Considerable interest exists in comparison between healthcare systems across multiple countries, especially where cost enters the discussion.
Purpose
To evaluate the relationship between radiologists’ income, receipts for studies, and academic performance across multiple countries.
Material and Methods
The annual income of radiologists and receipts for computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were obtained based on a survey sent to expert radiologists practicing in 23 countries of varying developmental status. Articles published in generalist radiology journals determined the academic performance of each country.
Results
Among the developed countries, Canada has the highest estimated annual income for both private ($700,000/year) and university radiologists ($600,000/year) while Spain has the lowest income for private practice ($68,000/year) and Portugal has the lowest income for university practice ($57,300/year). Among the developing countries, Saudi Arabia has the highest incomes for both private ($210,000/year) and university ($140,000/year) radiologists and Vietnam has the lowest incomes for both private ($30,000/year) and university ($6,000/year) radiologists. Total receipts for CT and MRI studies ranged from $80/study (Portugal) to $1000/study (USA) in developed countries, and ranged from $30/study (Egypt) to $700/study (Saudi Arabia) in developing countries. A moderate correlation (r = 0.482) was seen between radiologist’s income and the receipts for combined practice in all countries. The radiology journal academic quotient was highest in The Netherlands among developed countries, and Turkey among developing countries.
Conclusion
A relatively broad range of radiologists’ income is observed among developed and developing countries, which shows correlation with the receipts for advanced imaging studies. Countries with an acceptable compromise between income, receipts, and academic performance, may be the best models for other countries to emulate.
BurkeLMMartinDRBaderT. Health care reform in the USA: Recommendations from USA and non-USA radiologists. World J Radiol2012; 4: 44–47.
3.
BrubakerLMPicanoEBreenDJ. Health care systems of developed non-U.S. nations: strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations for the United States - observations from internationally recognized imaging specialists. Am J Roentgenol2011; 196: W30–36.
4.
The price of excess: Identifying waste in healthcare spending. Report Document from PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Health Research Institute 2008. Available at: http://pwchealth.com/cgi-local/hregister.cgi/reg/waste.pdf (accessed July 2014).
5.
AaronHJ. Waste, we know you are out there. N Engl J Med2008; 359: 1865–1857.
6.
WeinsteinMCSkinnerJA. Comparative effectiveness and health care spending -implications for reform. N Engl J Med2010; 362: 460–465.
7.
SawickiPT. Communal responsibility for health care - the example of benefit assessment in Germany. N Engl J Med2009; 361: e42–e42.
8.
CrawfordMJRutterDManleyC. Systematic review of involving patients in the planning and development of health care. BMJ2002; 325: 1263–1263.
9.
FurlanAMarinDCabassaP. Enhancement pattern of small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at contrast-enhanced US (CEUS), MDCT, and MRI: intermodality agreement and comparison of diagnostic sensitivity between 2005 and 2010 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) guidelines. Eur J Radiol2012; 81: 2099–2105.
10.
OkmaKGMarmorTROberlanderJ. Managed competition for Medicare? Sobering lessons from The Netherlands. N Engl J Med2011; 365: 287–289.
11.
FisherESWennbergDEStukelTA. The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending. Part 1: the content, quality, and accessibility of care. Ann Intern Med2003; 138: 273–287.
12.
SlatteryEClancyKXHarewoodGC. Does the cost of care differ for patients with fee-for-service vs. capitation of payment? A case-control study in gastroenterology. Ir J Med Sci2013; 182: 669–672.
13.
PozenACutlerDM. Medical spending differences in the United States and Canada: the role of prices, procedures, and administrative expenses. Inquiry2010; 47: 124–134.
14.
AugustineSLawrenceRHRaghavendraP. Benefits and costs of pay for performance as perceived by residents: a qualitative study. Acad Med2010; 85: 1888–1896.
15.
GrimesCEHenryJAMarakaJ. Cost-effectiveness of surgery in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. World J Surg2014; 38: 252–263.
16.
WilsonNNghiemNFosterR. Estimating the cost of new public health legislation. Bull World Health Organ2012; 90: 532–539.
17.
PaulDP3rdBabitskyDRChandraA. The US Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Health Care spending chasm: better understanding some of the reasons for the gap and some suggestions as to how it might be narrowed. Health Care Manag2012; 31: 342–350.
18.
MaheshwariSAnimasahunBANjokanmaOF. International patients with congenital heart disease: what brings them to India?Indian Heart J2012; 64: 50–53.
19.
FisherCSoodK. What is driving the growth in medical tourism?Health Mark Q2014; 31: 246–262.
20.
AkohJA. Key issues in transplant tourism. World J Transplant2012; 2: 9–18.
21.
HanefeldJHorsfallDLuntN. Medical tourism: a cost or benefit to the NHS?PloS One2013; 8: e70406–e70406.
22.
MelendezMMAlizadehK. Complications from international surgery tourism. Aesthet Surg J2011; 31: 694–697.
23.
GlinosI. Worrying about the wrong thing: patient mobility versus mobility of health care professionals. J Health Serv Res Policy2012; 17: 254–256.
D.H. & L.D. Interactive currency-comparison tool. The Big Mac index. Global exchange rates, to go. The Economist 2015. Available at: http://www.economist.com/content/big-mac-index (accessed December 2015).
30.
HuynhLMcCoyMLawA. Systematic literature review of the costs of pregnancy in the US. PharmacoEconomics2013; 31: 1005–1030.
31.
ZimlichmanEHendersonDTamirO. Health care-associated infections: a meta-analysis of costs and financial impact on the US health care system. JAMA Intern Med2013; 173: 2039–2046.
32.
DonohueJMPincusHA. Reducing the societal burden of depression: a review of economic costs, quality of care and effects of treatment. Pharmacoeconomics2007; 25: 7–24.
LewisS. A system in name only–access, variation, and reform in Canada’s provinces. N Engl J Med2015; 372: 497–500.
35.
WoolfsonJPMcLarenKBaerlocherMO. Shortcomings in interventional radiology in Canada and what is needed for change. J Vasc Interv Radiol2007; 18: 1404–1408.
36.
MullanF. The metrics of the physician brain drain. N Engl J Med2005; 353: 1810–1818.
37.
PhillipsRLJrPettersonSFryerGEJr. The Canadian contribution to the US physician workforce. CMAJ2007; 176: 1083–1087.
38.
VydarenyKH. The manpower crisis in academic radiology: don’t kill the milk cow for meat. J Am Coll Radiol2004; 1: 100–103.
39.
OgnyanovaDMaierCBWismarM. Mobility of health professionals pre and post 2004 and 2007 EU enlargements: evidence from the EU project PROMeTHEUS. Health Policy2012; 108: 122–132.
KuYJYoonDYLimKJ. Korea’s contribution to radiological research included in Science Citation Index Expanded, 1986–2010. Korean J Radiol2012; 13: 523–539.
44.
TijdinkJKVerbekeRSmuldersYM. Publication pressure and scientific misconduct in medical scientists. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics2014; 9: 64–71.
45.
Brauser D. Pressure to Publish Leading to Scientific Misconduct. Conference News from the 27th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress. Abstract P.1.L.001. Presented October 19, 2014. Medscape. Available at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/834250#vp_1 (accessed October 2014).
