Original Article

Academic Productivity and Its Relationship to Physician Salaries in the University of California Healthcare System

Authors: Natalia Fijalkowski, BA, Luo Luo Zheng, BS, Michael T. Henderson, BA, Andrew A. Moshfeghi, MD, MBA, Mitchell Maltenfort, PhD, Darius M. Moshfeghi, MD

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate whether physicians with higher academic productivity, as measured by the number of publications in Scopus and the Scopus Hirsch index (h-index), earn higher salaries.

Methods: This was a cross-sectional study. Participants were ophthalmologists, otolaryngologists, neurosurgeons, and neurologists classified as “top earners” (>$100,000 annually) within the University of California (UC) healthcare system in 2008. Bibliometric searches on Scopus were conducted to retrieve the total number of publications and Hirsch indices (h-index), a measure of academic productivity. The association between the number of publications and h-index on physicians’ total compensation was determined with multivariate regression models after controlling for the four specialties (ophthalmology, otolaryngology, neurosurgery, and neurology), the five institutions (UC San Francisco, UC Los Angeles, UC San Diego, UC Irvine, and UC Davis), and academic rank (assistant professor, associate professor, and professor).

Results: The UC healthcare system departments reported 433 faculty physicians among the four specialties, with 71.6% (n = 310) earning more than $100,000 in 2008 and classifying as top earners. After controlling for the specialty, institution, and ranking, there was a significant association between the number of publications on salary (P < 0.000001). Scopus number of publications and h-index were correlated (P < 0.001). Scopus h-index was of borderline significance in predicting physician salary (P = 0.12). Physicians with higher Scopus publications had higher total salaries across all four specialties. Every 10 publications were associated with a 2.40% increase in total salary after controlling for specialty, institution, rank, and chair.

Conclusions: Ophthalmologists, otolaryngologists, neurosurgeons, and neurologists in the UC healthcare system who are more academically productive receive greater remuneratio

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Cadman EC. The academic physician-investigator: a crisis not to be ignored. Ann Intern Med. 1994; 120: 401–410.
 
2. Campbell EG, Weissman JS, Moy E, et al. Status of clinical research in academic health centers: views from the research leadership. JAMA. 2001; 286: 800–806.
 
3. Stewart FM, Wasserman RL, Bloomfield CD, et al. Benchmarks in clinical productivity: a national comprehensive cancer network survey. J Oncol Pract. 2007; 3: 2–8.
 
4. Albritton TA, Miller MD, Johnson MH, et al. Using relative value units to measure faculty clinical productivity. J Gen Intern Med. 1997; 12: 715–717.
 
5. Eschelman DJ, Sullivan KL, Parker L, et al. The relationship of clinical and academic productivity in a university hospital radiology department. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000; 174: 27–31.
 
6. Yang G, Zaid UB, Erickson BA, et al. Urology resident publication output and its relationship to future academic achievement. J Urol. 2011; 185: 642–646.
 
7. Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005; 102: 16569–16572.
 
8. Hirsch JE. Does the H index have predictive power? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007; 104: 19193–19198.
 
9. Ponce FA, Lozano AM. Academic impact and rankings of American and Canadian neurosurgical departments as assessed using the h index. J Neurosurg. 2010; 113: 447–457.
 
10. Kelly CD, Jennions MD. The h index and career assessment by numbers. Trends Ecol Evol. 2006; 21: 167–170.
 
11. Kelly CD, Jennions MD. H-index: age and sex make it unreliable. Nature. 2007; 449: 403
 
12. Wendl MC. H-index: however ranked, citations need context. Nature. 2007; 449: 403
 
13. Purvis A. The h index: playing the numbers game. Trends Ecol Evol. 2006; 21: 422
 
14. Hsiao WC, Stason WB. Toward developing a relative value scale for medical and surgical services. Health Care Financ Rev. 1979; 1: 23–38.
 
15. Hsiao WC, Braun P, Becker ER, et al. The Resource-Based Relative Value Scale. Toward the development of an alternative physician payment system. JAMA. 1987; 258: 799–802.
 
16. Hsiao WC, Braun P, Yntema D, et al. Estimating physicians’ work for a resource-based relative-value scale. N Engl J Med. 1988; 319: 835–841.
 
17. Chiax-Couturier C, Durand-Zaleski I, Jolly D, et al. Effects of financial incentives on medical practice: results from a systematic review of the literature and methodological issues. Int J Qual Health Care. 2000; 12: 133–142.
 
18. Fang H, Rizzo JA. The changing effect of managed care on physician financial incentives. Am J Manag Care. 2008; 14: 653–660.