The Economics of Private Practice versus Academia in Surgery.

OBJECTIVE

Residents often make career decisions regarding future practice without adequate knowledge to the realities of professional life. Currently there is a paucity of data regarding economic differences between practice models. This study seeks to illuminate the financial differences of surgical subspecialties between academic and private practice.

DESIGN

Data were collected from the Association of American Medical College (AAMC) and the Medical Group Management Association's (MGMA) 2015 reports of average annual salaries. Salaries were analyzed for general surgery and 7 subspecialties. Fixed time of practice was set at 30 years. Assumptions included 5 years as assistant professor, 10 years as associate professor, and 15 years as full professor. Formula used: (average yearly salary) × [years of practice (30 yrs - fellowship/research yrs)] + ($50,000 × yrs of fellowship/research) = total adjusted lifetime revenue.

RESULTS

As a full professor, academic surgeons in all subspecialties make significantly less than their private practice counterparts. The largest discrepancy is in vascular and cardiothoracic surgery, with full professors earning 16% and 14% less than private practitioners. Plastic surgery and general surgery are the only 2 disciplines that have similar lifetime revenues to private practitioners, earning 2% and 6% less than their counterparts' lifetime revenue.

CONCLUSIONS

Academic surgeons in all surgical subspecialties examined earn less lifetime revenue compared to those in private practice. This difference in earnings decreases but remains substantial as an academic surgeon advances. With limited exposure to the diversity of professional arenas, residents must be aware of this discrepancy.