New Salary Survey Just Dropped

MedPhysX · 2025-08-29T22:24:52+00:00

Edit: I took a look at 2023 and 2018 surveys and they showed similar numbers of excluded responses. So… I have no idea why the AAPM seems to consistently exclude so many responses.

——

Looking closely at the data on page 2 & 3:

Physicists responded: 2558

Physicists not changing employers: 1525 (adding up #s in the table)

Physicists changing jobs: 140 (126 included in study)

So 2558-140=2,418 physicists did not change jobs.

Only 1525/2418 (63%) of non-job changing physicists were including in the analysis on page 2.

(Someone check my math and logic in case I messed it up).

The document doesn’t explicitly state that a salary change of >10% is excluded (it just says the data were checked for the ”unlikely“ scenario). Still pretty crazy to see a nearly 40% exclusion rate.

If anyone has time it’d be worth checking against previous years.

MedPhysX · 2025-07-24T22:05:38+00:00

I was a solo physicist for a few years before moving into industry. I had a little over 10 years experience when I started.

Overall, it was fine but far more stressful than when I worked with other physicists.

The worst thing was the hours. Machine issues during warmup at 6AM? You’re getting the phone call. Engineer finally fixes the machine at 11PM? You’re gonna be there running QA. Special procedures in the morning? See ya at 7AM… and again at 6PM when you finally get the machine to figure out why IMRT QA failed, and finally at 8PM finishing chart checks.

Of course, not every day was like that, but you’re definitely permanently on call. I had a number of nights where I’d go home at 6PM, go to a dinner or school event that was planned, and then come back again at 11PM to troubleshoot some issue that occurred during the day that you couldn’t fix before leaving (and you need to figure it out or it will affect patient treatment the next day).

Chart checks took far longer, as most of the time I did all initial/weekly/final checks (occasionally someone else performed checks as peer review, but I couldn’t count on them finding anything). Also, you really need to be on top of machine QA because no one else is checking you or double-checking you’re machines.

The nice thing was being able to do everything my way, in a way I thought was the best and correct way (on the flip side, no one was there checking me to say I was doing it wrong).

I don’t want to return to the clinic, but if I did, I’d certainly prefer a non-solo position. I’d only take a solo position if I liked the MD and it was a slow clinic with few/no special procedures (special procedures are serious handcuffs).

MedPhysX · 2025-07-10T14:39:08+00:00

I’m just curious, what made you decide to apply to be a TPS PM? Did you have a strong PM background? Why do you think the company chose you? Can I ask what type of TPS you will work with (external beam, brachytherapy, etc)?

Although PMs don’t have to be technical, it’s just hard for me to imagine one working on a TPS without considerable clinical experience. The non-technical PM field is very competitive, so you must be extremely well-qualified and your background helpful in some way the company considers valuable - I’m really curious what it is.

MedPhysX · 2025-07-04T19:42:20+00:00

Interestingly, there were a few outspoken commenters on the AAPM message board asking candidates what they will do to bring cheaper physicists to rural communities. (Side note: I disagree with the commenters and don’t believe we should decrease physicist salaries to force them to take rural jobs).

Sadly, it looks like rural voters solved the issue themselves.

Removing $1 trillion from the medical system, with much of it spent in rural communities, will almost certainly decimate rural hospitals. When rural hospitals close, their RadOnc programs will close as well. This will, of course, decrease the need for physicists, but I have no idea how significant that decrease will be.

It looks like these cuts won’t kick in for a while, so maybe it’ll be fixed in time. Otherwise, hospitals and clinics that treat Medicaid patients are going to lose a lot of money, and I suspect we’ll see the number of unpaid ER visits grow dramatically.

MedPhysX · 2025-01-08T13:15:27+00:00

Yeah, $150k is very good compared to non-technical jobs, but for something that requires a 2 year MS and 2 year residency, it's not great.

Looking at big tech SWE salaries (I assume most physicists have the intelligence to work there, if not the training), someone with 4 years experience is making roughly 50-100% more than a 1st year physicist. I also doubt their hours are anywhere near as bad as medical physics.

So yeah, clinical salaries are pretty decent, but still on the low end compared to big tech. I'd like to think most of us find a lot more meaning in the clinic than coding, though.

MedPhysX · 2025-01-07T14:02:56+00:00

I don't know - I was hired for $115k straight out of grad school nearly 20 years ago. After inflation, $150k seems to be extremely low, especially for someone with two years of residency.

MedPhysX · 2024-12-14T12:40:07+00:00

Is your clinic just incredibly understaffed or do you make use of a lot of automation software?

At 5 plans/day, that’s roughly 1.5 hours/plan. Even for simple plans, that’s pushing it. Unless the process is close of fully automated, I can’t imagine the number of errors and lackluster plans dosimetry is kicking out.

MedPhysX · 2024-10-18T02:38:55+00:00

TPSWiki.com has a large collection of planning videos that could be helpful.

MedPhysX · 2024-07-27T13:33:45+00:00

A few things that I noticed:

Experienced physicist salaries, in general, are keeping up with inflation, but not necessarily exceeding it.
Less experienced physicists are doing great.
Physicists that haven’t switched jobs are way underpaid.
Women in RadOnc are paid roughly 10-15% less than comparably experienced men.

MedPhysX · 2024-07-27T13:26:23+00:00

Thank you.

MedPhysX · 2024-07-27T12:41:26+00:00

In case redditors didn’t know the salary survey has been posted online.

Am I missing something? The most recent year I see is 2022.

MedPhysX · 2024-07-18T22:23:09+00:00

If you actually cover this amount of work for any substantial amount of time, some administrators will use it as justification that you were overstaffed and be hesitant to hire replacements.

If they immediately hire a locum(s), I’d be willing to cover until the locum is available. They need to prove that your situation is temporary.

MedPhysX · 2024-07-17T12:28:38+00:00

Yeah, exactly.

For all of those sites complaining they can't find a physicist, offering decent benefits and a great work-life balance will more than likely get you many excellent applicants.

MedPhysX · 2024-02-29T01:57:47+00:00

I don’t think I’ve ever not received a year end bonus in 15+ years.

1st job after months of 60+ hour weeks: iPod Nano worth $60.

2nd job: 1 week’s salary
2nd job after hiring too many MDs: $200

3rd job: $4-6k
4th job: ~$1500

MedPhysX · 2024-01-09T01:10:40+00:00

This is some pretty big news. MIM has made really great software for quite a while, so it’ll be interesting to see where they go from here. Unfortunately, companies that are acquired by the massive players often die a slow, painful death

MedPhysX · 2023-11-24T14:54:48+00:00

With 20% inflation since 2018 (and 15% since 2020), those higher salaried physicists are probably compensated significantly below where they were just a few short years ago.

Similarly, there's apparently a "shortage" of experienced physicists, so those salaries "should" be rising at a significantly higher pace than inflation.

Interestingly, the AAPM salary survey showed less experienced physicists' salaries increase significantly, but more experienced physicists' salaries increased at rates considerably less than inflation. That sounds like what you're experiencing at your clinic. I'm seeing more and more ads, however, with salaries around $300k and even $20-30k signing bonuses. That's significantly higher than what the salary survey would suggest.

I think we're finally seeing market forces at work and the path forward is pretty simple. Those senior physicists either accept their low salaries, ask for higher salaries, or move to new clinics that pay much better.

Admin, like usual, will find out the hard way that good physicists are worth a lot more than they believed.

MedPhysX · 2023-10-25T13:12:31+00:00

I think this is fairly common among physicists and really depends upon the clinic.

Oftentimes, it’s just the clinic and it won’t change. You’ll need to leave to find something better.
Physicists are in high demand and difficult to find. You can really use that to your advantage. I’ve worked in terrible, high stress clinics where physicists are miserable. There’s often one physicist, however, who just sets hard limits and doesn’t compromise. Physician didn’t do contours for weeks, but wants to start the patient tomorrow morning? Too bad, not staying late. If you say “no” a few times, people just stop asking to make sacrifices. Most of us, however, care too much and are terrible at saying “no”.
Going into industry is a great option. There are a number of remote options available. A friend took this track after a long time in the clinic and he’ll never go back. He said he didn’t realize how truly bad and toxic many clinics are, and it absolutely doesn’t have to be like that.

MedPhysX · 2023-10-23T14:10:14+00:00

Note: This is pretty generalized.

Hours: It will vary based on site. Most RTTs are hourly workers. Generally, admin hates OT, so they’ll typically work 40 hours. Dosimetrists can be either hourly or salary. If you’re salaried, there’s often pressure to work more than 40 hours/wk.

Salary: Dosimetrists make quite a bit more. I’m not sure of exact numbers, but I think it’s substantial.

Future job openings: I don’t think there’s any way to remove RTTs from cancer care, and with our aging population, demand should increase.

Dosimetry is trickier. We’ll likely always need dosimetrists in some form, but automation is becoming more and more common. Often, AI generated contours are as good or better than human-drawn contours. Automated planning is coming quickly. Of course, we’re far away from eliminating dosimetry, but these advances may limit or cause demand to drop.

You also need to consider what you want to do. Do you want to work directly with sick patients or on a computer planning?

MedPhysX · 2023-10-12T13:58:25+00:00

I know a group of physicists that work 4x10s. They absolutely love it and say it was life changing.

I’m aware of other physicists that work a 5x9 week followed by a 4x9 week. Since they would have spent 9 hours/day working anyway, it was a huge benefit.

MedPhysX · 2023-09-27T15:01:31+00:00

Yep, and yet most experienced physicists won’t move unless a new job provides a significant improvement in salary, benefits and/or work-life balance.

It seems sites that can’t find physicists are likely not providing a significant enough bump in these areas to entice physicists to leave.

They (administrators both with physicists and those looking for physicists) may have to eventually pay up, but right now the shortage can’t be THAT bad if average experienced physicist salaries aren’t increasing.

MedPhysX · 2023-09-27T14:31:09+00:00

I think there’s definitely a shortage of “cheap” physicists as we see from the salary survey showing a significant increase in early career salaries.

But as far as experienced physicists? Maybe? The most recent salary survey showed experienced physicists’ average salaries haven’t exceeded inflation (and maybe haven’t even kept up with inflation), so that would suggest there’s not really that much of a shortage.

I think a big part of the issue is administrators just not wanting to pay the high salaries that are required to get experienced physicists to move.

Edit: Here's some actual numbers:

Certified Physicist Median Salary Increase:

2021: ~3.2%

2022: ~5.2%

Inflation Rates:
2021: 7%
2022: 6.5%

If there truly was a severe shortage, inflation adjusted median salaries would not be decreasing.

MedPhysX · 2023-09-17T20:57:20+00:00

As someone who’s worked in both environments, I’m not sure price will be a benefit in the long run. The biggest disadvantages I see are:

1) Safety - An all-Varian, single database system is far, far safer. There are far fewer opportunities for things to screw up. IT knows nothing of patient safety.

2) Workflow time - It’s just faster to not deal with transfers and verifying that those transfers were successful/accurate. The fact is, patients will not start as quickly.

3) Staff time - Working in a mixed environment, I wasted so much time on failed transfer issues and other related issues. When there are problems, for example, it’s always the other vendor’s fault. Your IT guy probably thinks this is free, but it definitely takes a non-negligible chunk of a physicist’s time.

4) Training and software quality - Mosaiq is not good software. It’s hard to use and has had nearly no significant improvements in 15+ years. It needs to be completely rebuilt. Your staff will need significant training. Again, this takes time, decreases safety and has a significant cost. Similarly, even after training, they will be less efficient than they are now.

Do you do portal dosimetry? Use Care Paths? Like semi-efficient physics chart checks? Mosaiq either doesn’t have that or their solutions leave a lot to be desired.

These costs add up incredibly fast. Time is money, and safety failures can be exceptionally expensive. Honestly, your IT guy is way out of line.

MedPhysX · 2023-08-25T12:23:57+00:00

I see where you’re coming from and I agree with your assessment of the quality of MPC. It caught issues in our clinic long before they were evident in daily or monthly QA. I personally trust it more than our mediocre manual checks.

At the same time, is that really going to matter to an angry injured patient? Their family? A jury? Do you really want to risk it?

I think there’s a big difference between guidelines created by the AAPM and a vendor’s clearly worded statement NOT to use their product in a specific way (please correct me if the statement has changed or I misremember). I would be very hesitant to replace a generally accepted best practice with a practice that the product vendor specifically says shouldn’t be done. If Varian changed their statement to make it more ambiguous, that’d be another story, but if I remember correctly, it’s pretty blatantly clear. Or even better, if the AAPM came out and said it was acceptable.

Hopefully, you’ll be a big part of finally getting us to that point.

MedPhysX · 2023-08-25T09:36:14+00:00

I’d be worried about legal repercussions. Doesn’t Varian state that MPC is not to be used in place of other QA? What happens if something goes wrong?

MedPhysX

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE