What are we worth? An SGO analysis of compensation structures that measure and value work in academic gynecologic...

To obtain perspectives about existing compensation structures in gynecologic oncology, including common challenges and successful strategies within diverse systems.

Electronic mail was used to recruit OB/GYN department chairs and directors of cancer centers who were gynecologic oncologists and responsible for administering compensation structures at their institution. Using a semi-structured guide, three interviewers conducted 30-min qualitative interviews, which were recorded and transcribed. Two coders used the constant comparative method to summarize key themes.

Response rate was 65 %, resulting in 17 interviewees. Participants were a third women and in their current position for a median of 7 years. The most prominent theme was the tension of balancing reimbursement for revenue-generating clinical activities with non-clinical work in research and education. Chair discretionary funds were useful to offset unfunded responsibilities. Broad clinical productivity measures were used: from more traditional work Relative Value Units (wRVUs) to measures that captured downstream impact, such as number of new patients or surgeries. Even in institutions with centralized funds flow systems, disparities were frequently noted for the monetary value assigned per wRVU. Academic scorecards were described as a method to ascribe value for academic work, often for bonus incentives. Another common stressor unique to gynecologic oncology was low reimbursement for chemotherapy-related services compared to surgery. Provision of regular productivity reports was common, but full transparency was controversial.

Our inquiry demonstrates that our academic leaders are unable to use compensation to fully support areas they deem important.