Friday, July 23, 2010

The Worst-Paying Jobs for Doctors

by Tara Weiss and Seth Cline
Monday, July 19, 2010

Don't go into family practice if you're in it for the money.

When Ted Epperly entered medical school in 1976, he did so with a scholarship from the U.S. Army. In return he committed to serving for four years in the Army after graduating from the University of Washington. It meant he wouldn't have the crippling student loans that burden many new doctors, so he was free to follow his dream of becoming a family practitioner instead of a cardiologist, the more lucrative specialty he was also considering.

"I didn't have large loans, so my choice became about what I wanted to do," he says. Today he is president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. "As I went through school I realized I loved the continuity of care that primary care physicians can offer. I could see patients through their whole lives. Since I didn't have large loans to pay, I could do what I wanted and have a calling. It became a no-brainer."

Not many doctors have that luxury, since the average medical school student owes $140,000 in loans at graduation. That's a major reason not many doctors are becoming primary care physicians: They earn the lowest salary of all physicians, according to the medical search and consulting firm Merritt Hawkins & Associates' 2010 Review of Physician Recruiting Incentives.

At $180,000 for pediatricians and $175,000 for family practitioners, primary care providers make an awful lot less than the typical orthopedic surgeon, who makes $519,000, or a urologist, who earns $400,000, according to the Merritt Hawkins data. That disparity has contributed to a serious shortage of primary care doctors. The American Medical Association predicts a shortage of 35,000 to 40,000 primary care physicians by 2025.

Why do primary care physicians make less than specialists? One reason is they simply don't bring in the same amount of revenue per doctor, according to a Merritt Hawkins survey of hospital revenues. The 114 hospitals that participated in that survey reported that primary care physicians brought in an average of $225,383 less per year than specialists, between 2002 and 2010.

One reason for that is the medical profession's fee structure. Medicare and private insurers cover medical expenses based on valuations provided by a committee of the American Medical Assocation that assigns every medical task a "relative value unit" based on the skill and expertise required to perform it. If your work as a doctor expends more relative value units, you generally end up earning more, so the committee's assessment is very important.

"The group that sets the standard for this is composed of doctors, mostly specialists," says Phil Miller, vice president of communications at Merritt Hawkins. "Some people say because this group is made up of mostly specialists, they weight their own work more." The committee doesn't rate the primary care physicians' face-to-face interactions with patients as highly as procedures that specialists perform, so primary care physicians end up earning less.

Family practitioners earned $16,000 less in 2009 than certified registered nurse anesthetists, registered nurses who have worked in the field for at least one year and then return to school for 24 to 36 months to qualify for a master's degree. That's a lot less training than the four years of medical school, one year of internship and then residency you have to go through to become a primary care physician.

"You're talking about twice as much money to be a specialist, a better perceived lifestyle and more time off," says Tommy Bohannon, senior director of development and training at Merritt Hawkins.The AMA predicts that the shortage of internists will get worse as baby boomers age and require additional medical attention.

The AMA and the American Academy of Family Physicians are discussing several possible ways of addressing the shortage. They include offering scholarships to students who go into and stay in primary care, and loan forgiveness for primary care physicians who work in underserved areas.

Epperly also suggests distributing National Institutes of Health grants, a large source of funding for public medical schools, based on how many primary care physicians the schools produce. "If your percentage of primary care physicians is low, you don't get as much of that money," he says.

There has been talk of creating more places for students in medical schools, but that would take a long time to have an effect, since those students need not just four years of medical school but also a one-year internship, about three years for a residency and maybe three to five years of regular practice before they reach their full effectiveness. As a result, Bohannon says, there can't be a real increase in supply before about 2030.

Still, getting more primary care physicians out there is crucial for improving Americans' health, Epperly says: "Studies show that if you have a regular primary care physician to go to, your health will be better and your costs will be lower, because the treatment can be preemptive. If I've cared for you for 10 years, you can call about a question and not need to come in. I connect the dots for you for your health care. That's what we're missing in our system."

1. Family Practice

Average salary, 2009-2010: $175,000
2008-2009: $173,000
2008-2009: $172,000
2006-2007: $161,000

2. Pediatrics

Average salary, 2009-2010: $180,000
2008-2009: $171,000
2008-2009: $159,000
2006-2007: $159,000

3. Internal Medicine

Average salary, 2009-2010: $191,000
2008-2009: $186,000
2008-2009: $176,000
2006-2007: $174,000

4. Family Practice with Obstetrics

Average salary, 2009-2010: $200,000
2008-2009: $184,000
2008-2009: $184,000
2006-2007: $159,000

5. Hospitalist

Average salary, 2009-2010: $208,000
2008-2009: $201,000
2008-2009: $181,000
2006-2007: $180,000


Saturday, July 10, 2010

Quote of the Day

"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."

-Unknown

Monday, July 5, 2010

Estée Lauder: the line of beauty

By Drusilla Beyfus
Published: 12:01AM BST 10 May 2008

Between 1962 and 1987 the 'Estée Lauder woman' was exemplified by a succession of five models in a groundbreaking advertising campaign shot by Victor Skrebneski. Twenty-one years on, Drusilla Beyfus talks to the key players

The reissue of the book Five Beautiful Women is a reminder of an advertising campaign that broke new ground, ran for 25 years and helped to shape the fortunes of Estée Lauder, the founder of the US-based cosmetics empire currently quoted as worth $5 billion. It was an exercise in inspired puffery. Focused on a series of high-glamour black-and-white photographs of models posing in ritzy or romantic surroundings, the campaign sold Lauder's products in newspapers and magazines from 1962 to 1987.

In the 1960s the major beauty houses usually diffused their advertising by using a variety of images shot by different photographers. Estée Lauder had her reasons for parting company with that practice. Together with the brand's New York advertising agency, AC&R, they dreamt up the concept of 'the Estée Lauder woman'. Lauder comments in her autobiography, 'She was one kind of woman, always, even though she could be rich, poor, younger or older. She was classic. That never changed.'

A decision was taken to personify the brand's products in the likeness of this fiction. The campaign would use the same model in its advertising photography over a run of years. Each of the exemplars projected a different kind of physical beauty, though they had much in common. Caucasian women, they are slender but not excessively thin, graced with elegantly long necks, trusty high cheek bones and classically regular facial features. Although a smiling face is thought of as being part and parcel of US product advertising, few of the Lauder lovelies succumb to a parting of the lips. A characteristic expression is of cool don't-mess-with-me reserve.

Consistency was essential in the visuals and this was the responsibility of the Chicago-based photographer Victor Skrebneski, who was assigned to shoot the pictures throughout. In an interview in Town & Country magazine, he said, 'I love to design photographs, to consider the proportions of the figure, the space around it, the edge of the picture.' Among his best-known sitters are Audrey Hepburn, Orson Welles, Vanessa Redgrave, Fred Astaire, and among younger members, Jasmine Guinness.

Owing more than a nod to Hollywood lighting effects and film-still poses, the shoots went flat out for the aspirational. Whether location or studio, a whole slew of fashions in living were called on and called in: impressive houses, designer dresses from the likes of Oscar de la Renta, Halston and Valentino, remarkable accessories and interior design details with an emphasis on collector's level art, both antique and contemporary. In my telephone interview with Skrebneski, he recalled, 'The photographs caused a lot of public comment. People were interested in everything in the picture. The designers whose dresses were shown did quite a lot of business and I was always being asked where we had got hold of an item of decoration.'
Interestingly for such ephemera, the portfolio had an afterlife. It was thought that the pictures communicated more than segments of powder and paint time. A selection of the shots was first published in hardback in 1987 with an introduction by Hubert de Givenchy.

Despite the fact that no reference is made in the book to the products that the shots promoted, the pictures tell the story of changes in beauty trends. Broadly, the line travels from one look as the look of the day to chameleon-like choice. Phyllis Connor (1962-67) has broomstick Elizabeth Taylor eyelashes, pale lips outlined and neat hair; Karen Harris (1967-1970) is given panda-like eye make-up, fine arched brows and a beehive; Karen Graham (1970-1980) features naturalistic make-up, a clean brow and softly curled hair; Shaun Casey (1981-1985) advances the cause of naturalism illustrating a light blusher, soft lipline and gentle eyeliner; Willow Bay (1985-1987) introduces many different appearances from high-style, grown-up grooming to the illusion of a look that is nature's own.

Graham features on the cover and has the greatest number of portraits in the book. According to Lauder's reminiscences she was picked from more than a thousand faces on the grounds that she possessed 'that indefinable air known as class'. As it happened this chimed with Graham's own modelling ambitions. She told me, 'The image I was trying to create for myself as a model was one of classic elegance and all those settings fed right into the persona I was working towards.' In Skrebneski's view, Graham had 'the young Bette Davis look. The wonderful thing about her was that she always knew what to do.'

'Victor and I had similar goals,' Graham told me. 'I felt confident with him. No matter what I was wearing or what pose, I knew he would take a photograph of me that I would be pleased with. There was an era even in beauty photography that was showing dark shadows and lighting that was anything but flattering to the model. Victor was never caught up in that track of decadent realism and the druggy look.' In retrospect, she believes that the factor that dates the pictures most tellingly is the hairstyles.

None the less, critics may argue that the set-piece glamour poses and lush consumerism of the pictures amount to little more than conventional retro. Certainly the shots are distant from what was going on in the creative fields in beauty and style photography, particularly as far as the portrayal of women's sexuality was concerned. It was an era when metaphors for femininity and stylishness took on a harder edge and many limits went out of the studio window.

Rising above such esoteric considerations, the Estée Lauder woman lives on most prominen tly in the real-life persona of Aerin Lauder, the granddaughter of Estée. Aerin, born in 1970, is now the head of global advertising for the company and recently appeared in the promotional images for its new fragrance, Private Collection. Shot by the British photographer Craig McDean in a high-glam style, the image has many affinities with the Beauties shots. As to the attribute of feminine beauty that the book's title celebrates, surely little has changed in terms of its power since Helen of Troy, as the recent Carla Bruni-Sarkozy effect suggests.