GodzillaBorland

Your survey has a bias supporting low moral. You might want to be less judgmental and ask about moral in general, including the option of being highly satisfied with being a physician and why. For instance, why did you not have a question such as: Please choose the SINGLE biggest factor that you believe raises the morale of physicians working in U.S. health care? a. Respected position in community b. Respected by individual patients c. Able to be in an independent business d. Top 10% of income in the country e. Able to live anywhere I choose. f. Mentally stimulating/challenging work g. Ability to have an impact on someones life I believe that we have an obligation to our profession to continue to look at what makes the profession great and why. Too often we look at the negative. I hear docs say that they wouldn't want their children to be physicians. Rubbish. I have four children and they can do whatever they want, but if they become physicians, they will have more flexibility and lifestyle choices than just about any other profession that they could choose.

bluedevilmike

It is insufficient to claim bias because you don't like the conclusion. My experience shows that physician morale varies significantly but is well in line with this discussion.

Medicine as a career has many positive aspects to it. I wouldn't be in medical school if I didn't believe so. It's just important that aspiring physicians understand this world as it actually is -- with open eyes and heavy consideration.

sar

The govt should be focusing more on cutting drug costs (if it can dodge the pharmaceutical companies' political clout). The way the pharmaceutical industry makes money is just nutty.

On a side note, someone mentioned that doing something you hate for money is like taking aspirin for cancer... the analogy isn't perfect, but research shows that aspirin might actually help reduce the risk of certain cancers. lol

Bigredmed

The one thing I've always found interesting/unaccounted for with regards to morale is how "new" or younger physicians (less than 8-12 years since med school graduation) feel, specifically. The whole "medicine is changing" argument has been around for at least 20 years (I've seen opinion pieces written in 1988 that sound like they could have been written today). Personally, I know that older physicians are upset at the changes, but wonder if it's really going to matter to me if it's what I've always known.

bluedevilmike

The pharmaceutical industry uses some of the profits for R&D, and isn't a huge part of medical expenses anyway. By far the largest block of health care expenditure is related to hospital services.

And yes -- it would make sense that aspirin, being a COX-1 and COX-2 inhibitor, would have the same anti-cancer effects that were suspected of COX-2 inhibitors like Vioxx. In fact, it was during a cancer trial -- not a normal painkiller trial -- that Vioxx's negative cardiovascular effects first became widely known.

my$0.02

Sadly, most of these factors are illusory in this day and age: Respect, income and the ability to relocate have suffered real erosion. Unfavorable liability climate, the withdrawal of numerous liability carriers from whole states and the exorbitant price of tail coverage limits geographic flexibility.

Medical practice can be mentally stimulating and have an impact on the world, as can teaching, farming, or engineering.

sar

I want to practice and teach. But that usually requires doing research too, doesn't it?
aw poo.

Bigredmed

Yes it typically does. There are other options though. Volunteer faculty serve an important part in the development of pre-clinical medical students. I won't go into everything at the moment because it's late and I'm drunk on a Tuesday. But there are plenty of other options that could allow you to teach in a less formal setting.

sar

I'm glad to hear there are other options.

OldPerson

It used to be worth it but not any more. At the onset of modern medicine the doctor had respect, but an income slightly above average. Then the doctor get a better income and also had great respect. At first, the HMOs took away the doctor's respect (eg. clerks make treatment decisions). Then the HMOs took away the money. So what is left beside long hours.

gangubhai

http://www.business-services.upenn.e...02006-2007.pdf

At age 45, Wharton graduates had "Median Personal Income" $100,000 - $124, 999.
This is out of the horses mouth- the Wharton Alumni magazine.


CEO's make 10 or 1000 times more, but average physician makes more than average Wharton graduate.

BTW, among b-schools, Wharton is again #1.

bluedevilmike

That can't possibly be correct data, since the avg. Wharton grad makes more than that upon graduation.

EDIT: Yeah, that's the statistics for the people who receive the alumni magazine. You can see from the line above that a large portion of the pool is Wharton alums of some kind, including undergrads and non-MBA candidates. Many of them are int'l, etc.

gangubhai

I have no idea what Wharton grads make, on an average. I mean not even in the ballpark figure. That's what makes it so difficult to compare with physicians, the incomes of whom are published in a million places. What were you thinking Wharton grads make on average?

Before posting I had also understoof that these incomes are of their readers but on looking at the website more closely I think it kind of says readers have to be grads (although not just MBA's but also PhDs etc). International I think they still could be Wharton grads as they are the ones who might be the CEOs and lower level buisnessmen all over the world!!

bluedevilmike

Wharton grads, according to USN, have a "starting salary" of $105K, immediatley after B-school. (I think that might even be immediately before b-school, but I'm not sure.)

So for their lifetime average to be $110 would be silly. Plus I'm sure much of their compensation (another half entirely) would be in bonuses.

fjm_001

My twin brother will be going to Wharton next year, and their undergrads hit that range after graduation, before b-school.