Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Radiology Vs Pathology


Recommended Posts

Thanks for the link Lactic Folly!

 

Ian's post was very good for discussing the differences in terms of the job itself (the greater acuity/urgency of radiologic diagnoses, pathology as the definitive last stop in diagnosis, etc.) and he talked a bit about how radiologists take more call, work longer hours, and earn more, but I was wondering if you guys could elaborate more on the specific differences in lifestyle, income, and job market for these two specialties, as I know this is always changing and is probably quite different from back then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link Lactic Folly!

 

Ian's post was very good for discussing the differences in terms of the job itself (the greater acuity/urgency of radiologic diagnoses, pathology as the definitive last stop in diagnosis, etc.) and he talked a bit about how radiologists take more call, work longer hours, and earn more, but I was wondering if you guys could elaborate more on the specific differences in lifestyle, income, and job market for these two specialties, as I know this is always changing and is probably quite different from back then.

 

the acuity drives the lifestyle. Radiology in my opinion is no longer a lifestyle specialty unless you go out of your way to select a job that makes it so. I mean you can just do clinic work reading plain films and US but that is using only subset of your skills and pays generally less. You could do the same thing in other fields as well, but on average the increasing need for imaging, and the increasing dependence on it at all hours is changing the field a lot. We are starting to go 24/7 as the mainstay. 

 

dr. wong hit the nail of the head I think for the other factors of lifestyle - longer hours, more call etc is directly lifestyle. We have to work the weekends - pathologists generally do not. We work evenings, they do not. We are on overnight call, they are not. Not to belabor the point ha :) 

 

we still (for now) earn more than pathologists although our income is falling - probably will remain higher for some time to come. 

 

as for the job market my understanding is right now both are a little tight. It is really hard to use job market numbers in a decision though as the turn around time from saying yes I want to be X to the point you are doing it is long - for me for instance it will be 10 years. A lot changes in that time. 

 

just my thoughts.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take on pathology pros and cons.

 

Pros:

The residency is very, very reasonable in terms of hours and work. There are no nights or weekends in pathology, and in Ontario you still get the home call stipend if your program does call. Contrast that to something like internal medicine where you are on Q3 call sometimes, and up all night, doing mostly mundane work nurses don't want to do.

 

The work is interesting. It is kind of fun doing microscopic work and trying to figure out diagnoses.

 

Cons:

 

I don't like grossing our autopsies. This is a personal preference for people, but in general most residents I know would rather never have to personally deal with formalin or decomposition. The former is carcinogenic (with the tumors being such wonderfully fatal ones as AML and nasopharyngeal carcinoma), the latter is disgusting.

 

Lots of people in pathology are IMGs, and not good ones. To get into things like imaging or surgery as an IMG, there has to be good reasons to take the IMG over interested CMGs since competition is so high. With pathology, since interest is basically nonexistent, any IMG can find a position somewhere, and they will since programs get money for resident training, and program director promotion hinges on fully recruiting residents. That means the spread of individual skill in pathology for IMGs is large. Some are great. Others are so bad I honestly wonder if they are actually physicians from other countries, or if they are somehow fraudulent. This kind of reputation carries over into clinical medicine, where my attendings on essentially every rotation asked me why a "normal" person is in pathology - other physicians generally expect pathology residents to be not so good IMGs or unbearably weird Canadians. I expect the same kind of stigma once I'm a staff.

 

The job market is very bad. I know the news talks about shortages and stuff, but they don't know what they're talking about and are really only referring to forensics. Anatomical pathology is oversaturated. Trying to get a desirable job in the Golden Horseshoe is near impossible without an in or a few fellowships. The overrecruitment of IMGs who all want to move to Toronto drive down incomes and make work environments worse and further pushes overcredentialism. Even getting a job in remote areas is tough. If you check the recruitment agencies there are rare rural jobs and they don't pay any significant premium for your sequestration. Americans are coming up here en masse because their job market is worse, and often take these rural positions because they have "clinical pathology" training i.e. automated lab work. So if you don't like it in Canada you won't be able to "vote with your feet" to the States. No other specialty has that problem.

 

Pathologists are salaried in general. That means pathologists have no autonomy to practice in such a way that is efficient and effective for them, and have no leg to stand on when patient care issues arise. Compound that with the aggressive push for "quality" metrics from employers. The one employers tend to focus the most on is "turnaround time". They like to say its for "patient care" but the reality is that they want to push it so that they get good value-for-money per employed pathologist. Think about it: if a pathologist is getting paid a flat salary, and that pathologist will take full liability for any mistakes, then the employer will want to ensure that the pathologist signs out as many specimens as humanly possible. You'll see this in most centers. They don't have to pay pathologists more, and they don't have to hire new ones, and they don't have to worry about liability. This does not happen with radiology where they are paid per study. Unfortunately, pathologists aren't very bright or very brave and are embracing this stupidity with open arms. It's sad that they, as a group, fear the administrators, all of whom are fairly uneducated. 

 

Pathologists are persona non grata in the news. Even if a radiologist makes a mistake that gets published in the news, their hospitals and professional soceities are quick to silence it. Doesn't happen with path. PEople are still talking about Charles Smith. People are still talking about Windsor. Even though it was the surgeon that screwed up, it was the pathologist that lost her job, and part of that was because her peer pathologists strung her up. This should tell you that pathologists are as a group fairly insecure and will do anything to preserve their status quo, even if it involves dragging down one of their own.

 

Pathology has a stigma, as I noted above. If you're in pathology you're seen as either stupid, somehow unprofessional, autistic or a poorly-qualified FMG. Few fields have stigmas. Psychiatry is another one.  People will tell you that stigma doesn't matter. Well, they're wrong, it does. It carries into things like reimbursement and resource allocation. Radiology and anesthesia, two other background fields, aren't so stigmatized.

 

That's my take on pathology. I guess what I'm saying is that do it only if you really can't see yourself tolerating anything else. Don't concentrate on trying to match to it though since it is so uncompetitive anyone can, no matter how stupid, somehow unprofessional, autistic or unqualified. Personally, I regret it.

 

I hope this helps.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The amount of slander against pathology in this thread is unfortunate.  Rather than expounding on the ways that a career in pathology can be highly fulfilling for various people, I strongly suggest that people interested in path vs. rads do an elective rotation each in path and radiology to figure out which is right for them.

 

If your primary motivation for going into or avoiding a field is what other people think or how you think you'll be perceived by people who quite frankly don't know any better, then you are more likely than not to be disappointed.  I know more than a handful of people with personality or other psychiatric disorders not otherwise specified in various clinical fields.

 

If your primary motivation for going into or avoiding a field is an obsession with fee-for-service and having to be paid in direct proportion to the amount of work you do, then I've got news for you...  Nothing is fair.  You think ophthalmology being compensated five times more than neurology for the same amount of work is fair?  Nope, but hey, they are both fee-for-service, aren't they?  I'd argue that for the amount of work pathologists in this country do, they are extremely generously compensated.  I wouldn't take anything over getting paid $350,000 a year for 50 hours of work a week, have reasonable control over my daily schedule, not having to run a clinic or be stuck in the OR, and very light, if not non-existent, call.

 

Job market is a hit or miss like many other Royal College specialties.  That being said, I know/of a number of people who got jobs after one fellowship (or no fellowship at all) at the center of their choice.

 

I went through both path and rads as a medical student and even though I have tremendous respect for radiology and think it's a fantastic field for lots of people, I myself can't ever imagine myself being a practicing radiologist.  Their work just isn't for me, and I'd be miserable.  I also know people who switched from other highly competitive fields to path (uber-competitive surgical subs, even derm) once they realized that those fields aren't for them.  To that effect, I'd again advise consider people to do an actual rotation in pathology and figure out if it is right for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The amount of slander against pathology in this thread is unfortunate.  Rather than expounding on the ways that a career in pathology can be highly fulfilling for various people, I strongly suggest that people interested in path vs. rads do an elective rotation each in path and radiology to figure out which is right for them.

 

If your primary motivation for going into or avoiding a field is what other people think or how you think you'll be perceived by people who quite frankly don't know any better, then you are more likely than not to be disappointed.  I know more than a handful of people with personality or other psychiatric disorders not otherwise specified in various clinical fields.

 

If your primary motivation for going into or avoiding a field is an obsession with fee-for-service and having to be paid in direct proportion to the amount of work you do, then I've got news for you...  Nothing is fair.  You think ophthalmology being compensated five times more than neurology for the same amount of work is fair?  Nope, but hey, they are both fee-for-service, aren't they?  I'd argue that for the amount of work pathologists in this country do, they are extremely generously compensated.  I wouldn't take anything over getting paid $350,000 a year for 50 hours of work a week, have reasonable control over my daily schedule, not having to run a clinic or be stuck in the OR, and very light, if not non-existent, call.

 

Job market is a hit or miss like many other Royal College specialties.  That being said, I know/of a number of people who got jobs after one fellowship (or no fellowship at all) at the center of their choice.

 

I went through both path and rads as a medical student and even though I have tremendous respect for radiology and think it's a fantastic field for lots of people, I myself can't ever imagine myself being a practicing radiologist.  Their work just isn't for me, and I'd be miserable.  I also know people who switched from other highly competitive fields to path (uber-competitive surgical subs, even derm) once they realized that those fields aren't for them.  To that effect, I'd again advise consider people to do an actual rotation in pathology and figure out if it is right for them.

 

that's fair, ha. 

 

and you really have to be careful with the funding models here - medicine is changing with growing costs and shrinking resources. Who really knows where we will end up in the long term? Or even the relative short term. 

 

Some docs would be perfectly happy on salary - they find all of the billing and associate practice management annoying. Let's face it - salary is simple. We are also getting farther and farther away from the time we were all independent busineses charging what we though the market could bare. 

 

It isn't a route I would want to go down - for one reason it opens us up to abuse in terms of workload - but it is attractive for the government. It is stable in terms of cost and predictable. Plus it really is hard to argue 350K a year is not a lot of money (yes our time of training is high and loans very high - but there are a lot of professional schools have it worse). Hard to have much perspective I admit when you are doing your 3rd all nighter in a week. 

 

Bottom line I think in the end is you have to enjoy the work, be reasonably happy with the pay. Residency only lasts so long, ha. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The amount of slander against pathology in this thread is unfortunate.  Rather than expounding on the ways that a career in pathology can be highly fulfilling for various people, I strongly suggest that people interested in path vs. rads do an elective rotation each in path and radiology to figure out which is right for them.

 

If your primary motivation for going into or avoiding a field is what other people think or how you think you'll be perceived by people who quite frankly don't know any better, then you are more likely than not to be disappointed.  I know more than a handful of people with personality or other psychiatric disorders not otherwise specified in various clinical fields.

 

If your primary motivation for going into or avoiding a field is an obsession with fee-for-service and having to be paid in direct proportion to the amount of work you do, then I've got news for you...  Nothing is fair.  You think ophthalmology being compensated five times more than neurology for the same amount of work is fair?  Nope, but hey, they are both fee-for-service, aren't they?  I'd argue that for the amount of work pathologists in this country do, they are extremely generously compensated.  I wouldn't take anything over getting paid $350,000 a year for 50 hours of work a week, have reasonable control over my daily schedule, not having to run a clinic or be stuck in the OR, and very light, if not non-existent, call.

 

Job market is a hit or miss like many other Royal College specialties.  That being said, I know/of a number of people who got jobs after one fellowship (or no fellowship at all) at the center of their choice.

 

I went through both path and rads as a medical student and even though I have tremendous respect for radiology and think it's a fantastic field for lots of people, I myself can't ever imagine myself being a practicing radiologist.  Their work just isn't for me, and I'd be miserable.  I also know people who switched from other highly competitive fields to path (uber-competitive surgical subs, even derm) once they realized that those fields aren't for them.  To that effect, I'd again advise consider people to do an actual rotation in pathology and figure out if it is right for them.

 

What you will see happening at many centers is high increases in volume without increases in remuneration. At some centers the volumes have gone up almost double in the last few years, yet the pathologists are not paid more for it, nor are extra pathologists brought in to cover the work. They come in on weekends and stay after hours because otherwise they will be fired and replaced. But if they rush, they might make errors and get vilified in the press. It's a lose-lose situation. Rmorlean is right in that these flat fee salary arrangements are certainly at risk to be abused and should be avoided.

 

That's another issue: we are training far too many pathologists. The governing pathologist body says there's a shortage, which may be true, but the fact is that pathologists are not in control of hiring each other as is the case with most other specialties. Hospitals and for-profit corporations make the decisions to hire. Because of the continuous deluge of pathologists, from Canadian residency programs, the USA, and foreign countries, hospitals can be unfair and abusive because there will always be a replacement. Again because of the deluge of pathologists, even community hospitals can be choosy about fellowships and experience. There are remote community hospitals that will hire a non-board-eligible pathologist from say Pakistan rather than an FRCPC pathologist, because the former has to sign return-of-service agreements and will stay.

 

Pathology's job market is as bad as any of the surgical subspecialties. I know unemployed orthopedic surgeons, neurosurgeons, cardiac surgeons, rad oncs, and pathologists. The only difference, as I have alluded to above, is that Canadian pathologists do not have the USA option. They want general pathologists while we mostly train anatomical, so the two or three Canadian GP residents are ok, but all the AP ones are not. They also have a far worse job market than us (they come here, not the other way around like it is for all other specialties).

 

Comparing ophthalmology to neurology is not an appropriate comparison in my opinion. One is a surgical procedural field while the other is largely evaluation and management. That's not to say that the former bills obscenely while the latter might be underfunded. Pathology's best comparison is radiology, and from what I know about both fields, the latter is a far better choice in all ways except perhaps lifestyle (though I do know some 'mommy-track' radiologists who work four days a week at echo chambers or outpatient clinics and still earn more than full time pathologists, so it's not as bad as people think). I wouldn't call it an obsession with fee-for-service, but a desire to be remunerated in a similar way to your peers, and for said remuneration scheme to not be as open to abuse.

 

That's why I am warning students. Pathology has to be the only thing you want to do, and that you have ruled out imaging entirely. BHD (the most pathologist username ever, by the way!) made this determination and stuck by it, and is happy, and that's great. But that's the thing, he did more research into it. I did not. I went by the nature of the work, liked my rotations and my mentors, but failed to determine the nature of the field itself, and I am disappointed. Through my internship I enjoyed other fields as much if not more than pathology but am stuck with it unless I go down south. I didn't take a closer look at imaging until midway through internship and I liked it more than path. Knowing that it is more professionally rewarding and fulfilling is difficult to take sometimes.

 

What other people think of you is important. Having work that is valued and relevant is an important determinant of one's being. We are primarily social creatures so public opinion of the worth of what you do does carry into your own concept of self-worth. That's the truth. Currently pathologists are seen as cogs - not important, but necessary. At least that's my take. You probably disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have the time to write a detailed, all-inclusive post, but wanted to add a few points:

 

1) I did electives in both rads and path as a med student, and preferred path.  I only applied to path residencies.  I'm very happy and don't regret my decision at all.  I would encourage med students to explore as many different specialties as possible.

 

2) I think choosing a specialty based only income is a recipe for misery later in life.  Having said that, path can be more lucrative than alluded to above - there are some pathologists (granted, in small centres) who work far far less than 50 hours a week and still make ~$350K.  It is also quite popular to pick up work in private labs, part time, in addition to a "full-time" position.  This private lab work pays quite well.

 

3) I don't think the job market is as bad as Cain says.  I don't know any unemployed pathologists.  (Admittedly, most people do a fellowship).

 

4) Cain obviously regrets his decision to pursue pathology, but the vast majority of trainees do not.  I know of several residents who have switched from competitive residencies into path, and none have looked back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah I don't know why people keep saying path doesn't pay much...all the ones I know make $300-400K salary, do very light call, and have benefits and a large pension plan (similar to nurses, but obviously with a much larger benefit). 

 

possibly because they are comparing it to radiology - which is very dangerous if for no other reason than radiologist income has and will extremely likely continue to fall in the future. I would not be at all surprised if both fields end up at the same place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pathologists can and do incorporate as well. But remember tax laws change, and reimbursements change - and rather quickly at that. I think it's important to consider the more enduring factors relating to the nature of a field as above, but placing too much emphasis on specific numbers could lead to expectations not being met. It's also worth bearing in mind the variability in types of positions within a field as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your perspectives everyone! Keep them coming, much appreciated!

 

How much does one typically save by incorporating vs salary? If a pathologist and radiologist both earned $400k one year, how different would their take home pay be?

 

I would also support Lactic Folly on the earlier remarks of how fluild things are - we aren't even sure there is going to BE incorporation in the future. It is clearly under attack. 

 

but to answer the question if both took out the full amount of 400K in a given year they would both make exactly the same (or at least that is the idea - on a year to year basis there are minor differences as you have to continuously update the rates which sometimes as a bit of a lag. The governments goal is however to keep them exactly the same). 

 

so what is the point? well there are differences of course. First with incorporation you get to write off a lot of stuff. You don't get to do that on salary. The flip side is you are not supposed to HAVE to write anything of if you are an employee - your employer is supposed to be already covering that (your supplies, your workspace, your training etc, etc). So not really a big difference there either - just how things are done. 

 

now for the real differences - with incorporation you get to play two big things - one is you can potentially income split but having your family as members in your corporation under specific rules (not just everyone ha). That also you potentially to income split - in canada income tax rates increase at higher income levels - it is better to be two 200K people than one 400K person under the tax law. Now to be fair I completely understand why the government would target his and I actually agree even though it would hurt my income. It makes no sense to me that my corporation should give dividends to any adult children that eventually are in my future. They don't own shares, and didn't contribute to profit. 

 

Next you can retain income in your corporation which it can be invested in a semi tax sheltered state. Eventually in the future you can withdraw it and have it taxed then. Taxing something later vs now is usually a better deal. Most doctors are really using their corporations as retirement savings vehicles. When you do the math this is a powerful advantage actually. It is a big deal. It also is kind of similar to a pension which other corporations can create - thus I think doing this form of savings is perfectly fine. Doctors also have a lot shorter time to pay for retirement (big loan to pay off, start a family has to happen relatively soon upon graduating (say in my field if you start university at 18 by the time you are a full radiologist you are 32 minimum - could be longer than that of course quite easily). Not saving enough and saving soon enough is a big mistake.

 

but if you are talking on a year to year basis - your original question perhaps - not much difference at all if you want to max out your income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys! Not to belabour the issue of income as I know this isn't the most important factor, but what is the current income range for a radiologist compared to a pathologist's 300-400k? (feel free to pm if you don't want to post publicly) Do you feel the better income justifies the increased work hours and call responsibility of a radiologist?

 

Also, what are your thoughts on teleradiology? How feasible is this and how often is it done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys! Not to belabour the issue of income as I know this isn't the most important factor, but what is the current income range for a radiologist compared to a pathologist's 300-400k? (feel free to pm if you don't want to post publicly) Do you feel the better income justifies the increased work hours and call responsibility of a radiologist? Also, what are your thoughts on teleradiology? How feasible is this and how often is it done?

 

Average radiologist (in Ontario) bills in the mid-400s. That said, there is a LOT of variation, and it is not uncommon to bill well into the 600 and 700Ks. However, fees are being cut (especially in Ontario). However, as I mentioned above, many pathologists are part of a group pension plan (even a very generous defined benefit plan) which other docs don't have, which is worth a LOT of money over the years and in some cases means they actually make around the same as many radiologists.  All MDs are remunerated very well and a difference in income of 100K here and there should not be a determining factor in making your a career choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Average radiologist (in Ontario) bills in the mid-400s. That said, there is a LOT of variation, and it is not uncommon to bill well into the 600 and 700Ks. However, fees are being cut (especially in Ontario). However, as I mentioned above, many pathologists are part of a group pension plan (even a very generous defined benefit plan) which other docs don't have, which is worth a LOT of money over the years and in some cases means they actually make around the same as many radiologists.  All MDs are remunerated very well and a difference in income of 100K here and there should not be a determining factor in making your a career choice.

 

it should be noted that the pathologist pensions are worth the equivalent of millions by the end of the careers so you really do have to factor them into the calculation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it should be noted that the pathologist pensions are worth the equivalent of millions by the end of the careers so you really do have to factor them into the calculation. 

 

 

Exactly...e.g. in Ontario, many Pathologists are eligible for HOOPP which is one of the best defined benefit plans available. This means that if after a 30 year career, they will get around 80% of their salary (can be more if they pay into it more and/or work longer) for the rest of their lives with COLA increases. This effectively means that other than paying into this plan, they don't need to save anything else for retirement and will have no financial worries for life. I.e. worth millions as rmorelan said, whereas as a radiologist, it's all up to you to save enough during that time because ones you stop billing when you retire, your income goes to zero. Still not a reason to choose one field over the other, but if you are comparing salaries, this has to be a factor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly...e.g. in Ontario, many Pathologists are eligible for HOOPP which is one of the best defined benefit plans available. This means that if after a 30 year career, they will get around 80% of their salary (can be more if they pay into it more and/or work longer) for the rest of their lives with COLA increases. This effectively means that other than paying into this plan, they don't need to save anything else for retirement and will have no financial worries for life. I.e. worth millions as rmorelan said, whereas as a radiologist, it's all up to you to save enough during that time because ones you stop billing when you retire, your income goes to zero. Still not a reason to choose one field over the other, but if you are comparing salaries, this has to be a factor. 

 

that would mean they have absolutely no need to save for retirement all. They could just spend their complete salary and know they would be fine. 

 

On a 300K income a year that is around 175K after tax to spend each year. 

 

Not trying to "sell" path here but that is a job without call, and absolutely busy and stressful yes but still relatively 8-5 type job. 

 

that isn't a bad financial place to be ha. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Money's not the main reason I request that people think hard about pathology, although it is one. The tenuous political status of pathology, the absence of autonomous practice, the lower recruitment standards, and its history of often being marginalized and stigmatized are more important.

 

I posted a long thesis that a grad student did here a while ago that outlines the history of pathology in Ontario. I would call it required reading for anyone interested in pathology - I know if I had read it during medical school I would have had second thoughts about applying to pathology. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Money's not the main reason I request that people think hard about pathology, although it is one. The tenuous political status of pathology, the absence of autonomous practice, the lower recruitment standards, and its history of often being marginalized and stigmatized are more important.

 

I posted a long thesis that a grad student did here a while ago that outlines the history of pathology in Ontario. I would call it required reading for anyone interested in pathology - I know if I had read it during medical school I would have had second thoughts about applying to pathology. 

 

to reinforce this I think every single one of the radiology and pathology residents on this thread has warned about the dangers of putting too much into the flat out income. I mean I know that is probably hard to process earlier on but by the time you get closer to the end (which for some reason I just kind of noticed - gezz I am only 16 months away from graduating) concern shifts more to overall lifestyle rather than just focusing on one single factor. 

 

and for all we know the government will at some point just make all radiologists salaried ha. After all there are actually already salaried radiolgists in Ontario so there is even a model for it (Sick Kids in case you are wondering - they are on the sunshine list). Some staff I know would even support the change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to reinforce this I think every single one of the radiology and pathology residents on this thread has warned about the dangers of putting too much into the flat out income. I mean I know that is probably hard to process earlier on but by the time you get closer to the end (which from some reason I just kind of noticed - gezz I am only 16 months away from graduating) concern shifts more to overall lifestyle rather than just focusing on one single factor. 

 

and for all we know the government will at some point just make all radiologists salaried ha. After all there are actually already salaried radiolgists in Ontario so there is even a model for it (Sick Kids in case you are wondering - they are on the sunshine list). Some staff I know would even support the change. 

 

Most wouldn't support it. It reduces autonomy. In order to reap the benefits of the pension you become stuck at the institution despite better opportunities opening elsewhere. It reduces professional freedom.

 

I'm assuming that Sick Kids can salary their radiologists either because of the supposed prestige of working there, Toronto being a prime location, or maybe the billing codes or volumes for peds are lower and they're actually paying a premium to get peds radiologists there? I don't know. But what I can say is that pathologists get paid the same whether they do one case a year or 2000 (it's always closer to 2000, or more, and if it becomes 3000, well tough).

 

Pathology is the only field where you can't bill for your services solely because of the location where you provide them. If a pathologist diagnoses a GI biopsy in a hospital, he bills zero. If he does it at one of the two major lab companies, he bills about fifty bucks, which the lab corporations shave by 70 to 80%.

 

I cannot see how if someone does one thing somewhere it's worth ZERO while if they do it elsewhere it's worth X. I don't get that. I cannot see why OAP and OMA haven't been persistent in fighting this. OAP because it marginalizes pathologists, and OMA because it acts as a deprofessionalizing index case for other hospital based fields. If radiologists had not been so rightfully proud of themselves, they'd be in the same boat as pathology.

 

In that document I linked a while back, a few northern Ontario pathologists tried to fight it legally but coudn't  beat the government or the lab corps. The OAP did nothing. The OMA did nothing.

 

You'll see it in residency programs too. The radiology residents are by and large well put together. The pathology residents are mostly FMGs and very awkward, and very easily picked on. It reflects professionally.

 

Pathology is considered a weird, weak field, that's been gutted professionally by the government and for-profit lab corporations, ignored by the OMA, and self-sabotaged by the OAP. Students should know that before taking the plunge. You'll be on your own here. Crabs in a bucket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When people talk of radiology switching to a 24/7 service, what actual setup do you anticipate for staff? Will it be like the ER doc shift work model, where doctors work a 10-12 hour shift constantly rotating through days and nights? Would they still be taking off a 2 day "weekend" for about every 5 shifts worked? Exactly how much busier do you think they will be as a result, and how soon can we expect this to happen?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand of how it currently works, radiologists largely still work mainly daytime hours, but do an extra evening shift until about 9 pm once every week or two, and cover an entire weekend every 6-8 weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...