A doctor’s worth

Bonus criteria and the gender pay gap among American physicians

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Pay-for-performance (P4P) programs, based on productivity, patient satisfaction, quality of care, efficiency profiling, or unspecified criteria have become popular in American medicine. Theoretically, such programs hold the potential to narrow the gender pay gap among physicians by employing what are arguably neutral, meritocratic criteria. Such criteria are often unspecified in prior analyses but in reality may include a host of indicators, including objective features of performance, dimensions that entail a high degree of discretion, and gendered aspects, such as masculine competence (i.e., intelligence, confidence, efficiency, and decisiveness) or feminine warmth (i.e., kindness, trustworthiness, sympathy, and selflessness). Using data from four waves of the Community Tracking Study (CTS) Physician Surveys, I analyze the effects of such unique P4P criteria on the gender pay gaps among physicians. Most notable among findings is more pronounced gender inequality when criteria are unspecified as opposed to being based on productivity. No effect is found when P4P centers on warmer patient satisfaction criteria. I conclude by discussing how and why P4P schemes may reduce but also exacerbate gender inequalities in pay.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3-23
Number of pages21
JournalSocial Currents
Volume3
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2016

Fingerprint

physician
gender
productivity
efficiency
community research
trustworthiness
sympathy
performance
intelligence
confidence
medicine

Keywords

  • Competence-warmth distinction
  • Evaluation
  • Gender pay gap
  • Pay-for-performance
  • Physicians

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

A doctor’s worth : Bonus criteria and the gender pay gap among American physicians. / Roth, Louise M.

In: Social Currents, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2016, p. 3-23.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{65453fb443d14cf7bf0dbf99df26f8a2,
title = "A doctor’s worth: Bonus criteria and the gender pay gap among American physicians",
abstract = "Pay-for-performance (P4P) programs, based on productivity, patient satisfaction, quality of care, efficiency profiling, or unspecified criteria have become popular in American medicine. Theoretically, such programs hold the potential to narrow the gender pay gap among physicians by employing what are arguably neutral, meritocratic criteria. Such criteria are often unspecified in prior analyses but in reality may include a host of indicators, including objective features of performance, dimensions that entail a high degree of discretion, and gendered aspects, such as masculine competence (i.e., intelligence, confidence, efficiency, and decisiveness) or feminine warmth (i.e., kindness, trustworthiness, sympathy, and selflessness). Using data from four waves of the Community Tracking Study (CTS) Physician Surveys, I analyze the effects of such unique P4P criteria on the gender pay gaps among physicians. Most notable among findings is more pronounced gender inequality when criteria are unspecified as opposed to being based on productivity. No effect is found when P4P centers on warmer patient satisfaction criteria. I conclude by discussing how and why P4P schemes may reduce but also exacerbate gender inequalities in pay.",
keywords = "Competence-warmth distinction, Evaluation, Gender pay gap, Pay-for-performance, Physicians",
author = "Roth, {Louise M}",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1177/2329496515603728",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "3",
pages = "3--23",
journal = "Social Currents",
issn = "2329-4965",
publisher = "Sage Publications",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A doctor’s worth

T2 - Bonus criteria and the gender pay gap among American physicians

AU - Roth, Louise M

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Pay-for-performance (P4P) programs, based on productivity, patient satisfaction, quality of care, efficiency profiling, or unspecified criteria have become popular in American medicine. Theoretically, such programs hold the potential to narrow the gender pay gap among physicians by employing what are arguably neutral, meritocratic criteria. Such criteria are often unspecified in prior analyses but in reality may include a host of indicators, including objective features of performance, dimensions that entail a high degree of discretion, and gendered aspects, such as masculine competence (i.e., intelligence, confidence, efficiency, and decisiveness) or feminine warmth (i.e., kindness, trustworthiness, sympathy, and selflessness). Using data from four waves of the Community Tracking Study (CTS) Physician Surveys, I analyze the effects of such unique P4P criteria on the gender pay gaps among physicians. Most notable among findings is more pronounced gender inequality when criteria are unspecified as opposed to being based on productivity. No effect is found when P4P centers on warmer patient satisfaction criteria. I conclude by discussing how and why P4P schemes may reduce but also exacerbate gender inequalities in pay.

AB - Pay-for-performance (P4P) programs, based on productivity, patient satisfaction, quality of care, efficiency profiling, or unspecified criteria have become popular in American medicine. Theoretically, such programs hold the potential to narrow the gender pay gap among physicians by employing what are arguably neutral, meritocratic criteria. Such criteria are often unspecified in prior analyses but in reality may include a host of indicators, including objective features of performance, dimensions that entail a high degree of discretion, and gendered aspects, such as masculine competence (i.e., intelligence, confidence, efficiency, and decisiveness) or feminine warmth (i.e., kindness, trustworthiness, sympathy, and selflessness). Using data from four waves of the Community Tracking Study (CTS) Physician Surveys, I analyze the effects of such unique P4P criteria on the gender pay gaps among physicians. Most notable among findings is more pronounced gender inequality when criteria are unspecified as opposed to being based on productivity. No effect is found when P4P centers on warmer patient satisfaction criteria. I conclude by discussing how and why P4P schemes may reduce but also exacerbate gender inequalities in pay.

KW - Competence-warmth distinction

KW - Evaluation

KW - Gender pay gap

KW - Pay-for-performance

KW - Physicians

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85028064635&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85028064635&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/2329496515603728

DO - 10.1177/2329496515603728

M3 - Article

VL - 3

SP - 3

EP - 23

JO - Social Currents

JF - Social Currents

SN - 2329-4965

IS - 1

ER -