The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine ... - Wiley Online Library

SPECIAL CONTRIBUTION

The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine and Association of Academic Chairs in Emergency Medicine 2009–2010 Emergency Medicine Faculty Salary and Benefits Survey Susan H. Watts, PhD, Susan B. Promes, MD, and Robert Hockberger, MD

Abstract Objectives: The objective was to report the results of a survey conducted jointly by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and the Association of Academic Chairs in Emergency Medicine (AACEM) of faculty salaries, benefits, work hours, and department demographics for institutions sponsoring residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Residency Review Committee for Emergency Medicine (RRC-EM). Methods: Data represent information collected for the 2009–2010 academic year through an electronic survey developed by SAEM and AACEM and distributed by the Office for Survey Research at the University of Michigan to all emergency department (ED) chairs and chiefs at institutions sponsoring accredited residency programs. Information was collected regarding faculty salaries and benefits; clinical and nonclinical work hours; sources of department income and department expenses; and selected demographic information regarding faculty, EDs, and hospitals. Salary data were sorted by program geographic region and faculty characteristics such as training and board certification, academic rank, department title, and sex. Demographic data were analyzed with regard to numerous criteria, including ED staffing levels, patient volumes and length of stay, income sources, salary incentive components, research funding, and specific type and value of fringe benefits offered. Data were compared with previous SAEM studies and the most recent faculty salary survey conducted by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). Results: Ninety-four of 155 programs (61%) responded, yielding salary data on 1,644 faculty, of whom 1,515 (92%) worked full-time. The mean salary for all faculty nationwide was $237,884, with the mean ranging from $232,819 to $246,853 depending on geographic region. The mean salary for first-year faculty nationwide was $204,833. Benefits had an estimated mean value of $48,915 for all faculty, with the mean ranging from $37,813 to $55,346 depending on geographic region. The following factors are associated with higher salaries: emergency medicine (EM) residency training and board certification, fellowship training in toxicology and hyperbaric medicine, higher academic rank, male sex, and living in the western and southern regions. Full-time EM faculty work an average of 20 to 23 clinical hours and 16 to 19 nonclinical hours per week. Conclusions: The salaries for full-time EM faculty reported in this survey were higher than those found in the AAMC survey for the same time period in the majority of categories for both academic rank and geographic region. On average, female faculty are paid 10% to 13% less than their male counterparts. Full-time EM faculty work an average of 20 to 23 clinical hours and 16 to 19 nonclinical hours per week, which is similar to the work hours reported in previous SAEM surveys. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2012; 19:852–860 ª 2012 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine

From the Department of Emergency Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Paul L. Foster School of Medicine (SHW), El Paso, TX; the Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California San Francisco Medical Center (SBP), San Francisco, CA; and the Department of Emergency Medicine, Harbor-University of California Los Angeles Medical Center (RH), Torrance, CA. Received April 8, 2012; revision received April 10, 2012; accepted April 10, 2012. Financial support for the development and dissemination of the electronic survey was provided by the boards of directors of SAEM and the AACEM. None of the authors have any financial arrangements or conflicts of interest to disclose. Supervising Editor: David C. Cone, MD. Address for correspondence and reprints: Susan H. Watts, PhD; e-mail: [email protected].

852

ISSN 1069-6563 PII ISSN 1069-6563583

ª 2012 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2012.01400.x

ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE • July 2012, Vol. 19, No. 7

•

www.aemj.org

T

he Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) has conducted salary surveys seven times over the past 20 years because of concerns that the salary surveys conducted by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) may not accurately represent the salaries of many academic emergency physicians (EPs).1–4 The AAMC salary survey is limited to university-based programs where EPs may or may not be involved in emergency medicine (EM) resident education, in addition to medical student education. Another limitation is that the AAMC does not collect salary information for those employed by privately or publicly funded programs. The SAEM surveys are conducted to obtain salary and benefit information for all EPs involved in EM resident education, whether or not their residency programs are based at medical schools. The surveys also collect information regarding work duties and hours, research funding, and emergency department (ED) and hospital demographics. The current survey was conducted by SAEM in collaboration with the Association of Academic Chairs in Emergency Medicine (AACEM). METHODS Study Design and Population This cross-sectional study reports salary and demographic data for fiscal year 2009–2010. It was reviewed by the institutional review board for the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center Paul L. Foster School of Medicine and was provided an exempt status. Department chiefs, chairs, and administrators from all of the EM residency programs approved by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Residency Review Committee for Emergency Medicine (RRC-EM) received an electronic SAEM salary survey link via e-mail. Survey Content and Administration In the past, a paper survey form was used, and the response rate had degraded over the years. This current project employed Vovici EFM Continuum Professional Edition electronic survey software to administer the survey (Verint Systems Inc., Melville, NY), which retained the majority of the old questions and added new ones based on input from the SAEM Faculty Development Committee and representatives of AACEM. All changes were reviewed and approved by the SAEM Board of Directors and AACEM leadership. The Office for Survey Research at the University of Michigan was contracted by the SAEM board to create the electronic document, distribute it to the chairs of the 155 RRC-approved programs, and then compile and report the survey data back to the board. This electronic format has the capacity for chairs or administrators to retrieve their previously reported information, which will facilitate the completion of future surveys. It is anticipated that this ability to readily review and update information should improve the response rate in the future. The survey was sent out twice in June 2010 and July 2010, and several e-mail requests for participation were disseminated on the AACEM list serve. The chairs were asked to provide demographic information about their programs and associated hospitals and to include salary data for all faculty whose compensation was derived at

853

least 50% from EM resources. Excluded were those working less than 50% full-time equivalent, house staff, and fellows. Also excluded as sources of compensation for this study were honoraria, royalties, National Institutes of Health service, consulting fees, and moonlighting outside the institution. The Office for Survey Research at the University of Michigan coded and compiled the information from completed electronic survey forms into spreadsheets and then sent the final version to the SAEM board, which subsequently provided the files to the authors for analysis. The authors were blinded to the names of any individual faculty members and were able to identify individual programs by region only. Measurements Compensation and work-related data included: • Base salary: defined as the portion of salary that is fixed or guaranteed by the department, institution, or practice plan. It does not include fringe benefits or practice earnings. • Expected ⁄ nonguaranteed component: defined as compensation that is not guaranteed beyond the current salary period, such as a stipend for an administrative role. This category also includes perhour compensation based on the number of hours worked, but not guaranteed, month to month. • Bonus and incentive earnings: defined as funds derived from any combination of year-end bonus, incentive earnings, or outside earnings controlled by the institution or practice plan. • Total expected earnings: derived from the sum of base salary, estimated nonguaranteed component, and bonus and incentive components. • Estimated cash value of fringe benefits: entered as a dollar amount rather than as a percentage of salary. • Clinical hours: defined as the average number of weekly hours worked in a clinical arena seeing patients and supervising residents who are seeing patients. • Nonclinical hours: defined as the average number of weekly hours devoted to administrative duties, research, lecture preparation, lecture delivery, grand rounds, staff meetings, etc. Physician, ED, and hospital demographic data included: • Physician sex, training and certification, years of experience, academic appointment, primary nonclinical duties, and whether they were core or non-core faculty as defined by the ACGME for EM residencies.5 • Sources of ED income, ED expenses, and amount and sources of research support. • ED census; presence of separate pediatric, lowacuity, and observation areas; patient throughput times; and percentage of patients admitted. • Hospital type by funding source and number of intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU beds. • The program’s AAMC region.6 Data Analysis The data were provided to the authors as Excel spreadsheets. All analyses were performed using Stata (v10.1,

854

Watts et al.

StataCorp, College Station, TX). Data for previous surveys were available only from previously published results. The authors did not have access to raw data, so tests for statistical significance between years were not performed. RESULTS Ninety-four of the 155 RRC-approved EM residency programs (61%) completed the survey. This response rate is an improvement over the 46% for the previous

•

SAEM-AACEM 2009–2010 SALARY AND BENEFITS SURVEY

survey and similar to the two prior surveys (see Data Supplement S1, available as supporting information in the online version of this paper). Information for 1,728 faculty was submitted, and salary information was provided for 1,644 (95%), of whom 1,515 were considered full-time (averaged at least 28 hours per week). Seventy-eight programs provided detailed compensation information and 16 programs provided demographic information only. This survey, compared to the AAMC salary survey, provides an alternate perspective of the current compensation and demographics for

Table 1 Comparison of Faculty Demographics for Last Four SAEM Salary Surveys

Demographic Years of experience At present position Since residency Sex Male Female Tenure Tenured Nontenured Fixed-term Not reported Degree MD DO PhD or other (PhD only 2009) MD ⁄ PhD MA ⁄ MS Other Not reported Training and certification EM residency-trained ABEM- or AOBEM-certified Other board-certified Fellowship-trained Academic appointment Full professor Associate professor Assistant professor Instructor Adjunct professor Primary duties reported Chair Assistant chair Chair and residency director Residency director Assistant residency director Clinical director Director, pediatrics Director, low-acuity area EMS director Research director Toxicology director Quality assurance director Fellowship director Medical student clerkship director Ultrasound director Staff, clinical duties only Staff, clinical and admin duties Staff, pediatrics only Staff, low-acuity area only

2009–2010 (n = 1,728) 8.6* 11.8 1,183 (68)* 528 (31)

2004–2005 (n = 1,213) 7 10

2001–2002 (n = 1,355) 7 10

1998–1999 (n = 1,032) 6 8

897 (74) 313 (26)

987 (76) 314 (24)

809 (78) 223 (22)

175 1,447 52 37

(10) (84) (3) (2)

81 (7) 1,084 (89) NA 48 (4)

108 (8) 1,180 (87) NA 67 (5)

78 (8) 929 (90) NA 25 (2)

1556 85 8 26 3 6 27

(90) (5) (0.5) (2) (0.2) (0.3) (2)

1149 (95) 46 (4) 72 (5) NA NA NA 18 (1)

1290 (95) 62 (5) 61 (5) NA NA NA 3 (0.2)

974 (94) 55 (5) 29 (3) NA NA NA 3 (0.3)

1,006 964 292 270

1,061 1,108 373 243

712 838 342 120

1,501 (87) 1,473 (85) NA 221 (13)

(83) (79) (24) (22)

(78) (82) (28) (18)

(69) (81) (33) (12)

169 388 935 161 5

(10) (22) (54) (9) (0.3)

107 (9) 238 (20) 685 (56) 129 (11) NA

103 (8) 216 (16) 768 (57) 146 (11) NA

54 (5) 144 (14) 611 (59) 122 (12) NA

78 60 4 72 105 78 25 7 61 61 26 22 39 63 47 351 516 52 6

(5) (3) (0.2) (4) (6) (5) (1) (0.4) (4) (4) (2) (1) (2) (4) (3) (20) (30) (3) (0.3)

55 (5) 41 (3) 3 (0.2) 55 (5) 84 (7) 46 (4) 26 (2) 11 (1) 48 (4) 39 (3) 20 (2) 25 (2) NA NA NA 276 (23) 419 (35) 50 (4) 7 (1)

70 (5) 52 (4) 8 (1) 65 (5) 77 (6) 54 (4) 30 (2) 21 (2) 60 (4) 61 (5) 28 (2) 29 (2) NA NA NA 267 (20) 459 (34) 53 (4) 19 (1)

67 (6) 46 (4) 8 (1) 67 (6) 64 (6) 35 (3) 24 (2) 9 (1) 60 (6) 55 (5) 20 (2) 34 (3) NA NA NA 126 (12) 371 (36) 35 (3) 11 (1)

*Data are reported as mean or n (%). ABEM = American Board of Emergency Medicine; AOBEM = American Osteopathic Board of Emergency Medicine; NA = not applicable, questions not asked in previous years; SAEM = Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.


•

www.aemj.org

EPs, as only 43 of 94 programs (46%) were certain that their salary data had been provided to the AAMC for their salary survey; 4% of programs did not provide information to AAMC, 46% did not know, and 4% did not answer this question (see Data Supplement S2, available as supporting information in the online version of this paper). Compared to the previous survey, the percentage of programs reporting to the AAMC increased (46% vs. 41%), but the percentage of programs that did not know if their salaries had been reported to the AAMC also increased (46% vs. 36%). The demographics of the reported faculty are changing in some respects over time. The percentage of female faculty has slowly increased from 22% in 1998 up to 31% in the current survey (Table 1). Also of note is that the percentage of EM residency–trained faculty has increased over the past 20 years, from 69% in 1998 to 87% in 2009. The mean number of years at present position (8.6 years) and since residency (11.8 years) is greater in the current survey than in previous years. This may be related to the increase in the percentage of faculty who are at higher academic ranks (full professors 10%, associate professors 22%). The vast majority of faculty continue to be nontenured (84%); however, the percentage of tenured faculty increased to 10% in the current survey, up from 6.7% in 2004. The percentages of faculty who hold various departmental positions appear to have changed little over 20 years. Salary and Benefits The mean salary and benefits for all EM faculty nationwide in 2009 were $237,884 and $48,915, respectively. The highest mean salaries were documented for those working in the west ($246,853) and the lowest to those working in the northeast ($232,819) regions of the United States. Since the 2004–2005 survey, the mean annual salary for faculty has increased by more than $50,000 both for faculty in general and for those in their first year at an academic institution (Table 2). Mean salaries vary by AAMC region in any given year, but have increased over time within each region. Similarly, the dollar amount of the mean benefits package has increased at each survey time point. However, since the last survey (2004–2005), many programs report that they are no longer offering several types of fringe benefits (Data Supplement S3, available as supporting information in the online version of this paper). The most notable changes are for paid educational leave and funding for faculty research. In 2004, 84% of programs reported providing paid annual leave for education. Five years later, only 54% of programs reported that benefit. Similarly, the number of programs providing funds for faculty research dropped from 83% to 60%. The types of productivity that are considered for faculty compensation have not changed appreciably over 20 years (Data Supplement S4, available as supporting information in the online version of this paper). The percentage of programs reporting that they take into account clinical, research, and educational productivity varies only slightly from survey to survey. For the current survey, new information about clinical productivity was compiled from questions

855

Table 2 Multiyear Comparisons of Average Full-time* Faculty Salaries

Year

Total Faculty

All faculty 2009 1,515 2004 1,213 2001 1,355 1998 842 1995 1,032 1992 519 1990 578 First-year faculty 2009 155 2004 128 2001 124 1998 84 1995 90 1992 51 1990 50 By AAMC regions Northeast 2009 627 2004 378 2001 604 1998 353 1995 372 1992 153 1990 171 South 2009 353 2004 382 2001 313 1998 119 1995 251 1992 97 1990 110 Midwest 2009 319 2004 313 2001 271 1998 164 1995 276 1992 154 1990 151 West 2009 216 2004 140 2001 167 1998 206 1995 133 1992 115 1990 120

Mean Salary

SD

Mean Benefits

$237,884 $189,848 $180,913 $166,503 $158,100 $139,963 $124,986

$65,221 $51,220 $49,506 $45,367 $29,144 $48,222 $34,057

$48,915 $40,397 $35,034 $29,238 $41,041 $32,335 $31,008

$204,833 $153,855 $147,746 $139,656 $131,074 $124,815 $93,617

$44,708 $36,938 $31,715 $28,310 $25,159 $27,939 $22,509

$45,563 $32,417 $29,666 $27,700 $35,796 $27,939 $22,374

$232,819 $192,864 $178,593 $166,726 $155,909 $132,575 $118,083

$59,076 $49,562 $48,673 $43,650 $36,086 $33,760 $33,125

$55,346 $45,179 $38,954 $30,602 $36,086 $38,398 $8,355

$242,808 $182,768 $176,314 $147,822 $155,403 $142,234 $125,098

$68,111 $52,382 $50,391 $41,379 $38,243 $33,071 $34,058

$46,750 $35,073 $29,648 $27,664 $38,243 $30,401 $21,297

$236,318 $192,224 $200,095 $195,195 $172,260 $154,940 $135,674

$55,919 $51,792 $47,842 $44,483 $48,138 $70,361 $35,838

$46,153 $40,363 $36,029 $33,201 $48,138 $30,870 $42,650

$246,853 $195,732 $166,779 $148,990 $139,930 $128,020 $114,634

$85,871 $49,041 $44,577 $37,404 $32,938 $28,275 $26,294

$37,831 $42,154 $29,359 $24,007 $32,938 $29,026 $24,400

AAMC = Association of American Medical Colleges. *For 2009–2010 full-time was defined as at least 28 hours per week.

about relative value units (RVUs). Forty-one programs reported that RVUs are expected, but only 31 reported the actual values they consider. Eleven programs reported having RVU-based salaries and 26 said they have RVU-based bonuses. Expected RVUs ranged from 2 to 9.9 (average = 6.4), suggesting that programs calculate RVUs differently. Some programs appear to limit RVU calculations to patients seen solely by the faculty physician, while others combine the patients of the faculty with those of the residents and students they are supervising.

856

Watts et al.

Inequalities Between Salaries of Men and Women Comparison of the average salaries of men and women revealed that inequalities persist. Women continue to be paid less than their male colleagues. When stratified by academic rank and region of the country, the average salary for women was lower than for men at all academic ranks and in all areas of the country, except associate and full professor in the west (Table 3). Similarly, when comparing the salaries of men and women by departmental positions, women are paid less than men in 14 of 16 positions (Table 4). The largest differences are seen between men and women who were quality assurance directors or poison center ⁄ toxicology directors where salaries for females in these positions are 82% of their male counterparts. Female department chairs are paid 11% less on average than their male counterparts. Salaries for women exceed those of men in only two positions: fellowship directors and ultrasound directors (details by region are not shown due to the potential to identify individuals). Stratifying average salaries for men and women by core and noncore status revealed that, on average, core faculty are paid more than noncore faculty whether male or female (Table 5). However, female faculty are paid 10% to 13% less than their male counterparts whether they are core or noncore faculty. Training Another factor influencing salaries is training. In general, those with fellowship training in pediatric EM have average salaries that are less than those reported for all respondents (Table 6). In contrast, average salaries for those with toxicology or hyperbaric medicine fellowship training are greater than the average reported faculty salary at all academic ranks. Faculty who are EM residency-trained, rather than non–EM

•


residency-trained, are paid more at all academic ranks except full professor. Similarly, EM-boarded faculty have higher average salaries at the ranks of assistant and associate professor. Faculty with DO degrees appear to have higher average salaries than their MD colleagues, but this could be due to differences in regional salaries and distribution. Sources of Income Income to support salary expenditures and other departmental functions comes from several sources. The primary source of income for 63% of programs was reported to be professional fees, while the program’s associated hospital was the primary source of income for 21% of programs (see Data Supplement S5, available as supporting information in the online version of this paper). Seventy-three of 79 programs (92%) reported that at least 50% of their income was derived from clinical revenue (data not shown). Research funding is an additional source of funding and 18 programs reported they had received over $1 million of research funding from all sources (see Data Supplement S6, available as supporting information in the online version of this paper). From these various sources of income, 82% of programs reported that at least 50% of their annual budget was expended on physician salaries and benefits (see Data Supplement S7, available as supporting information in the online version of this paper). Malpractice expenses were under 20% for all programs, and the majority of programs (91%) had education expenses that were 120,000; 95% reported stays for discharged patient of less than 6 hours, while 86% of admitted patients stayed 9 hours or less (see Data Supplement S10, available as supporting information in the online version of this paper). Admission rates in past surveys have averaged about 22%. Rather than calculating an average admission rate for all hospitals, the present survey obtained data about admissions using ranges. Fifty-four of 91 programs (59%) had admission rates of 20%–29% and 15 programs (28%) reported >30% admissions (Data Supplement S8).

Female

Male

Difference Between Average Male and Female Salaries

$215,170

$227,078

–$11,908

$210,539

$224,514

–$13,975

$176,749

$195,773

–$19,024

Hospitals reported varying strategies for ED staffing. When comparing hospitals with similar annual patient volumes, the types of providers and their hours of coverage vary widely (see Data Supplement S11, available as supporting information in the online version of this paper). For example, of the 12 hospitals with annual volumes of 60,000 patients, five reported 25 to 49 hours of physician coverage per day (i.e., up to double coverage around the clock), three reported up to triple coverage around the clock (50 to 74 hours per day), and four programs reported three to four physicians in the ED around the clock (75 to 99 hours per day). Seventy-five percent of programs reported having coverage by physician assistants, and 74% of programs reported coverage by nurse practitioners. Typically there are two to four EM residents around the clock, and programs with EM fellows reported daily coverage from them as well. Hours Worked In previous years, clinical and nonclinical hours were reported as the total number of hours per year, which were averaged to calculate hours per week. For the current survey, this information was collected as ranges of hours per week. In 2004–2005, mean clinical and nonclinical hours per week were reported as 22 and 21, respectively. In the present survey, the findings were similar, with the median range of clinical hours being 20 to 23 hours per week and the median range of nonclinical hours being 16 to 19 hours per week (see Data Supplement 12, available as supporting information in the online version of this paper). Comparison to AAMC salary information Comparing the results of this survey to the AAMC Salary Survey for the same time period (2009–2010),6 we find that for the majority of the 16 categories (four academic ranks in four regions), mean salaries reported by the AAMC are lower than the average salaries reported in this survey (Table 7). The largest differences occur in all ranks in the western region, with salary differences ranging from $13,000 to $50,000, depending on rank. At


•

www.aemj.org

859

Table 6 Average Salaries by Academic Rank Comparing Those Who Are Fellowship-trained, EM Residency-trained, ABEM- or AOBEMcertified, DO ⁄ MD Training

Average salary for all full-time faculty Fellowship-trained Toxicology (n = 58) Pediatrics (n = 121) Sports medicine (n = 14) Hyperbaric ⁄ undersea (n = 20) Residency type EM (n = 1501) Non-EM (n = 188) ABEM or AOBEM certification Yes (n = 1473) No (n = 161) Medical degree type MD (n = 1582) DO (n = 85)

Instructor

Assistant Professor

Associate Professor

Full Professor

All

$215,808

$219,699

$245,717

$336,447

$238,519

$217,000 $171,616 $256,000 $350,000

$222,209 $207,022 $220,010 $272,750

$257,313 $228,740 $239,308 $322,885

$345,784 $326,875 None $347,000

$255,263 $219,350 $225,036 $297,927

$200,264 $196,401

$229,462 $215,356

$250,506 $217,020

$308,767 $332,452

$238,925 $239,306

$200,553 $206,203

$229,592 $219,334

$249,129 $218,770

$315,798 $322,610

$241,022 $228,601

$199,378 $220,944

$227,039 $243,189

$248,561 $264,923

$315,110 *

$242,774 $245,206

ABEM = American Board of Emergency Medicine; AOBEM = American Osteopathic Board of Emergency Medicine. *Identifiable due to low number.

Table 7 Comparison of AAMC and SAEM-AACEM Salaries.

Instructor Midwest Northeast South West Assistant professor Midwest Northeast South West Associate professor Midwest Northeast South West Full professor Midwest Northeast South West

SAEM-AACEM Average Salary

AAMC Average Salary

Difference

$199,786 $194,531 $204,177 $192,554 $198,744 $228,034 $232,111 $226,725 $229,455 $221,914 $246,912 $244,367 $246,942 $245,360 $251,916 $312,592 $312,154 $334,019 $328,689 $287,952

$197,400 $217,800 $196,300 $155,000 $148,500 $228,100 $236,300 $229,300 $225,300 $208,600 $251,100 $253,000 $263,300 $242,100 $237,300 $275,300 $258,500 $288,600 $284,700 $271,400

–$2,386 $23,269 –$7,877 –$37,554 –$50,244 $66 $4,189 $2,575 –$4,155 –$13,314 $4,188 $8,633 $16,358 –$3,260 –$14,616 –$37,292 –$53,654 –$45,419 –$43,989 –$16,552

AACEM = Association of Academic Chairs in Emergency Medicine; AAMC = Association of American Medical Colleges; SAEM = Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

the rank of full professor, AAMC mean salaries are $17,000 to $53,000 lower than in the SAEM survey, depending on region. DISCUSSION This survey indicates that average annual salaries for academic EPs increased by $40,000 to $50,000 between 2004 and 2009 in all regions. In general, this survey also indicates that salaries are higher for many physicians in

academic practice than what is reported in the AAMC survey for 2009–2010. Demographic data from the survey indicate that physicians are staying in academic practice for longer periods of time as indicated by their time at present positions and time since completing residency. This trend is also supported by the increased percentages of faculty who are advancing to higher academic ranks. Perhaps this may be partially due to the improved salaries since the last survey. This survey also demonstrates that EM residency programs have increasing numbers of female faculty. However, average salaries for women are still lower than those of their male counterparts at similar academic ranks or departmental positions. In the past, similar information could be rationalized because women were generally more junior than male colleagues, but the data indicate that senior women are also paid less than their male colleagues in equivalent positions. The encouraging news is that the percentage difference is declining; in some cases the difference is 5% or less. Determination of clinical productivity as patients seen per hour was not possible for this survey. Data were collected in a new format, and the calculations performed in previous years were not possible. The most relevant information would come from RVU data, but judging from the range of RVUs reported for this survey, programs appear to have very different ways of defining and reporting RVUs. For future surveys, additional information related to RVUs will be ascertained, for example, whether RVUs reflect the number of patients seen solely by the faculty physician or whether it also includes patients seen by residents supervised by the faculty physician. As seen in previous surveys, admission rates reported by participating programs are notably higher than the rates reported in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.7,8 Since 1998, SAEM surveys have reported average admission rates for res-

860

Watts et al.

idency-associated hospitals of 21% to 22%. Over the same time period, the CDC estimates that ED admission rates have ranged from 12.8% to 15%. Tang et al.9 report similar ranges between 1997 and 2007. In the present survey, only 22 of 94 hospitals (23%) had admission rates equal to or less than national averages; the majority had rates that were much higher. One explanation might be that many residency-associated hospitals are safety-net hospitals that treat greater numbers of acutely ill patients. LIMITATIONS The information from this survey is derived solely from the data provided by programs that chose to participate. Sixty-one percent (94 of 155) of RRC-accredited programs responded to the survey, so the demographic information presented may be reasonably representative. However, only 78 programs (50%) provided detailed compensation information, so generalizations from salary information should be made with that limitation in mind. CONCLUSIONS The 2009–2010 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine salary survey indicates that most of the average salaries reported by the Association of American Medical Colleges for EPs are lower than those reported for faculty at Residency Review Committee–approved EM residency programs. In addition, the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine survey illustrates that EP faculty continue to progress academically while working in very large and busy EDs treating numerous acutely ill patients. We thank the Office for Survey Research at the University of Michigan for their valuable assistance in the development and dissemination of the new electronic version of the salary survey.

References 1. Kristal SL, Randall-Kristal KA, Thompson BM. 20012002 SAEM emergency medicine faculty salary and benefits survey. Acad Emerg Med. 2002; 9:1435–44. 2. Kristal SL, Randall-Kristal KA, Thompson BM. The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine’s 20042005 emergency medicine faculty salary and benefit survey. Acad Emerg Med. 2006; 13:548–58. 3. Kristal SL, Randall-Kristal KA, Thompson BM, Marx JA. 1998-1999 SAEM emergency medicine faculty salary and benefits survey. Acad Emerg Med. 1999; 6:1261–71. 4. Kristal SL, Thompson BM, Marx JA. 1995-1996 SAEM emergency medicine faculty salary ⁄ benefits survey. Acad Emerg Med. 1998; 5:1177–86. 5. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Definitions of core faculty. Available at: http://

6.

7.

8.

9.

•


www.acgme.org/acWebsite/RRC_110/110_guide lines.asp#time. Accessed Apr 12, 2012. Chen YC, Geraci W. Report on Medical School Faculty Salaries 2009-2010. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges, 2011. McCaig LF, Nawar EW. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2004 emergency department summary. Adv Data. 2006; 372:1–29. Nawar EW, Niska RW, Xu J. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2005 emergency department summary. Adv Data. 2007; 386:1–32. Tang N, Stein J, Hsia RY, Maselli JH, Gonzales R. Trends and characteristics of US emergency department visits, 1997-2007. JAMA. 2010; 304:664–70.

Supporting Information The following supporting information is available in the online version of this paper: Data Supplement S1. Number of RRC-accredited programs contributing to SAEM salary surveys over last 20 years. Data Supplement S2. RRC-accredited programs reporting salary information to AAMC by region (2009–2010). Data Supplement S3. Number and percentage of programs offering the following types of fringe benefits. Data Supplement S4. Percentage of programs reporting the following components considered for compensation. Data Supplement S5. Primary sources of departmental income (2009–2010). Data Supplement S6. Sources of research funding reported and amounts. Data Supplement S7. Categories of departmental expenditures presented as percentage of annual income. Data Supplement S8. Characteristics of training hospitals and emergency departments (EDs) associated with participating programs. Data Supplement S9. Patient volume in low-acuity areas reported as percentage of total ED volume. Each bar represents a single ED (n = 65). Data Supplement S10. Patient length of stay stratified by number of annual ED visits for all patients, admitted patients, and discharged patients. Data Supplement S11. Number of programs that reported following types and hours of provider coverage broken down by annual ED volume (2009–2010). Data Supplement S12. Number of faculty reporting the following combinations of clinical and non-clinical hours worked (those in shaded area were not included as full-time faculty). The documents are in Word document and PDF format. Please note: Wiley Periodicals Inc. is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing material) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.