VIEWS: 7,317 PAGES: 4 CATEGORY: Personal Finance POSTED ON: 10/7/2008
This is an example on how much money do doctors make. This document is useful for studying on how much money do doctors make.
Downloaded from bmj.com on 30 September 2008 So how much do doctors really earn? Michael Day BMJ 2007;334;236-237 doi:10.1136/bmj.39112.426481.59 Updated information and services can be found at: http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/334/7587/236 These include: Rapid responses 25 rapid responses have been posted to this article, which you can access for free at: http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/334/7587/236#responses You can respond to this article at: http://bmj.com/cgi/eletter-submit/334/7587/236 Email alerting Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article - sign up in the service box at the top left of the article Notes To order reprints follow the "Request Permissions" link in the navigation box To subscribe to BMJ go to: http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/subscribers observations Downloaded from bmj.com on 30 September 2008 the week in medicine The rumbling political row over debt from 2002-3, when NHS Information in the NHS means that the vexed Centre data showed that GPs earnt so how much issue of doctors’ pay is not going to go away any time soon. Are doctors in the United on average £72 000, their earnings rose by a remarkable 63��. As a result, the Independent noted, do doctors Kingdom overpaid? An obvious way the average family doctor now to address the question is to compare earned, including private income, the earnings of UK medics with more than the Lord Chancellor, those of their overseas colleagues. ministers of state, senior civil really earn? That is easier said than done, though: servants, and circuit judges. few if any direct comparisons The BMA has challenged the exist, and any comparison is made reliability of these figures. John Ford, difficult by different contractual the head of its economic research agreements and working conditions. unit, said that the headline figures According to the media, some Uk The UK Treasury has, however, overestimate the extra amount general practitioners are reputed to be made an attempt, in its latest 2007 reaching GPs’ pockets, because under comprehensive spending review for the new contract they must now pay earning around £250 000 a year, but the NHS. employees’ pension contributions. what is the truth behind the headlines, The report contains estimates of average earnings of GPs and He adds that the sample of practices used in the Independent’s and how does Uk doctors’ pay hospital doctors in 2003-4 in 16 estimates was unrepresentative, countries, including the UK’s major because it included a larger than here compare with elsewhere, asks competitors. The figures are based average number of dispensing Michael Day on research gathered by British practices. Also, the BMA points out embassies. It should be emphasised that salaried GPs (who often work that the figures are estimates. part time in return for a guaranteed income) earn rather less; it estimates A widening gap their income to be in the region of Nevertheless, a few things leap out £70 000 a year. AVERAGE INCOME OF from the data, including the large The headline grabbing figures HOSPITAL DOCTORS (2003-4)* (and, in the case of hospital salaries, of £250 000 annual earnings of a huge) lead that US doctors enjoy in handful of GPs is, said Mr Ford, 100 pay terms. The second is the very down to a few practices exploiting Average income (£000s) large advantage that UK doctors have the potential of dispensing practices 80 over their continental colleagues. rather than being the result of the 60 GPs in Italy have remarkably low new contract. average earnings—the result of the It’s not in doubt, however, that GP 40 marketplace being flooded with too partners have enjoyed very large pay many doctors. increases in the last three years. And 20 Bear in mind that these are 2003 inevitably the contract that has led to 0 figures. The latest, very large pay the “pay bonanza,” as the newspapers UK Germany Germany France Spain Italy rises given to UK doctors will almost have called it, has come under (self (hospital employed) employed) certainly have widened the salary fire. When reports of GPs earning *Full US data not available, but gap between British and continental £250 000 a year broke last year, Source: HM Treasury average is estimated at >£135 000 doctors even further. the Sun newspaper, in an editorial The Treasury report cites an entitled “Wads up doc,” said it made AVERAGE INCOME OF PRIMARY average salary for GPs in the UK in sense “to cap doctors’ salaries and CARE DOCTORS (2003-4) 2003-4 of £82 000. The latest figures, stop patients being short changed.” for 2004-5, show that the average Some of the broadsheets joined in. 100 income of GPs, net of expenses, was The Daily Telegraph’s Simon Heffer Average income (£000s) £106 000, a rise of 30�� in one year. said: “I do not doubt that many GPs 80 For dispensing GPs the figure is even work hard . . . However, equally I 60 higher: they earned an average of do not doubt that a few are royally £128 000 after expenses, a 31�� rise. ripping off the Government and the 40 In January the Independent taxpayer thanks to the stupidity with newspaper reported that GPs’ which the Government settled its deal 20 average earnings soared again last with their trade union.” 0 year (2005-6) to £118 000, according US UK Germany France Spain Italy to estimates of the Association of Renegotiations are under way Source: HM Treasury Independent Specialist Medical Some leading health economists, Accountants. So in the three years such as John Appleby of the think 236 BMJ | 3 feBrUArY 2007 | VolUMe 334 observations Downloaded from bmj.com on 30 September 2008 tank the King’s Fund, say that the Left: how the London recent contracts are “not set in stone.” evening standard covered Professor Appleby says that behind claims about high earning the scene renegotiations are already GPs last year, and, below, under way. the front page of the In terms of the consultants’ tabloid Daily Mail earlier contract, ministers will be seeking this week to include new incentives to boost productivity rather than simply to reward the amount of time consultants spend in hospital. But the BMA says that initial predictions of the size of consultants’ pay rises under their new contract have proved wide of the mark. Between 2003-4 and 2004-5 their earnings rose by around 20�� as the number of work sessions they attended rose from 10 to 12. Since then, how- ever, Mr Ford says that rises in their salaries have stalled. As far as GPs are concerned, ministers are keen to make performance related targets tougher. The BMA insists that the new contract had radically improved the care of patients, particularly for those with chronic diseases. Hamish Meldrum, head of the BMA’s GPs committee, said, “In the area of raised blood pressure alone, GP care under the new contract means that over a five year period 8700 patients in England will avoid having a heart attack, stroke, angina, or heart failure.” Nevertheless, outside the BMA there is a groundswell of opinion that GPs are being too generously rewarded for providing some aspects of care that should already have been regarded as routine. Also, other observers, such as Niall Dickson, chief executive of the King’s Fund, say that the contract may actually have cut GPs’ productivity by allowing the closure of Saturday morning surgeries and the ending of 24 hour cover. The government believes that value for money and its own pride could be partially restored if family doctors were to invest more of their expanding profits back into their businesses to improve patients’ care. If that’s the case, “in the area of raised blood pressure alone, GP care under the new say its critics, then ministers should have drawn up a contract that contract means that over a five year period 8700 patients in england will required this. avoid having a heart attack, stroke, angina, or heart failure” michael day is a freelance journalist, London Head of the BMA’s GPs committee Hamish Meldrum email@example.com BMJ | 3 feBrUArY 2007 | VolUMe 334 237 observations Downloaded from bmj.com on 30 September 2008 ATLANTIC CROSSING Uwe e reinhardt is the president’s plan dead before arrival? Bush’s proposed health reforms would do little for the millions of low income, uninsured Americans In his State of the Union address of proposal upon which Bush dwelt in triggered by the proposed standard 23 January, President Bush unveiled his speech. On average, a standard tax deductions continue to accrue his much heralded health reform health insurance policy for an disproportionately to high income initiative to a perplexed nation. American family now costs about families least in need of public As is their wont, the television $12 000, although by 2009, the onset subsidies for their health care. media swiftly unearthed staunch of the president’s plan, that figure Worse still, in addition to these proponents and staunch opponents is bound to be closer to $14 000. standard deductions, the of the proposal, and unleashed Americans whose employer in 2009 president apparently would continue the extremists upon one another, spent more on health insurance to allow individuals or families to thus adding to the confusion. It premiums than the standard deduct from their taxable incomes “ did not help that the president deductions would, of course, pay annual deposits into a personal delicately omitted from his speech added taxes on the excess. Because health savings account, as long as an important but politically risqué the standard deductions would be the family chose a health feature of his proposal, most likely indexed over time only to general the huge tax insurance policy with a high to enhance the public marketability price inflation and not the much savings . . . deductible. of the policy (www.whitehouse. higher rate of inflation for health care, continue to accrue At the same time, Bush would do gov/stateoftheunion/2007/index. more and more Americans would find disproportionately little for the millions of low income, html). themselves in that position as time uninsured Americans who would to high income The full proposal has three distinct goes on. not much benefit from the standard families least in facets. Thirdly, the president would tax deductions, especially if their Firstly, the president would make redirect funds the federal government need of public income is so low that they do not health insurance premiums paid by already spends on health care to subsidies for their pay federal income taxes and who ” employers on behalf of employees— the budgets of state governors, health care lack the income to procure health hitherto not included in the who could use these funds to help insurance on their own. Simply to employees’ taxable compensation— their citizens gain access to health redirect federal funds from safety net fully taxable with effect from 1 insurance. Neither Bush nor the hospitals catering disproportionately January 2009. The total loss to the White House fact sheet identifies to the poor towards general state US Treasury from this time hallowed which money already being spent budgets, without any guarantee tax preference has been estimated would be redirected towards state of full universal health insurance to range currently from $200bn to government budgets, nor what the coverage, is a morally dubious, $220bn (£102bn to £112bn; €154bn total sum of those funds might be. empty gesture—especially in light to €170bn) a year, more than twice Everyone’s best guess is that the of the unwarranted public subsidies the sum that would be needed to president has in mind the so called the proposal would continue to steer move the nation to full universal disproportionate share (DSH) funds towards high income families. health insurance coverage. now paid to hospitals that treat a As it happens, all of these By itself, then, this facet of the disproportionate share of uninsured musings are moot. The Democratic proposal amounts to a sizeable patients or patients covered by the Congress already has signalled tax increase. It is this facet of the federal-state Medicaid programme that the president’s plan is not only president’s proposal that he for the poor. In many states these “dead on arrival” but “dead even delicately omitted from his funds pay hospitals far less than before arrival.” And thus, after all the televised speech, although it is it costs them to treat Medicaid fanfare over the president’s proposal clearly set out in the associated patients. Mentioning such specifics has died down, American health fact sheet on the White House in a televised speech would have policy continues to march according website (www.whitehouse.gov/ triggered an immediate outcry to Churchill’s dictum that “you can stateoftheunion/2007/initiatives/ from the hospital industry and the always count on Americans to do healthcare.html). champions of the poor. the right thing—after they’ve tried Secondly, the president would Economists of all political stripes everything else.” allow Americans, regardless of have remarked favourably upon Uwe E Reinhardt is James Madison insurance status, to deduct from the proposed changes in the tax professor of political economy, taxable income $7500 for individual code. However, the president’s plan Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, tax payers or $15 000 for a family. perpetuates the regressive nature of United States This is the felicitous facet of the tax deductions. The huge tax savings firstname.lastname@example.org 238 BMJ | 3 fEBRUARY 2007 | VolUME 334
Pages to are hidden for
"How Much Money Do Doctors Make"Please download to view full document