Gender-based salary differences in academic medicine: a retrospective review of data from six public medical centers in the Western USA

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the effect of gender, rank and research productivity on compensation for faculty at academic medical centres. DESIGN: A web-based retrospective review of salary for professors in 2016. SETTING: Faculty from six state-run, publicly funded academic medical centres in the Western USA. PARTICIPANTS: 799 faculty members, 225 assistant (51% women), 200 associate (40% women) and 374 full professors (32% women) from general surgery (26% women), obstetrics and gynaecology (70% women) and radiology (34% women). METHODS: Archived online faculty profiles were reviewed for gender, rank and compensation (total, baseline and supplemental). Total compensation was defined as baseline compensation plus supplemental income. Baseline compensation was defined as base salary minus reductions due to participation in the voluntary Employee Reduction in Time and phased retirement programmes. Supplemental income was defined as additional salary for clinical care and research (eg, grants). Elsevier’s Scopus was used to collect data on h-index, a measure of research productivity. Linear regression models were estimated to determine the relationship between these factors and salary. RESULTS: Total compensation was significantly higher for men across all professorial ranks in both general surgery [Formula: see text] and obstetrics and gynaecology [Formula: see text]. Women faculty members within these departments earned almost US$75 000 less than their men colleagues. The disparity in salary originates from gaps in supplemental income, as baseline compensation was not significantly different between men and women. No significant gender difference in total compensation for radiology was found [Formula: see text]. Higher h-index was associated with higher baseline compensation across all departments as well as with supplemental income for general surgery. Higher h-index was related to lower supplemental income for radiology and was not related to supplemental income for obstetrics and gynaecology. CONCLUSIONS: Further investigations should focus on discrepancies in supplemental income, which may preferentially benefit men.