Most academic medical centers (AMCs) have insti- tuted faculty compensation plans (CPs). Previous tudies show benefits and concerns related to CPs for both faculty and medical center administrators. As administrators work to create equitable plans
that align with institutional goals, staffing requirements, and
budgetary constraints, ineffective communication, faculty
dissatisfaction, and burnout can create tensions. The perspectives of both faculty and institution are important to
creating a successful CP. In the context of prior literature, we
use faculty survey data and administrative perspectives to
identify key themes for consideration when evaluating a CP.
Over the past two decades, U.S. academic physician CPs
have been developed to tie compensation to productivity.
These plans produce both benefits (e.g., increased productivity) and concerns (e.g., decreased attention to academic
activities). 1 CPs have largely evolved into institution-specific
formulas that acknowledge national benchmarks for salary
and include measures of productivity, quality, and nonclinical
service, teaching, and scholarship.
Third-party and government payers are moving from fee-for-service to a fee-for-value payment system prioritizing
Key themes in developing
clinical faculty compensation
By Elizabeth Ripley, M.D., M.S., RAC; Darrell A. Griffith, M.P.H., CMPE;
Thomas Yackel, M.D., M.P.H., M.S., M.B.A.; and Peter Buckley, M.D.