.¹

Survey findings
Career satisfaction for ObGyns is dipping
In 2011, 69%, 53%, and 48% of ObGyns indicated they would choose a career in medicine again, select the same specialty, and pick the same practice setting, respectively.⁴ In the 2015 survey, 67% of ObGyns reported that they would still choose medicine; however, only 40% would pick obstetrics and gynecology as their specialty, and only 22% would select the same practice setting.¹

Employment over private practice: Who feels best compensated?
Overall, 63% of all physicians are now employed, with only 23% reporting to be in private practice. Employment appears to be more popular for women: 59% of men and 72% of women responded that they work for a salary. Slightly more than a third (36%) of men and about a quarter (23%) of women are self-employed.⁵

The gender picture. Half of all ObGyns are women, and almost half of medical school graduates are women, yet male ObGyns continue to make more money than their female counterparts.^1,5,6 The 9% difference between compensation rates for self-employed male and female ObGyns ($265,000 vs $242,000, respectively) is less than the 14% difference between their employed colleagues ($266,000 vs $229,000, respectively).¹ Women tend to work shorter hours, fewer weeks, and see fewer patients than men, which could account for the lower compensation rate for female ObGyns. Studies suggest that greater schedule flexibility and fewer hours are key factors that improve satisfaction rates for female physicians.⁵

Male and female ObGyns tend to agree on their income satisfaction: less than half are satisfied (male, 44%; female, 46%). Many more employed ObGyns (55%) than self-employed ObGyns (31%) believe that they are fairly compensated.¹ 

RTEmagicC_0715_OBG_Salaries_h.jpg.jpg

Which practice settings pay better?
Compensation rates for ObGyns in 2015 are greatest for those in office-based multispecialty group practice ($280,000), followed by those who work in¹:

The lowest paid practice settings are office-based solo practices ($218,000) and hospital-employed ObGyns ($209,000).

In 2013, ObGyns who earned the most worked for health care organizations ($273,000); those who earned the least worked for outpatient clinics ($207,000).¹

Do you take insurance, Medicare, Medicaid?
More employed (82%) than self-employed (53%) ObGyns will continue to take new and current Medicare or Medicaid patients, which is a rise from data published in the 2014 report (employed, 72%; self-employed, 46%).¹

More than half (58%) of all physicians received less than $100 from private insurers for a new-patient office visit in 2014. Among ObGyns, 26% said they would drop insurers that pay poorly; 29% replied that they would not drop an insurer because they need all payers.¹

The rate of participation in Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) has increased from 25% in 2013 to 35% in 2014, with 8% more expecting to join an ACO in 2015. Concierge practice (2%) and cash-only practice (5%) were reportedly not significant payment models for ObGyns in 2014.¹

Only 26% of ObGyns are planning to participate in health insurance exchanges; 23% said they are not participating, and 51% are not sure whether they will participate. Close to half (41%) of ObGyns believe their income will decrease because of health insurance exchanges, whereas 54% do not anticipate a change in income.¹

Do you offer ancillary services?
When asked, 11% of employed ObGyns and 28% of self-employed ObGyns revealed that they have offered new ancillary services within the past 3 years. These ancillary services can include mammography, bone density testing, ultrasound, in-house laboratory services, bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, and weight management.¹

How much time do you spend with patients?
In 2014, 62% of ObGyns reported spending 9 to 16 minutes with a patient during a visit. This is compared to 56% of family physicians and 44% of internists (TABLE).^1,5

RTEmagicC_0715_OBG_Salaries_t.jpg.jpg

More than one-half (52%) of ObGynsspend 30 to 45 hours per week seeing patients. Fewer (38%) spend more than 45 hours per week, and 9% spend less than 30 hours per week with patients. This decline may be due to the increasing proportion of women and older physicians who tend to work shorter hours and fewer weeks.¹

In the general physician population, 24% of women and 13% of men work part time, whereas 16% of both male and female ObGyns work part time. ObGyns aged 65 years or older constitute 35% of part-timers; 9% of those aged 35 to 49 years, and 11% of those aged 50 to 64 years, work part time. Only 2% of those younger than age 35 work part time.¹

What is most rewarding?
When given several choices to select as the most rewarding aspect of their jobs, more female ObGyns (47%) than males (41%) reported that their physician-patient relationships are the major source of satisfaction. More men (10%) than women (7%) cite that making good money at a job they like is most gratifying. Only 3% of men and 2% of women reported no reward to being an ObGyn.¹

Survey methodology
Medscape reports that the recruitment period for the 2015 Physician Compensation Report was from December 30, 2014, through March 11, 2015. Data were collected via a third-party online survey collection site. The margin of error for the survey was ±0.69%.¹

Share your thoughts on this article! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

The mean income for ObGyns rose by 2% in 2014 over 2013 to $249,000, according to the 2015 Medscape Compensation Report.¹ This slight rise continues a gradual increase over the past few years ($242,000 in 2012; $220,000 in 2011).^1–4 The 2015 report took into account survey responses from 19,657 physicians across 26 specialties, 5% (982) of whom were ObGyns.

The highest earners among all physician specialties were orthopedists ($421,000), cardiologists, and gastroenterologists. The lowest earners were pediatricians, family physicians, endocrinologists, and internists ($196,000).  The highest ObGyn earners lived in the Northwest ($289,000) and Great Lakes ($268,000) regions; the lowest earners lived in the Mid-Atlantic ($230,000) and Northeast ($235,000) areas.¹

Survey findings
Career satisfaction for ObGyns is dipping
In 2011, 69%, 53%, and 48% of ObGyns indicated they would choose a career in medicine again, select the same specialty, and pick the same practice setting, respectively.⁴ In the 2015 survey, 67% of ObGyns reported that they would still choose medicine; however, only 40% would pick obstetrics and gynecology as their specialty, and only 22% would select the same practice setting.¹

Employment over private practice: Who feels best compensated?
Overall, 63% of all physicians are now employed, with only 23% reporting to be in private practice. Employment appears to be more popular for women: 59% of men and 72% of women responded that they work for a salary. Slightly more than a third (36%) of men and about a quarter (23%) of women are self-employed.⁵

The gender picture. Half of all ObGyns are women, and almost half of medical school graduates are women, yet male ObGyns continue to make more money than their female counterparts.^1,5,6 The 9% difference between compensation rates for self-employed male and female ObGyns ($265,000 vs $242,000, respectively) is less than the 14% difference between their employed colleagues ($266,000 vs $229,000, respectively).¹ Women tend to work shorter hours, fewer weeks, and see fewer patients than men, which could account for the lower compensation rate for female ObGyns. Studies suggest that greater schedule flexibility and fewer hours are key factors that improve satisfaction rates for female physicians.⁵

Male and female ObGyns tend to agree on their income satisfaction: less than half are satisfied (male, 44%; female, 46%). Many more employed ObGyns (55%) than self-employed ObGyns (31%) believe that they are fairly compensated.¹ 

RTEmagicC_0715_OBG_Salaries_h.jpg.jpg

Which practice settings pay better?
Compensation rates for ObGyns in 2015 are greatest for those in office-based multispecialty group practice ($280,000), followed by those who work in¹:

The lowest paid practice settings are office-based solo practices ($218,000) and hospital-employed ObGyns ($209,000).

In 2013, ObGyns who earned the most worked for health care organizations ($273,000); those who earned the least worked for outpatient clinics ($207,000).¹

Do you take insurance, Medicare, Medicaid?
More employed (82%) than self-employed (53%) ObGyns will continue to take new and current Medicare or Medicaid patients, which is a rise from data published in the 2014 report (employed, 72%; self-employed, 46%).¹

More than half (58%) of all physicians received less than $100 from private insurers for a new-patient office visit in 2014. Among ObGyns, 26% said they would drop insurers that pay poorly; 29% replied that they would not drop an insurer because they need all payers.¹

The rate of participation in Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) has increased from 25% in 2013 to 35% in 2014, with 8% more expecting to join an ACO in 2015. Concierge practice (2%) and cash-only practice (5%) were reportedly not significant payment models for ObGyns in 2014.¹

Only 26% of ObGyns are planning to participate in health insurance exchanges; 23% said they are not participating, and 51% are not sure whether they will participate. Close to half (41%) of ObGyns believe their income will decrease because of health insurance exchanges, whereas 54% do not anticipate a change in income.¹

Do you offer ancillary services?
When asked, 11% of employed ObGyns and 28% of self-employed ObGyns revealed that they have offered new ancillary services within the past 3 years. These ancillary services can include mammography, bone density testing, ultrasound, in-house laboratory services, bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, and weight management.¹

How much time do you spend with patients?
In 2014, 62% of ObGyns reported spending 9 to 16 minutes with a patient during a visit. This is compared to 56% of family physicians and 44% of internists (TABLE).^1,5

RTEmagicC_0715_OBG_Salaries_t.jpg.jpg

More than one-half (52%) of ObGynsspend 30 to 45 hours per week seeing patients. Fewer (38%) spend more than 45 hours per week, and 9% spend less than 30 hours per week with patients. This decline may be due to the increasing proportion of women and older physicians who tend to work shorter hours and fewer weeks.¹

In the general physician population, 24% of women and 13% of men work part time, whereas 16% of both male and female ObGyns work part time. ObGyns aged 65 years or older constitute 35% of part-timers; 9% of those aged 35 to 49 years, and 11% of those aged 50 to 64 years, work part time. Only 2% of those younger than age 35 work part time.¹

What is most rewarding?
When given several choices to select as the most rewarding aspect of their jobs, more female ObGyns (47%) than males (41%) reported that their physician-patient relationships are the major source of satisfaction. More men (10%) than women (7%) cite that making good money at a job they like is most gratifying. Only 3% of men and 2% of women reported no reward to being an ObGyn.¹

Survey methodology
Medscape reports that the recruitment period for the 2015 Physician Compensation Report was from December 30, 2014, through March 11, 2015. Data were collected via a third-party online survey collection site. The margin of error for the survey was ±0.69%.¹

Share your thoughts on this article! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Tissue extraction during laparoscopic or robot-assisted laparoscopic gynecologic surgery raises safety concerns for dissemination of tissue during the open, or uncontained, electromechanical morcellation process. Researchers from Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, investigated whether contained tissue extraction using power morcellators entirely within a bag is safe and practical for preventing tissue spillage. Goggins and colleagues presented their findings in a poster at the 2015 Annual Clinical Meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in San Francisco, California.

A total of 76 women at 4 institutions underwent laparoscopic or robotic multiport surgery (42 hysterectomy; 34 myomectomy). The average (SD) age and body mass index of the women were 43.16 (8.53) years and 26.47 kg/m² (5.93), respectively. After surgical dissection, each specimen was placed into a containment bag that also included blue dye. The bag was insufflated intracorporeally and electromechanical morcellation and extraction of tissue were performed. The bag was evaluated visually for dye leakage or tears before and after the procedure.

Results
In one case, there was a tear in the bag before morcellation; no bag tears occurred during the morcellation process. Spillage of dye or tissue was noted in 7 cases, although containment bags were intact in each instance. One patient experienced intraoperative blood loss (3600 mL), and that procedure was converted to open radical hysterectomy. The most common pathologic finding was benign leiomyoma.

Conclusion
Goggins and colleagues concluded, “Contained tissue extraction using electromechanical morcellation and intracorporeally insufflated bags may provide a safe alternative to uncontained morcellation by decreasing the spread of tissue in the peritoneal cavity while allowing for the traditional benefits of laparoscopy.”

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Tissue extraction during laparoscopic or robot-assisted laparoscopic gynecologic surgery raises safety concerns for dissemination of tissue during the open, or uncontained, electromechanical morcellation process. Researchers from Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, investigated whether contained tissue extraction using power morcellators entirely within a bag is safe and practical for preventing tissue spillage. Goggins and colleagues presented their findings in a poster at the 2015 Annual Clinical Meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in San Francisco, California.

A total of 76 women at 4 institutions underwent laparoscopic or robotic multiport surgery (42 hysterectomy; 34 myomectomy). The average (SD) age and body mass index of the women were 43.16 (8.53) years and 26.47 kg/m² (5.93), respectively. After surgical dissection, each specimen was placed into a containment bag that also included blue dye. The bag was insufflated intracorporeally and electromechanical morcellation and extraction of tissue were performed. The bag was evaluated visually for dye leakage or tears before and after the procedure.

Results
In one case, there was a tear in the bag before morcellation; no bag tears occurred during the morcellation process. Spillage of dye or tissue was noted in 7 cases, although containment bags were intact in each instance. One patient experienced intraoperative blood loss (3600 mL), and that procedure was converted to open radical hysterectomy. The most common pathologic finding was benign leiomyoma.

Conclusion
Goggins and colleagues concluded, “Contained tissue extraction using electromechanical morcellation and intracorporeally insufflated bags may provide a safe alternative to uncontained morcellation by decreasing the spread of tissue in the peritoneal cavity while allowing for the traditional benefits of laparoscopy.”

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Tissue extraction during laparoscopic or robot-assisted laparoscopic gynecologic surgery raises safety concerns for dissemination of tissue during the open, or uncontained, electromechanical morcellation process. Researchers from Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, investigated whether contained tissue extraction using power morcellators entirely within a bag is safe and practical for preventing tissue spillage. Goggins and colleagues presented their findings in a poster at the 2015 Annual Clinical Meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in San Francisco, California.

A total of 76 women at 4 institutions underwent laparoscopic or robotic multiport surgery (42 hysterectomy; 34 myomectomy). The average (SD) age and body mass index of the women were 43.16 (8.53) years and 26.47 kg/m² (5.93), respectively. After surgical dissection, each specimen was placed into a containment bag that also included blue dye. The bag was insufflated intracorporeally and electromechanical morcellation and extraction of tissue were performed. The bag was evaluated visually for dye leakage or tears before and after the procedure.

Results
In one case, there was a tear in the bag before morcellation; no bag tears occurred during the morcellation process. Spillage of dye or tissue was noted in 7 cases, although containment bags were intact in each instance. One patient experienced intraoperative blood loss (3600 mL), and that procedure was converted to open radical hysterectomy. The most common pathologic finding was benign leiomyoma.

Conclusion
Goggins and colleagues concluded, “Contained tissue extraction using electromechanical morcellation and intracorporeally insufflated bags may provide a safe alternative to uncontained morcellation by decreasing the spread of tissue in the peritoneal cavity while allowing for the traditional benefits of laparoscopy.”

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Use of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) has increased nearly 5-fold in the last decade, reported the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in a National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Data Brief on the trends in LARC use among US women aged 15 to 44.¹ 

Data from the National Survey of Family Growth indicate that LARCs, which include intrauterine devices (IUDs) and subdermal hormonal implants, are gaining popularity because of their high efficacy in preventing unintended pregnancies. LARCs have demonstrated greater efficacy in preventing unintended pregnancy among all women compared with other contraceptive methods, including the oral contraceptive pill and the transdermal patch.

Age-related trends
For women aged 15 to 44, LARC use doubled between 2002 (1.5%) and the period 2006–2010 (3.8%) and then nearly doubled again for 2011–2013 (7.2%). IUD use increased 83% from the 2006–2010 period (3.5%) to the 2011–2013 period (6.4%). Implant use tripled from 2002 (0.3%) to the 2011–2013 period (0.8%).

LARC use was higher among women aged 25 to 34 than among women aged 15 to 24. The difference in LARC use was not statistically significant between women aged 25 to 34 and women aged 35 to 44.

•  LARC use increased nearly 4-fold for women aged 15 to 24 between 2002 (0.6%) and 2006–2010 (2.3%), and doubled again for 2011–2013 (5.0%).
• LARC use almost doubled among women aged 25 to 34 from 2006–2010 to 2011–2013 (5.3% to 11.1%).
• LARC use tripled between 2002 (1.1%) and 2006–2010 (3.8%) for women aged 35 to 44, and increased to 5.3% in 2011–2013.

Patterns of use by race
Although LARC use tripled for non-Hispanic white women and increased 4-fold for non-Hispanic black women between 2002 and 2006–2010, use among Hispanic women declined 10% during this period. LARC use increased by 129% among Hispanic women and by 128% among non-Hispanic white women from 2006–2010 to 2011–2013. Use of LARCs in non-Hispanic black women increased by 30% during this same period.

Parous vs nulliparous women
Women who have had at least one birth use LARC at a higher rate than women who have had no previous births. During the period 2011–2013, rate of use was 3 times greater among parous (11.0%) women compared with nulliparous (2.8%) women.

• Among parous women, LARC use increased from 2.4% in 2002 to 6.3% in 2006–2010, and to 10.6% in 2011–2013.
• In nulliparous women, LARC use increased 10-fold between 2006–2010 and 2011–2013.

For additional information, visit the NCHS Data Brief at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db188.htm

Share your thoughts on this article! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Use of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) has increased nearly 5-fold in the last decade, reported the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in a National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Data Brief on the trends in LARC use among US women aged 15 to 44.¹ 

Data from the National Survey of Family Growth indicate that LARCs, which include intrauterine devices (IUDs) and subdermal hormonal implants, are gaining popularity because of their high efficacy in preventing unintended pregnancies. LARCs have demonstrated greater efficacy in preventing unintended pregnancy among all women compared with other contraceptive methods, including the oral contraceptive pill and the transdermal patch.

Age-related trends
For women aged 15 to 44, LARC use doubled between 2002 (1.5%) and the period 2006–2010 (3.8%) and then nearly doubled again for 2011–2013 (7.2%). IUD use increased 83% from the 2006–2010 period (3.5%) to the 2011–2013 period (6.4%). Implant use tripled from 2002 (0.3%) to the 2011–2013 period (0.8%).

LARC use was higher among women aged 25 to 34 than among women aged 15 to 24. The difference in LARC use was not statistically significant between women aged 25 to 34 and women aged 35 to 44.

•  LARC use increased nearly 4-fold for women aged 15 to 24 between 2002 (0.6%) and 2006–2010 (2.3%), and doubled again for 2011–2013 (5.0%).
• LARC use almost doubled among women aged 25 to 34 from 2006–2010 to 2011–2013 (5.3% to 11.1%).
• LARC use tripled between 2002 (1.1%) and 2006–2010 (3.8%) for women aged 35 to 44, and increased to 5.3% in 2011–2013.

Patterns of use by race
Although LARC use tripled for non-Hispanic white women and increased 4-fold for non-Hispanic black women between 2002 and 2006–2010, use among Hispanic women declined 10% during this period. LARC use increased by 129% among Hispanic women and by 128% among non-Hispanic white women from 2006–2010 to 2011–2013. Use of LARCs in non-Hispanic black women increased by 30% during this same period.

Parous vs nulliparous women
Women who have had at least one birth use LARC at a higher rate than women who have had no previous births. During the period 2011–2013, rate of use was 3 times greater among parous (11.0%) women compared with nulliparous (2.8%) women.

• Among parous women, LARC use increased from 2.4% in 2002 to 6.3% in 2006–2010, and to 10.6% in 2011–2013.
• In nulliparous women, LARC use increased 10-fold between 2006–2010 and 2011–2013.

For additional information, visit the NCHS Data Brief at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db188.htm

Share your thoughts on this article! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Use of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) has increased nearly 5-fold in the last decade, reported the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in a National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Data Brief on the trends in LARC use among US women aged 15 to 44.¹ 

Data from the National Survey of Family Growth indicate that LARCs, which include intrauterine devices (IUDs) and subdermal hormonal implants, are gaining popularity because of their high efficacy in preventing unintended pregnancies. LARCs have demonstrated greater efficacy in preventing unintended pregnancy among all women compared with other contraceptive methods, including the oral contraceptive pill and the transdermal patch.

Age-related trends
For women aged 15 to 44, LARC use doubled between 2002 (1.5%) and the period 2006–2010 (3.8%) and then nearly doubled again for 2011–2013 (7.2%). IUD use increased 83% from the 2006–2010 period (3.5%) to the 2011–2013 period (6.4%). Implant use tripled from 2002 (0.3%) to the 2011–2013 period (0.8%).

LARC use was higher among women aged 25 to 34 than among women aged 15 to 24. The difference in LARC use was not statistically significant between women aged 25 to 34 and women aged 35 to 44.

•  LARC use increased nearly 4-fold for women aged 15 to 24 between 2002 (0.6%) and 2006–2010 (2.3%), and doubled again for 2011–2013 (5.0%).
• LARC use almost doubled among women aged 25 to 34 from 2006–2010 to 2011–2013 (5.3% to 11.1%).
• LARC use tripled between 2002 (1.1%) and 2006–2010 (3.8%) for women aged 35 to 44, and increased to 5.3% in 2011–2013.

Patterns of use by race
Although LARC use tripled for non-Hispanic white women and increased 4-fold for non-Hispanic black women between 2002 and 2006–2010, use among Hispanic women declined 10% during this period. LARC use increased by 129% among Hispanic women and by 128% among non-Hispanic white women from 2006–2010 to 2011–2013. Use of LARCs in non-Hispanic black women increased by 30% during this same period.

Parous vs nulliparous women
Women who have had at least one birth use LARC at a higher rate than women who have had no previous births. During the period 2011–2013, rate of use was 3 times greater among parous (11.0%) women compared with nulliparous (2.8%) women.

• Among parous women, LARC use increased from 2.4% in 2002 to 6.3% in 2006–2010, and to 10.6% in 2011–2013.
• In nulliparous women, LARC use increased 10-fold between 2006–2010 and 2011–2013.

For additional information, visit the NCHS Data Brief at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db188.htm

Share your thoughts on this article! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Following the introduction of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) at the Maine Medical Center in Portland, the number of invasive prenatal diagnostic procedures decreased.

In a retrospective study, Joseph R. Wax, MD, and colleagues gathered statistics on the rates of genetic counseling, invasive prenatal diagnosis, and trisomy 21 detection among women who were at increased risk for aneuploidy. These rates were compared before and after the availability of NIPT.

The study included 1,046 women who underwent NIPT between June 1, 2012, and February 1, 2013, as well as 1,464 women who would have been eligible for NIPT if it had been available between December 1, 2010, and November 30, 2011. All women were aged 35 years or older and had ultrasound findings suggestive of increased risk of aneuploidy, a positive aneuploidy screen, prior trisomic fetus, or parental balanced translocation with increased risk for trisomy 13 or 21. One laboratory performed NIPT after patients received genetic counseling. The two groups were compared by maternal demographics, aneuploidy risk factors, rates of genetic counseling, invasive diagnostic procedures, and trisomy 21 detection.¹

Results of the study
A total of 33 fetuses with trisomy 21 were identified by positive aneuploidy screening. After the introduction of NIPT, genetic counseling for aneuploidy risk increased (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.77; P <.0001). However, the overall use of invasive diagnostic testing (aOR, 0.42; P <.0001), including amniocentesis (aOR, 0.37, P <.0001), decreased, although the prenatal diagnosis of trisomy 21 remained similar (88% vs 100%; P = .86).¹

Dr. Wax and colleagues concluded that, “NIPT in clinical practice uses more genetic counseling resources but requires significantly fewer invasive procedures to maintain the detection rates of trisomy 21.”¹

Following the introduction of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) at the Maine Medical Center in Portland, the number of invasive prenatal diagnostic procedures decreased.

In a retrospective study, Joseph R. Wax, MD, and colleagues gathered statistics on the rates of genetic counseling, invasive prenatal diagnosis, and trisomy 21 detection among women who were at increased risk for aneuploidy. These rates were compared before and after the availability of NIPT.

The study included 1,046 women who underwent NIPT between June 1, 2012, and February 1, 2013, as well as 1,464 women who would have been eligible for NIPT if it had been available between December 1, 2010, and November 30, 2011. All women were aged 35 years or older and had ultrasound findings suggestive of increased risk of aneuploidy, a positive aneuploidy screen, prior trisomic fetus, or parental balanced translocation with increased risk for trisomy 13 or 21. One laboratory performed NIPT after patients received genetic counseling. The two groups were compared by maternal demographics, aneuploidy risk factors, rates of genetic counseling, invasive diagnostic procedures, and trisomy 21 detection.¹

Results of the study
A total of 33 fetuses with trisomy 21 were identified by positive aneuploidy screening. After the introduction of NIPT, genetic counseling for aneuploidy risk increased (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.77; P <.0001). However, the overall use of invasive diagnostic testing (aOR, 0.42; P <.0001), including amniocentesis (aOR, 0.37, P <.0001), decreased, although the prenatal diagnosis of trisomy 21 remained similar (88% vs 100%; P = .86).¹

Dr. Wax and colleagues concluded that, “NIPT in clinical practice uses more genetic counseling resources but requires significantly fewer invasive procedures to maintain the detection rates of trisomy 21.”¹

Following the introduction of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) at the Maine Medical Center in Portland, the number of invasive prenatal diagnostic procedures decreased.

In a retrospective study, Joseph R. Wax, MD, and colleagues gathered statistics on the rates of genetic counseling, invasive prenatal diagnosis, and trisomy 21 detection among women who were at increased risk for aneuploidy. These rates were compared before and after the availability of NIPT.

The study included 1,046 women who underwent NIPT between June 1, 2012, and February 1, 2013, as well as 1,464 women who would have been eligible for NIPT if it had been available between December 1, 2010, and November 30, 2011. All women were aged 35 years or older and had ultrasound findings suggestive of increased risk of aneuploidy, a positive aneuploidy screen, prior trisomic fetus, or parental balanced translocation with increased risk for trisomy 13 or 21. One laboratory performed NIPT after patients received genetic counseling. The two groups were compared by maternal demographics, aneuploidy risk factors, rates of genetic counseling, invasive diagnostic procedures, and trisomy 21 detection.¹

Results of the study
A total of 33 fetuses with trisomy 21 were identified by positive aneuploidy screening. After the introduction of NIPT, genetic counseling for aneuploidy risk increased (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.77; P <.0001). However, the overall use of invasive diagnostic testing (aOR, 0.42; P <.0001), including amniocentesis (aOR, 0.37, P <.0001), decreased, although the prenatal diagnosis of trisomy 21 remained similar (88% vs 100%; P = .86).¹

Dr. Wax and colleagues concluded that, “NIPT in clinical practice uses more genetic counseling resources but requires significantly fewer invasive procedures to maintain the detection rates of trisomy 21.”¹

The 2014 Medscape Compensation Report surveyed more than 24,000 physicians in 25 specialties. Five percent of respondents were ObGyns, whose mean income rose slightly to $243,000 in 2013 from $242,000 in 2012, up from $220,000 in 2011.^1–3 The highest ObGyn earners lived in the Great Lakes and North Central regions.¹

Survey findings
Men make more than women. In 2013, male ObGyns reported earning $256,000; female ObGyns reported $229,000 in mean income. However, women felt more satisfied with their salary (47% of women vs 38% of men). Regardless of gender, ObGyns were slightly less happy with their income than all physicians (50% satisfied).¹

RTEmagicC_OBG_0714_Reale_ho.jpg.jpg

Among all female physicians, more were employed than self-employed; the opposite was true for male physicians.⁴ Half of all graduating physicians are now female, and demographics show that 62% of all female physicians are younger than age 45.¹

Practice settings are key to income. Sixty percent of ObGyns indicated they would choose medicine again as a career; 43% would choose their own specialty. However, only 25% of ObGyns would make the same decision about practice setting.¹

In 2013, employed and self-employed ObGyns reported nearly the same mean income: $243,000 versus $246,000, respectively. However, when broken down by specific practice setting, the highest earners were ObGyns who worked for health-care organizations, at $273,000. Additional 2013 mean earnings ranked by work setting were¹:

• multispecialty office-based group practices, $271,000
• single-specialty office-based group practices, $255,000
• hospitals, $228,000
• solo office-based practices, $212,000
• outpatient clinics, $207,000.

In 2013, 49% of employed physicians worked in hospitals or in groups owned by a hospital, while 21% were employed by private groups. Other employment situations included community health centers, corporate laboratories, correction institutions, military bases, and nursing homes.⁴

ACO participation grows. In 2013, 37% of ObGyns either participated in an Accountable Care Organization (ACO) or planned on joining an ACO within the next year.¹ This was an increase from 25% in 2012.^2,3

In the most recent report, 2% chose concierge practices (also known as direct primary care) and 5% opted for cash-only practices.¹ In 2012, only 1% of ObGyns opted for concierge practices, and 3% for cash-only practices.^2,3

Related article: Is private ObGyn practice on its way out? Lucia DiVenere, MA (October 2011)

Employment over private practice? In 2013, physicians were enticed to seek employment by the financial challenges of private practice (38%); not having to be concerned about administrative issues (29%); and working shorter and more regular hours (19%). Other reported benefits of employment were academic opportunities, better life−work balance, more vacation time, and no loss of income during vacation. More than half (53%) of employed physicians who were previously self-employed felt that patient care was superior now that they were employed, and 37% thought it was about the same.⁴

Related article: Mean income for ObGyns increased in 2012. Deborah Reale (News for your Practice; August 2013)

Career satisfaction
ObGyns were close to the bottom among all physicians (48%) when it came to overall career satisfaction, tied with nephrologists, surgeons, and pulmonologists. The most satisfied physicians were dermatologists (65%); the least satisfied were plastic surgeons (45%).¹

What drives you? In 2013, more ObGyns (41%) than all physicians (33%) reported that the most rewarding part of their job was their relationships with patients. Thirty percent of ObGyns chose being good at their jobs; 8% chose making good money; and 2% found nothing rewarding about the job.¹

How much patient time do you spend? The majority (58%) of ObGyns reported spending more than 40 hours per week with patients and 16 minutes or less (66%) per patient.¹ In 2012, 60% of ObGyn respondents reported spending 16 minutes or less per patient.^2,3

Anticipating the effects of the Affordable Care Act
Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), an organization’s revenue will still be determined largely by the volume generated by ­physicians. The percentage of ObGyns who saw 50 to 124 patients per week increased from 57% in 2012 to 69% in 2013 (TABLE).^1,2

RTEmagicC_OBG_0714_Reale_t1.jpg.jpg

In 2013, 53% of ObGyns still were undecided about health-insurance exchange participation—the same percentage as all survey respondents. Among ObGyns, 30% would participate, and 17% would not participate.¹

Related article: As the Affordable Care Act comes of age, a look behind the headlines. Lucia DiVenere, MA (Practice Management; January 2014)

Almost half (49%) of ObGyns expect their income under the ACA to decrease. About 45% of ObGyns did not foresee any change, and 5% believed their incomes would increase (1% didn’t know) under the ACA. ObGyns also anticipated a higher workload, a decline in quality of patient care and access, and reduced ability to make decisions.¹

Almost one-third of ObGyns dropped poorly paying insurers. In 2013, 29% of ObGyns said they regularly drop insurers who pay poorly, but 46% said they keep their insurers year after year. In 2012, 26% of ObGyns said they drop insurers who pay the least or create the most trouble; 29% said they keep all insurers.^2,3 Private insurance paid for 63% of patient visits to ObGyns in 2013.¹

Fewer ObGyns indicated they would see Medicare and Medicaid patients. In 2013, 20% of self-employed and 5% of employed ObGyns said that they plan to stop taking new Medicare or Medicaid patients. More employed (72%) than self-employed (46%) ObGyns reported that they would continue seeing new and current Medicare and Medicaid patients.¹

Related article: Medicare and Medicaid are on the brink of insolvency, and you’re not just a bystander. Robert L. Barbieri, MD (Editorial; October 2011)

In 2012, 15% of ObGyn respondents planned to stop taking new Medicare or Medicaid patients, but 53% of ObGyn respondents said they would continue to see current patients and would take on new Medicare or Medicaid patients.^2,3

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Share your thoughts on this article. Send your Letter to the Editor to: rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com 

The 2014 Medscape Compensation Report surveyed more than 24,000 physicians in 25 specialties. Five percent of respondents were ObGyns, whose mean income rose slightly to $243,000 in 2013 from $242,000 in 2012, up from $220,000 in 2011.^1–3 The highest ObGyn earners lived in the Great Lakes and North Central regions.¹

Survey findings
Men make more than women. In 2013, male ObGyns reported earning $256,000; female ObGyns reported $229,000 in mean income. However, women felt more satisfied with their salary (47% of women vs 38% of men). Regardless of gender, ObGyns were slightly less happy with their income than all physicians (50% satisfied).¹

RTEmagicC_OBG_0714_Reale_ho.jpg.jpg

Among all female physicians, more were employed than self-employed; the opposite was true for male physicians.⁴ Half of all graduating physicians are now female, and demographics show that 62% of all female physicians are younger than age 45.¹

Practice settings are key to income. Sixty percent of ObGyns indicated they would choose medicine again as a career; 43% would choose their own specialty. However, only 25% of ObGyns would make the same decision about practice setting.¹

In 2013, employed and self-employed ObGyns reported nearly the same mean income: $243,000 versus $246,000, respectively. However, when broken down by specific practice setting, the highest earners were ObGyns who worked for health-care organizations, at $273,000. Additional 2013 mean earnings ranked by work setting were¹:

• multispecialty office-based group practices, $271,000
• single-specialty office-based group practices, $255,000
• hospitals, $228,000
• solo office-based practices, $212,000
• outpatient clinics, $207,000.

In 2013, 49% of employed physicians worked in hospitals or in groups owned by a hospital, while 21% were employed by private groups. Other employment situations included community health centers, corporate laboratories, correction institutions, military bases, and nursing homes.⁴

ACO participation grows. In 2013, 37% of ObGyns either participated in an Accountable Care Organization (ACO) or planned on joining an ACO within the next year.¹ This was an increase from 25% in 2012.^2,3

In the most recent report, 2% chose concierge practices (also known as direct primary care) and 5% opted for cash-only practices.¹ In 2012, only 1% of ObGyns opted for concierge practices, and 3% for cash-only practices.^2,3

Related article: Is private ObGyn practice on its way out? Lucia DiVenere, MA (October 2011)

Employment over private practice? In 2013, physicians were enticed to seek employment by the financial challenges of private practice (38%); not having to be concerned about administrative issues (29%); and working shorter and more regular hours (19%). Other reported benefits of employment were academic opportunities, better life−work balance, more vacation time, and no loss of income during vacation. More than half (53%) of employed physicians who were previously self-employed felt that patient care was superior now that they were employed, and 37% thought it was about the same.⁴

Related article: Mean income for ObGyns increased in 2012. Deborah Reale (News for your Practice; August 2013)

Career satisfaction
ObGyns were close to the bottom among all physicians (48%) when it came to overall career satisfaction, tied with nephrologists, surgeons, and pulmonologists. The most satisfied physicians were dermatologists (65%); the least satisfied were plastic surgeons (45%).¹

What drives you? In 2013, more ObGyns (41%) than all physicians (33%) reported that the most rewarding part of their job was their relationships with patients. Thirty percent of ObGyns chose being good at their jobs; 8% chose making good money; and 2% found nothing rewarding about the job.¹

How much patient time do you spend? The majority (58%) of ObGyns reported spending more than 40 hours per week with patients and 16 minutes or less (66%) per patient.¹ In 2012, 60% of ObGyn respondents reported spending 16 minutes or less per patient.^2,3

Anticipating the effects of the Affordable Care Act
Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), an organization’s revenue will still be determined largely by the volume generated by ­physicians. The percentage of ObGyns who saw 50 to 124 patients per week increased from 57% in 2012 to 69% in 2013 (TABLE).^1,2

RTEmagicC_OBG_0714_Reale_t1.jpg.jpg

In 2013, 53% of ObGyns still were undecided about health-insurance exchange participation—the same percentage as all survey respondents. Among ObGyns, 30% would participate, and 17% would not participate.¹

Related article: As the Affordable Care Act comes of age, a look behind the headlines. Lucia DiVenere, MA (Practice Management; January 2014)

Almost half (49%) of ObGyns expect their income under the ACA to decrease. About 45% of ObGyns did not foresee any change, and 5% believed their incomes would increase (1% didn’t know) under the ACA. ObGyns also anticipated a higher workload, a decline in quality of patient care and access, and reduced ability to make decisions.¹

Almost one-third of ObGyns dropped poorly paying insurers. In 2013, 29% of ObGyns said they regularly drop insurers who pay poorly, but 46% said they keep their insurers year after year. In 2012, 26% of ObGyns said they drop insurers who pay the least or create the most trouble; 29% said they keep all insurers.^2,3 Private insurance paid for 63% of patient visits to ObGyns in 2013.¹

Fewer ObGyns indicated they would see Medicare and Medicaid patients. In 2013, 20% of self-employed and 5% of employed ObGyns said that they plan to stop taking new Medicare or Medicaid patients. More employed (72%) than self-employed (46%) ObGyns reported that they would continue seeing new and current Medicare and Medicaid patients.¹

Related article: Medicare and Medicaid are on the brink of insolvency, and you’re not just a bystander. Robert L. Barbieri, MD (Editorial; October 2011)

In 2012, 15% of ObGyn respondents planned to stop taking new Medicare or Medicaid patients, but 53% of ObGyn respondents said they would continue to see current patients and would take on new Medicare or Medicaid patients.^2,3

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Share your thoughts on this article. Send your Letter to the Editor to: rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com 

The 2014 Medscape Compensation Report surveyed more than 24,000 physicians in 25 specialties. Five percent of respondents were ObGyns, whose mean income rose slightly to $243,000 in 2013 from $242,000 in 2012, up from $220,000 in 2011.^1–3 The highest ObGyn earners lived in the Great Lakes and North Central regions.¹

Survey findings
Men make more than women. In 2013, male ObGyns reported earning $256,000; female ObGyns reported $229,000 in mean income. However, women felt more satisfied with their salary (47% of women vs 38% of men). Regardless of gender, ObGyns were slightly less happy with their income than all physicians (50% satisfied).¹

RTEmagicC_OBG_0714_Reale_ho.jpg.jpg

Among all female physicians, more were employed than self-employed; the opposite was true for male physicians.⁴ Half of all graduating physicians are now female, and demographics show that 62% of all female physicians are younger than age 45.¹

Practice settings are key to income. Sixty percent of ObGyns indicated they would choose medicine again as a career; 43% would choose their own specialty. However, only 25% of ObGyns would make the same decision about practice setting.¹

In 2013, employed and self-employed ObGyns reported nearly the same mean income: $243,000 versus $246,000, respectively. However, when broken down by specific practice setting, the highest earners were ObGyns who worked for health-care organizations, at $273,000. Additional 2013 mean earnings ranked by work setting were¹:

• multispecialty office-based group practices, $271,000
• single-specialty office-based group practices, $255,000
• hospitals, $228,000
• solo office-based practices, $212,000
• outpatient clinics, $207,000.

In 2013, 49% of employed physicians worked in hospitals or in groups owned by a hospital, while 21% were employed by private groups. Other employment situations included community health centers, corporate laboratories, correction institutions, military bases, and nursing homes.⁴

ACO participation grows. In 2013, 37% of ObGyns either participated in an Accountable Care Organization (ACO) or planned on joining an ACO within the next year.¹ This was an increase from 25% in 2012.^2,3

In the most recent report, 2% chose concierge practices (also known as direct primary care) and 5% opted for cash-only practices.¹ In 2012, only 1% of ObGyns opted for concierge practices, and 3% for cash-only practices.^2,3

Related article: Is private ObGyn practice on its way out? Lucia DiVenere, MA (October 2011)

Employment over private practice? In 2013, physicians were enticed to seek employment by the financial challenges of private practice (38%); not having to be concerned about administrative issues (29%); and working shorter and more regular hours (19%). Other reported benefits of employment were academic opportunities, better life−work balance, more vacation time, and no loss of income during vacation. More than half (53%) of employed physicians who were previously self-employed felt that patient care was superior now that they were employed, and 37% thought it was about the same.⁴

Related article: Mean income for ObGyns increased in 2012. Deborah Reale (News for your Practice; August 2013)

Career satisfaction
ObGyns were close to the bottom among all physicians (48%) when it came to overall career satisfaction, tied with nephrologists, surgeons, and pulmonologists. The most satisfied physicians were dermatologists (65%); the least satisfied were plastic surgeons (45%).¹

What drives you? In 2013, more ObGyns (41%) than all physicians (33%) reported that the most rewarding part of their job was their relationships with patients. Thirty percent of ObGyns chose being good at their jobs; 8% chose making good money; and 2% found nothing rewarding about the job.¹

How much patient time do you spend? The majority (58%) of ObGyns reported spending more than 40 hours per week with patients and 16 minutes or less (66%) per patient.¹ In 2012, 60% of ObGyn respondents reported spending 16 minutes or less per patient.^2,3

Anticipating the effects of the Affordable Care Act
Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), an organization’s revenue will still be determined largely by the volume generated by ­physicians. The percentage of ObGyns who saw 50 to 124 patients per week increased from 57% in 2012 to 69% in 2013 (TABLE).^1,2

RTEmagicC_OBG_0714_Reale_t1.jpg.jpg

In 2013, 53% of ObGyns still were undecided about health-insurance exchange participation—the same percentage as all survey respondents. Among ObGyns, 30% would participate, and 17% would not participate.¹

Related article: As the Affordable Care Act comes of age, a look behind the headlines. Lucia DiVenere, MA (Practice Management; January 2014)

Almost half (49%) of ObGyns expect their income under the ACA to decrease. About 45% of ObGyns did not foresee any change, and 5% believed their incomes would increase (1% didn’t know) under the ACA. ObGyns also anticipated a higher workload, a decline in quality of patient care and access, and reduced ability to make decisions.¹

Almost one-third of ObGyns dropped poorly paying insurers. In 2013, 29% of ObGyns said they regularly drop insurers who pay poorly, but 46% said they keep their insurers year after year. In 2012, 26% of ObGyns said they drop insurers who pay the least or create the most trouble; 29% said they keep all insurers.^2,3 Private insurance paid for 63% of patient visits to ObGyns in 2013.¹

Fewer ObGyns indicated they would see Medicare and Medicaid patients. In 2013, 20% of self-employed and 5% of employed ObGyns said that they plan to stop taking new Medicare or Medicaid patients. More employed (72%) than self-employed (46%) ObGyns reported that they would continue seeing new and current Medicare and Medicaid patients.¹

Related article: Medicare and Medicaid are on the brink of insolvency, and you’re not just a bystander. Robert L. Barbieri, MD (Editorial; October 2011)

In 2012, 15% of ObGyn respondents planned to stop taking new Medicare or Medicaid patients, but 53% of ObGyn respondents said they would continue to see current patients and would take on new Medicare or Medicaid patients.^2,3

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Share your thoughts on this article. Send your Letter to the Editor to: rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com 

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved paroxetine mesylate 7.5 mg (Brisdelle) for the treatment of moderate to severe menopausal vasomotor symptoms (VMS). Paroxetine, formerly known as low-dose mesylate salt of paroxetine (LDMP), is a nonhormonal agent, which makes it an alternative hot flash therapy for menopausal women who cannot or do not want to use hormones. Paroxetine mesylate (Pexeva, Brisdelle) and paroxetine hydrochloride (Paxil, and generics) are two salts of the same active compound (paroxetine). They may have somewhat different metabolism.

The efficacy and safety of paroxetine mesylate, a selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), were evaluated individually in three Phase 2 or 3 multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials, published by James Simon, MD, from George Washington University School of Medicine, and colleagues,¹ and Joffe and colleagues.² Most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in the individual studies were mild or moderate in severity, with minimal acute discontinuation symptoms reported on treatment cessation.

In a study³ presented April 29, at the 2014 Annual Clinical Meeting of The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in Chicago, Illinois, Simon and colleagues further reported on the overall tolerability and safety profile of paroxetine mesylate 7.5 mg using pooled data from the three randomized trials. In their post-hoc analyses, they specifically examined the emergence of adverse events linked to the use of SSRIs when prescribed for psychiatric disorders at therapeutically higher doses than 7.5 mg. The adverse events focused on included weight gain, decreased libido, and sleep disturbance, as well as suicidality, abnormal bleeding, and bone fracture.

Study details. A total of 1,276 postmenopausal women (approximately 70% white) aged 40 years or older (median age, 54 years) with moderate to severe VMS (7−8 hot flashes/day; 50−60 hot flashes/wk) received either paroxetine mesylate or placebo at bedtime for 8 (Phase 2), 12 (Phase 3), or 24 (Phase 3) weeks. The study was sponsored by Noven Therapeutics, LLC.

Treatment-emergent adverse events and discontinuation
About half (50.4%) of the 635 women in the paroxetine group and 47.0% of the 641 women in the placebo group reported at least one TEAE. Most commonly reported TEAEs in the paroxetine group (reported in ≥2% of patients and with a twofold or higher frequency than in the placebo group) were nausea, fatigue, and dizziness.

TEAEs that were determined to be related to the study drug were reported in 19.5% in the paroxetine group and in 17.6% in the placebo group. These most frequent TEAEs were fatigue, nausea, dizziness, and diarrhea.

Severe AEs were reported in 3.9% and 3.6% of women in the paroxetine and placebo groups, respectively, although the investigator determined that less than 1% were related to paroxetine treatment.

TEAEs that led to discontinuation occurred in 4.7% of paroxetine-treated women and in 3.7% of placebo-treated women, although the incidence of study drug interruptions from TEAEs was similar (0.9%) between treatments. The most frequent adverse reactions leading to discontinuation in the paroxetine arm were abdominal pain (0.3%), attention disturbances (0.3%), headache (0.3%), and suicidal ideation (0.3%).

Of the most common AEs, nausea occurred mainly within the first 4 weeks of treatment; fatigue occurred primarily within the first week of treatment and decreased in frequency with continued therapy. Incidences and types of AEs that began after 12 weeks were similar to those that began during the first 12 weeks of treatment.

AEs related to SSRIs not found to be problematic
No differences were found between groups with regard to TEAEs related to weight, libido, or sleep. No clinically meaningful changes in laboratory values, vital signs, or ECGs were observed with either group. No clinically important findings on abnormal bleeding, bone fracture, or suicidality were evident in the paroxetine arm.

In the Phase 3 studies:

• One suicide attempt was reported in the paroxetine group in the 24-week study, but was determined by investigators to be unrelated to treatment

• Incidence rates of gastrointestinal and other bleeding events were similar between groups

• Five bone fractures were reported: One in the paroxetine group and four among three participants in the placebo group.

One death occurred in the 12-week Phase 3 study due to acute respiratory failure with evidence of hypertension-mediated pulmonary edema and hypertensive cardiovascular disease. The investigator did not consider the death to be related to the study drug.

Study conclusion
The authors concluded that paroxetine 7.5 mg had favorable tolerability in menopausal women with moderate to severe VMS.

“Paroxetine 7.5 mg offers a nonhormonal treatment option for women who seek treatment for moderate to severe hot flashes associated with menopause,” said Dr. Simon.³ 

Tell us what you think! Send your Letter to the Editor: rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved paroxetine mesylate 7.5 mg (Brisdelle) for the treatment of moderate to severe menopausal vasomotor symptoms (VMS). Paroxetine, formerly known as low-dose mesylate salt of paroxetine (LDMP), is a nonhormonal agent, which makes it an alternative hot flash therapy for menopausal women who cannot or do not want to use hormones. Paroxetine mesylate (Pexeva, Brisdelle) and paroxetine hydrochloride (Paxil, and generics) are two salts of the same active compound (paroxetine). They may have somewhat different metabolism.

The efficacy and safety of paroxetine mesylate, a selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), were evaluated individually in three Phase 2 or 3 multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials, published by James Simon, MD, from George Washington University School of Medicine, and colleagues,¹ and Joffe and colleagues.² Most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in the individual studies were mild or moderate in severity, with minimal acute discontinuation symptoms reported on treatment cessation.

In a study³ presented April 29, at the 2014 Annual Clinical Meeting of The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in Chicago, Illinois, Simon and colleagues further reported on the overall tolerability and safety profile of paroxetine mesylate 7.5 mg using pooled data from the three randomized trials. In their post-hoc analyses, they specifically examined the emergence of adverse events linked to the use of SSRIs when prescribed for psychiatric disorders at therapeutically higher doses than 7.5 mg. The adverse events focused on included weight gain, decreased libido, and sleep disturbance, as well as suicidality, abnormal bleeding, and bone fracture.

Study details. A total of 1,276 postmenopausal women (approximately 70% white) aged 40 years or older (median age, 54 years) with moderate to severe VMS (7−8 hot flashes/day; 50−60 hot flashes/wk) received either paroxetine mesylate or placebo at bedtime for 8 (Phase 2), 12 (Phase 3), or 24 (Phase 3) weeks. The study was sponsored by Noven Therapeutics, LLC.

Treatment-emergent adverse events and discontinuation
About half (50.4%) of the 635 women in the paroxetine group and 47.0% of the 641 women in the placebo group reported at least one TEAE. Most commonly reported TEAEs in the paroxetine group (reported in ≥2% of patients and with a twofold or higher frequency than in the placebo group) were nausea, fatigue, and dizziness.

TEAEs that were determined to be related to the study drug were reported in 19.5% in the paroxetine group and in 17.6% in the placebo group. These most frequent TEAEs were fatigue, nausea, dizziness, and diarrhea.

Severe AEs were reported in 3.9% and 3.6% of women in the paroxetine and placebo groups, respectively, although the investigator determined that less than 1% were related to paroxetine treatment.

TEAEs that led to discontinuation occurred in 4.7% of paroxetine-treated women and in 3.7% of placebo-treated women, although the incidence of study drug interruptions from TEAEs was similar (0.9%) between treatments. The most frequent adverse reactions leading to discontinuation in the paroxetine arm were abdominal pain (0.3%), attention disturbances (0.3%), headache (0.3%), and suicidal ideation (0.3%).

Of the most common AEs, nausea occurred mainly within the first 4 weeks of treatment; fatigue occurred primarily within the first week of treatment and decreased in frequency with continued therapy. Incidences and types of AEs that began after 12 weeks were similar to those that began during the first 12 weeks of treatment.

AEs related to SSRIs not found to be problematic
No differences were found between groups with regard to TEAEs related to weight, libido, or sleep. No clinically meaningful changes in laboratory values, vital signs, or ECGs were observed with either group. No clinically important findings on abnormal bleeding, bone fracture, or suicidality were evident in the paroxetine arm.

In the Phase 3 studies:

• One suicide attempt was reported in the paroxetine group in the 24-week study, but was determined by investigators to be unrelated to treatment

• Incidence rates of gastrointestinal and other bleeding events were similar between groups

• Five bone fractures were reported: One in the paroxetine group and four among three participants in the placebo group.

One death occurred in the 12-week Phase 3 study due to acute respiratory failure with evidence of hypertension-mediated pulmonary edema and hypertensive cardiovascular disease. The investigator did not consider the death to be related to the study drug.

Study conclusion
The authors concluded that paroxetine 7.5 mg had favorable tolerability in menopausal women with moderate to severe VMS.

“Paroxetine 7.5 mg offers a nonhormonal treatment option for women who seek treatment for moderate to severe hot flashes associated with menopause,” said Dr. Simon.³ 

Tell us what you think! Send your Letter to the Editor: rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved paroxetine mesylate 7.5 mg (Brisdelle) for the treatment of moderate to severe menopausal vasomotor symptoms (VMS). Paroxetine, formerly known as low-dose mesylate salt of paroxetine (LDMP), is a nonhormonal agent, which makes it an alternative hot flash therapy for menopausal women who cannot or do not want to use hormones. Paroxetine mesylate (Pexeva, Brisdelle) and paroxetine hydrochloride (Paxil, and generics) are two salts of the same active compound (paroxetine). They may have somewhat different metabolism.

The efficacy and safety of paroxetine mesylate, a selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), were evaluated individually in three Phase 2 or 3 multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials, published by James Simon, MD, from George Washington University School of Medicine, and colleagues,¹ and Joffe and colleagues.² Most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in the individual studies were mild or moderate in severity, with minimal acute discontinuation symptoms reported on treatment cessation.

In a study³ presented April 29, at the 2014 Annual Clinical Meeting of The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in Chicago, Illinois, Simon and colleagues further reported on the overall tolerability and safety profile of paroxetine mesylate 7.5 mg using pooled data from the three randomized trials. In their post-hoc analyses, they specifically examined the emergence of adverse events linked to the use of SSRIs when prescribed for psychiatric disorders at therapeutically higher doses than 7.5 mg. The adverse events focused on included weight gain, decreased libido, and sleep disturbance, as well as suicidality, abnormal bleeding, and bone fracture.

Study details. A total of 1,276 postmenopausal women (approximately 70% white) aged 40 years or older (median age, 54 years) with moderate to severe VMS (7−8 hot flashes/day; 50−60 hot flashes/wk) received either paroxetine mesylate or placebo at bedtime for 8 (Phase 2), 12 (Phase 3), or 24 (Phase 3) weeks. The study was sponsored by Noven Therapeutics, LLC.

Treatment-emergent adverse events and discontinuation
About half (50.4%) of the 635 women in the paroxetine group and 47.0% of the 641 women in the placebo group reported at least one TEAE. Most commonly reported TEAEs in the paroxetine group (reported in ≥2% of patients and with a twofold or higher frequency than in the placebo group) were nausea, fatigue, and dizziness.

TEAEs that were determined to be related to the study drug were reported in 19.5% in the paroxetine group and in 17.6% in the placebo group. These most frequent TEAEs were fatigue, nausea, dizziness, and diarrhea.

Severe AEs were reported in 3.9% and 3.6% of women in the paroxetine and placebo groups, respectively, although the investigator determined that less than 1% were related to paroxetine treatment.

TEAEs that led to discontinuation occurred in 4.7% of paroxetine-treated women and in 3.7% of placebo-treated women, although the incidence of study drug interruptions from TEAEs was similar (0.9%) between treatments. The most frequent adverse reactions leading to discontinuation in the paroxetine arm were abdominal pain (0.3%), attention disturbances (0.3%), headache (0.3%), and suicidal ideation (0.3%).

Of the most common AEs, nausea occurred mainly within the first 4 weeks of treatment; fatigue occurred primarily within the first week of treatment and decreased in frequency with continued therapy. Incidences and types of AEs that began after 12 weeks were similar to those that began during the first 12 weeks of treatment.

AEs related to SSRIs not found to be problematic
No differences were found between groups with regard to TEAEs related to weight, libido, or sleep. No clinically meaningful changes in laboratory values, vital signs, or ECGs were observed with either group. No clinically important findings on abnormal bleeding, bone fracture, or suicidality were evident in the paroxetine arm.

In the Phase 3 studies:

• One suicide attempt was reported in the paroxetine group in the 24-week study, but was determined by investigators to be unrelated to treatment

• Incidence rates of gastrointestinal and other bleeding events were similar between groups

• Five bone fractures were reported: One in the paroxetine group and four among three participants in the placebo group.

One death occurred in the 12-week Phase 3 study due to acute respiratory failure with evidence of hypertension-mediated pulmonary edema and hypertensive cardiovascular disease. The investigator did not consider the death to be related to the study drug.

Study conclusion
The authors concluded that paroxetine 7.5 mg had favorable tolerability in menopausal women with moderate to severe VMS.

“Paroxetine 7.5 mg offers a nonhormonal treatment option for women who seek treatment for moderate to severe hot flashes associated with menopause,” said Dr. Simon.³ 

Tell us what you think! Send your Letter to the Editor: rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com