Academic radiology faculty face salary gaps across nearly all ranks

Academic radiology faculty face salary gaps across nearly all ranks, according to new research published Tuesday in the Radiological Society of North America’s flagship journal. 

Men consistently collected more than women throughout the study period, spanning 2017 to 2023. The salary gap remained at about 6%, with male academic radiologists earning about $483,000 versus $455,000 for women. However, the dollar amount of the gap increased from about $24,000 in 2019 to $28,000 last year, Yale researcher Ajay Malhotra, MD, and colleagues wrote in Radiology [1]. 

The findings are derived from Association of American Medical Colleges survey data incorporating 5,847 full-time academic radiologists. Black faculty members also logged 4% lower median compensation, collecting $452,000 compared to $472,000 for their white peers (a gap that persisted across all ranks except professor). 

“The results show that salary inequities persist in academic radiology and should be addressed as part of a broader drive to increase diversity, equity and inclusion,” Malhotra—a professor of radiology, biomedical imaging and neuroradiology at the New Haven, Connecticut, institution—and co-authors concluded. “Additionally, salary trends should be monitored across time to ensure fair and adequate compensation for radiologists that can attract and retain talent to drive the academic mission and train the next generation of radiologists.”

The study sample included 306 radiology instructors, 2,758 assistant professors, 1,409 associate professors, 1,004 full professors, 226 chiefs and 144 department chairs. Median faculty compensation increased between 2.6% to 4.4% across these titles, with the greatest gains seen among instructors (4.4%). 

“This is not surprising given the shortage in radiologist workforce, and the number of vacant positions is much higher compared with the number of trainees graduating,” the authors noted. “Therefore, higher starting compensation may be important for recruitment.” 

Smaller increases, meanwhile, were recorded for the more senior academic ranks (3.4% to 2.6%). Geography also had an impact on compensation. For instance, instructors in the Northeast region earned substantially more (about $278,000) than other areas of the U.S. However, this differential did not exceed $35,000 across other academic ranks. 

Median increases in faculty compensation have “barely kept pace” with U.S. inflation, which averaged 3.69% during the study period. Historically, medical care costs have grown even faster than prices across the overall economy, with a long-term U.S. healthcare inflation rate of 5.14%. 

Malhotra and co-authors believe the specialty must work to address inequitable compensation—“an important first step toward an overall approach to diversity, equity and inclusion.” Women are persistently underrepresented in radiology, even when comparing with other specialties. Over half of all students entering medical school are female, yet the proportion of applicants in diagnostic imaging has remained below 30%. 

“Both institutional and cultural narratives continue to inhibit addressing salary inequity,” the authors noted. “Compensation in academic medicine is often a complex mix of base salary and clinical productivity supplement, supplement for research and academic productivity, and compensation for administrative responsibilities. It has been proposed that women and other underrepresented people might choose to earn less through their career and personal choices. There are societal expectations around caregiving, and people from underrepresented groups may not receive similar offers/benefits during negotiations compared with their white counterparts. These cultural norms and misconceptions need to be addressed for achieving salary equity in a practical way.”

Malhotra and colleagues also recently wrote about this subject in Academic Radiology over the summer.