How health policy and health services researchers are compensated: Analysis of a nationwide salary survey
ABSTRACT The membership of Academy Health, a professional organization, was invited to complete an anonymous Web-based survey in 2002. Responses were received from 1,140 of 2,633 surveyed (43 percent). Fifty-six percent worked in academic institutions or teaching hospitals, 34 percent in the private sector or foundations, and 10 percent in government. Most (96 percent) had at least one advanced degree, and the diversity of educational backgrounds was pronounced. The median annual salary was $99,000. Salaries were highest in the private sector, followed by academic and government settings. There were large regional variations, with higher salaries in the Mid-Atlantic and New England regions. Adjusted data suggested these higher regional salaries were inadequate to compensate for higher local cost of living. Among academic respondents, nonadjusted salaries increased with advancing faculty job titles, but this seniority effect was inconsistent across geographic regions. Junior faculty salaries, when adjusted for cost of living, were more similar across regions than salaries at the full professor level.
SourceAvailable from: Craig V Thornton[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To describe factors that will shape future demand for doctoral-trained health services researchers. STUDY DESIGN/DATA SOURCES: Commentary based on recent trends in funding for health services research (HSR), the number of federally funded HSR projects listed in HSRProj, national expenditures for health, and interviews with a small number of employers. Despite rapid growth in the overall health care sector, inflation-adjusted funding for HSR has declined, implying little or no net growth in demand for people to lead HSR studies. Employers report being able to hire researchers to conduct HSR by drawing on people trained in many disciplines. Employers have considerable flexibility in hiring individuals to conduct HSR when demand is relatively stable. They may have much more difficulty hiring well-qualified researchers when faced with sharp increases in demand for HSR, such as could be generated by recent economic stimulus legislation.Health Services Research 12/2009; 44(6):2242-54. DOI:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.01028.x · 2.49 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This paper reports the results of a Fall 2005 survey of US health economists, the first in over 18 years. Where appropriate, the results are compared with the earlier findings of Feldman and Morrisey (J. Health Politics Policy Law 1990; 15(3):627-646). The paper describes the demographics and training of health economists. It also describes how employers view the substitutability between a Ph.D. in economics and a Ph.D. in health services research, which is a key question because self-identified health economists increasingly include health services researchers trained in schools of public health or medicine. This study also reports the expectations of various, employers of health economists regarding external grant and contract support. It also reports health economists' perceptions of the processes that allocate resources and recognition: promotion review, journal refereeing, and grant review.Health Economics 04/2008; 17(4):535-43. DOI:10.1002/hec.1314 · 2.14 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This paper presents data from a 2005 survey of health economists who were U.S. members of the International Health Economics Association or the Health Economics Special Interest Group of Academy Health. We present summary statistics of health economist earnings by rank and type of employer, estimate log earnings models as a function of education, experience, type of employer, and research productivity, and provide summary statistics of starting salaries expected to be offered to new Ph.D. health economists by type of employer. Our findings are compared to those for economics departments, business schools, schools of public health, and for health services researchers.Journal of Health Economics 04/2007; 26(2):358-72. DOI:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.10.008 · 2.25 Impact Factor