↓ Skip to main content

Differences in Clinical Activity and Medicare Payments for Female vs Male Ophthalmologists

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Ophthalmology, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
16 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Differences in Clinical Activity and Medicare Payments for Female vs Male Ophthalmologists
Published in
JAMA Ophthalmology, March 2017
DOI 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.5399
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The number of women in ophthalmology is rising. Little is known about their clinical activity and collections. To examine whether charges, as reflected in reimbursements from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to ophthalmologists, differ by sex and how disparity relates to differences in clinical activity. Retrospective review of the CMS database for payments to ophthalmologists from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2013. The dates of the analysis were February 1 through May 30, 2016. After exclusion of J and Q codes, the total payments to and the number of charges by individual ophthalmologists were analyzed. The mean values were compared using a single t test, and the medians were compared by the nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test. Primary outcome measures were the mean and median CMS payments to male and female ophthalmologists in outpatient, non-facility-based settings. Secondary outcome measures included the number of charges submitted by men and women and the types of charges most commonly submitted by men and women. This study included 16 111 ophthalmologists (3078 women [19.1%] and 13 033 men [80.9%]) in 2012 and 16 179 ophthalmologists (3206 women [19.8%] and 12 973 men [80.2%]) in 2013. In 2012, the average female ophthalmologist collected $0.58 (95% CI, $0.54-$0.62; P < .001) for every dollar collected by a male ophthalmologist; comparing the medians, women collected $0.56 (95% CI, $0.50-$0.61; P < .001) for every dollar earned by men. Mean and median collections were similar when comparing female vs male ophthalmologists in 2013 (P < .001). The mean payment per charge was the same for men and women, $66 in 2012 and $64 in 2013. There was a strong association between collections and work product, with female ophthalmologists submitting fewer charges to Medicare in 2012 (median, 1120 charges; difference -935; 95% CI, -1024 to -846; P < .001) and in 2013 (median, 1141 charges; difference -937; 95% CI, -1026 to -848; P < .001) than male ophthalmologists. When corrected by comparing men and women with similar clinical activity, renumeration was still lower for women. In both years, women were underrepresented among ophthalmologists with the highest collections. Remuneration from the CMS was disparate between male and female ophthalmologists in 2012 and 2013 because of the submission of fewer charges by women. Further studies are necessary to explore root causes for this difference, with equity in opportunity and parity in clinical activity standing to benefit the specialty.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 6 13%
Researcher 6 13%
Other 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 12 26%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Unspecified 1 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 16 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,918,775
of 34,267,042 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Ophthalmology
#884
of 4,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,312
of 353,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Ophthalmology
#22
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,267,042 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,516 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,231 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.