5 ms·

> I make over 800k a year, and take 14 weeks of vacation. I, for one, am disheartened by this gross misallocation of resources, but good work on the vacation

> I make over 800k a year, and take 14 weeks of vacation. I, for one, am disheartened by this gross misallocation of resources, but good work on the vacation time.

reason 15y ago
He's running a business; what's not to get? He sits higher up on the ladder with a bigger net than most doctors. The doctor that reads your x-ray at the local community hospital and this guy are in two different positions. One is an employee, the other is a business founder. The amount of money that you and the insurance companies pay to both are no different.
giardini 15y ago
The median salary for experienced radiologists is $300k-400k. And increasingly radiology has been outsourced overseas with mostly technicians required stateside (scan during the day, radiologist in India examines at night, results available the next morning). But roentgen claims to be a businessman as well as a radiologist. If so, most of his income would be from several radiology businesses. In that case the 800k/year number would not be surprising. Always remember - "On the Internet no one knows you're a dog." and - "Don't believe everything you read."
- roentgen 15y ago
  If you read my other comments, I state that I make twice the average salary, because I read twice as many films. > increasingly radiology has been outsourced overseas with mostly technicians required stateside (scan during the day, radiologist in India examines at night, results available the next morning). This is not true. Some "preliminary reads" are read overseas at night, but the doctors reading the studies are trained and certified in the USA. "Final reads", the CT scan report that counts, cannot be read elsewhere.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - jquery 15y ago
    > "Final reads", the CT scan report that counts, cannot be read elsewhere. Why not?
    - roentgen 15y ago
      I have sort of answered this question below. Final interpretations must be performed by a radiologist residency trained in the USA, licensed in the state there are reading from, and credentialed for the facility and the insurance company. Why? Well, I guess it's supposed to be to ensure quality. In general, it is probably good that every hospital in the USA has an independent credentialing process. You could debate the fact that doctors in the USA are better trained, but in fact that has overwhelmingly been my experience. Cynically, I believe that the lawyers need someone to sue. Like I said, most doctors complain about malpractice, but not me. The trial lawyers can't sue doctors overseas, but they can sue me. So, in a sense they are my ally, they ensure that no one else ( except people they can sue ) can read the studies. That being said, there are companies that take USA trained radiologists and station them overseas. Australia and Geneva are both popular. They take advantage of the time difference to read hospital cases that occur overnight, when I am home in bed. They usually provide a preliminary read, something like "no appendicitis." The next day I do a final read, look for mistakes in the preliminary read, and in general do a more thorough job. Sure, there's no appendicitis, but the preliminary read didn't mention the small tumor in your left kidney that kind of looks like a cyst, but isn't. FYI - overseas reads by USA trained radiologists tend to be more expensive, not less. Anyway, thanks for jquery.
- mynameishere 15y ago
  http://www1.salary.com/radiologist-Salary.html http://www1.salary.com/radiologist-Salary.html http://www1.salary.com/Physician-Cardiology-Non-Invasive-Salary.html http://www1.salary.com/Physician-Cardiology-Non-Invasive-Sal... http://www1.salary.com/neurologist-Salary.html http://www1.salary.com/neurologist-Salary.html That radiologists make 100K more than cardiologists and 200k (!!!) more than neurologists absolutely screams market manipulation. Radiology seems literally one generation of Intel processors away from being automated into oblivion. God speed that it is.
  - roentgen 15y ago
    I'm not sure if you've ever seen a CT stroke study, which typically includes 4,000 images. If you think a computer can accurately interpret one of these any time soon, I would say you are poorly informed. See my response below, and look into "CAD" and mammography.
    - Locke1689 15y ago
      Hmm, how exactly does the number of images affect predictive algorithms? If anything, more data is better. No offense, but as a radiologist you're not exactly familiar with the state of the art in A.I. image processing. I'd say that both of us are unqualified to state the degree of effectiveness of computational geometry and computer vision in radiology.
    - adammichaelc 15y ago
      You might not see it because it's such an inconvenient thing to see; afterall your income is tied to it. The main factor keeping your income so high is the AMA and its regulatory allies. With rising costs and increasing pressure to save money in healthcare, you better believe that one day a computer will do your job. PS You might want to re-read The Innovator's Dilemma and The Innovator's Solution.
      - arn 15y ago
        My income's not tied to it, so I'll say it. Computers reliably interpreting films as the final word is not going to happen in the near future (within this guy's career). Reading films is as much an art as it is a science. I'm sure a lot of advances can be made on it, and we might see nice proofs of concept. But to the point that it actually replaces radiologists? Even if you assume the technology can be perfected, there are too many non-technological hurdles for that to happen. Liability, trust, etc... Machine EKG interpretation has been around for a while, but it's not even close to perfect and no one relies on it, and it's a much much much simpler problem.
Gatsky 15y ago
Ok, so everyone agrees that doctors are underpaid and overworked, and when someone isn't underpaid or overworked it's a misallocation? Trust me, a good radiologist is easily worth that much and more. They make hundreds to thousands of decisions a day and produce data which is scrutinized carefully. Many radiology mistakes also eventually come to light through time or autopsy, so they are also accountable. People in other jobs are paid more to do far less and be far less accountable, the finance industry being the number one example. (Thanks for your good work lately.) One final point is that medical training in other countries isn't like this. In Australia, we don't work ridiculous hours most of the time and remuneration is reasonable. As well as making actual healthcare inefficient and needlessly expensive, the US has managed to do the same to medical training.

> I make over 800k a year, and take 14 weeks of vacation. I, for one, am disheartened by this gross misallocation of resources, but good work on the vacation time.

reason 15y ago

He's running a business; what's not to get? He sits higher up on the ladder with a bigger net than most doctors. The doctor that reads your x-ray at the local community hospital and this guy are in two different positions. One is an employee, the other is a business founder. The amount of money that you and the insurance companies pay to both are no different.

giardini 15y ago

The median salary for experienced radiologists is $300k-400k. And increasingly radiology has been outsourced overseas with mostly technicians required stateside (scan during the day, radiologist in India examines at night, results available the next morning). But roentgen claims to be a businessman as well as a radiologist. If so, most of his income would be from several radiology businesses. In that case the 800k/year number would not be surprising. Always remember - "On the Internet no one knows you're a dog." and - "Don't believe everything you read."

roentgen 15y ago
If you read my other comments, I state that I make twice the average salary, because I read twice as many films. > increasingly radiology has been outsourced overseas with mostly technicians required stateside (scan during the day, radiologist in India examines at night, results available the next morning). This is not true. Some "preliminary reads" are read overseas at night, but the doctors reading the studies are trained and certified in the USA. "Final reads", the CT scan report that counts, cannot be read elsewhere.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- jquery 15y ago
  > "Final reads", the CT scan report that counts, cannot be read elsewhere. Why not?
  - roentgen 15y ago
    I have sort of answered this question below. Final interpretations must be performed by a radiologist residency trained in the USA, licensed in the state there are reading from, and credentialed for the facility and the insurance company. Why? Well, I guess it's supposed to be to ensure quality. In general, it is probably good that every hospital in the USA has an independent credentialing process. You could debate the fact that doctors in the USA are better trained, but in fact that has overwhelmingly been my experience. Cynically, I believe that the lawyers need someone to sue. Like I said, most doctors complain about malpractice, but not me. The trial lawyers can't sue doctors overseas, but they can sue me. So, in a sense they are my ally, they ensure that no one else ( except people they can sue ) can read the studies. That being said, there are companies that take USA trained radiologists and station them overseas. Australia and Geneva are both popular. They take advantage of the time difference to read hospital cases that occur overnight, when I am home in bed. They usually provide a preliminary read, something like "no appendicitis." The next day I do a final read, look for mistakes in the preliminary read, and in general do a more thorough job. Sure, there's no appendicitis, but the preliminary read didn't mention the small tumor in your left kidney that kind of looks like a cyst, but isn't. FYI - overseas reads by USA trained radiologists tend to be more expensive, not less. Anyway, thanks for jquery.
mynameishere 15y ago
http://www1.salary.com/radiologist-Salary.html http://www1.salary.com/radiologist-Salary.html http://www1.salary.com/Physician-Cardiology-Non-Invasive-Salary.html http://www1.salary.com/Physician-Cardiology-Non-Invasive-Sal... http://www1.salary.com/neurologist-Salary.html http://www1.salary.com/neurologist-Salary.html That radiologists make 100K more than cardiologists and 200k (!!!) more than neurologists absolutely screams market manipulation. Radiology seems literally one generation of Intel processors away from being automated into oblivion. God speed that it is.
- roentgen 15y ago
  I'm not sure if you've ever seen a CT stroke study, which typically includes 4,000 images. If you think a computer can accurately interpret one of these any time soon, I would say you are poorly informed. See my response below, and look into "CAD" and mammography.
  - Locke1689 15y ago
    Hmm, how exactly does the number of images affect predictive algorithms? If anything, more data is better. No offense, but as a radiologist you're not exactly familiar with the state of the art in A.I. image processing. I'd say that both of us are unqualified to state the degree of effectiveness of computational geometry and computer vision in radiology.
  - adammichaelc 15y ago
    You might not see it because it's such an inconvenient thing to see; afterall your income is tied to it. The main factor keeping your income so high is the AMA and its regulatory allies. With rising costs and increasing pressure to save money in healthcare, you better believe that one day a computer will do your job. PS You might want to re-read The Innovator's Dilemma and The Innovator's Solution.
    - arn 15y ago
      My income's not tied to it, so I'll say it. Computers reliably interpreting films as the final word is not going to happen in the near future (within this guy's career). Reading films is as much an art as it is a science. I'm sure a lot of advances can be made on it, and we might see nice proofs of concept. But to the point that it actually replaces radiologists? Even if you assume the technology can be perfected, there are too many non-technological hurdles for that to happen. Liability, trust, etc... Machine EKG interpretation has been around for a while, but it's not even close to perfect and no one relies on it, and it's a much much much simpler problem.

Gatsky 15y ago

Ok, so everyone agrees that doctors are underpaid and overworked, and when someone isn't underpaid or overworked it's a misallocation? Trust me, a good radiologist is easily worth that much and more. They make hundreds to thousands of decisions a day and produce data which is scrutinized carefully. Many radiology mistakes also eventually come to light through time or autopsy, so they are also accountable. People in other jobs are paid more to do far less and be far less accountable, the finance industry being the number one example. (Thanks for your good work lately.) One final point is that medical training in other countries isn't like this. In Australia, we don't work ridiculous hours most of the time and remuneration is reasonable. As well as making actual healthcare inefficient and needlessly expensive, the US has managed to do the same to medical training.