Differences in income between male and female primary care physicians

Session number: 1106

Abstract title: Differences in income between male and female primary care physicians

Author(s):
Amy E Wallace, MD - White River Junction VAMC VISN 1 Patient Safety Center of Inquiry White River Junction VAMC
William Weeks, MD, MBA - Veterans Rural Health Initiative Senior Scholar, VA Quality Scholars Program VISN 1 Patient Safety Center of Inquiry White River Junction VAMC

Objectives: Historically, female primary care physicians have been underpaid relative to their male counterparts. We wanted to determine whether gender inequities in incomes still persist, in light of the increasing proportion of females entering into and practicing primary care.

Methods: We obtained gender and age specific data from the American Medical Association’s annual survey of physicians to determine the annual income, annual income per hour worked, proportion of time in direct patient care activities, and outpatient productivity for family practitioners, general internists, and pediatricians between 1989 and 1998. We compared female to male results for respondents in the 36-45 year old age group as well as for the age-weighted gender aggregate.

Results: Female primary care physicians reported lower annual incomes (between 60% and 85% of their male counterparts) and lower annual incomes per hour worked (between 71% and 98% of their male counterparts in each particular year examined). Over the ten years examined, the income disparities decreased, on average at a rate of about 1% per year. However, on average, female primary care physicians’ annual incomes per hour worked were 12% less than that of their male counterparts. While the proportion of time female physicians spend in direct patient care activities is similar to that of males, female physicians see substantially more outpatients per office hour (about 17% more, on average, over time).

Conclusions: Gender inequities persist in the incomes of primary care physicians. Although the disparities appear to be decreasing over time, the disparities are not very different from those reported in the early 1980s. In addition, female primary care physicians’ increased productivity, when compared to males, suggest that these inequities are perpetuated in more subtle ways.

Impact statement: Female primary care physicians have made the same time commitments to medical school and residency programs and have experienced the same direct and opportunity costs required of such commitments as their male counterparts. We can think of no reason why female primary care physicians should be categorically underpaid. There is no evidence that females provide a lesser quality of care. They should be paid equitably.