UCSF

The landscape for academic endocrinology divisions has continued to evolve rapidly;thus, finding reliable data that can be used as benchmarks has become more difficult. Resources are available for salary and relative value units, with the Association of American Medical Colleges, Medical Group Management Association, and Faculty Practice Solutions Center the most commonly used databases. However, details regarding how these data are collected and what they include are unclear. For example, does the income include bonus and/or incentive payments? How are work relative value units defined (individual rendering vs supervising advanced practitioners or fellows or residents)? How is a clinical full-time equivalent defined? In addition, other important data that would be relevant to running an academic division of endocrinology are not available from these, or any other resources, including support staff numbers and compensation or fellowship funding and training information. Therefore, an unmet need exists for reliable data that divisions can use to help shape their visions and goals. To address this demand, the Association of Endocrine Chiefs and Directors, in collaboration with the Endocrine Society, developed a detailed survey for members to address the financial, productivity, composition, and educational issues that they regularly face. Twenty academic institutions throughout the United States completed in the survey in 2018. In the present report, we have provided the results of the survey and some initial interpretations of the findings. Our hope is that the information presented will prove useful as academic endocrinology divisions continue to evolve.