Let me begin by stating that the answer to this question is “no.”
Now that I’ve headed off the slew of angry calls from my family, the reason why I’m writing about this question is a recent article in the journal Health Affairs by Miriam Laugesen and Sherry Glied entitled “Higher Fees Paid to US Physicians Drive Higher Spending For Physician Services Compared to Other Countries.” The study compared fees paid to general practitioners and orthopedists in the US with those paid in Austrailia, Canada, France, Germany and the UK. They summarize their findings as:
“Public and private payers paid somewhat higher fees to US primary care physicians for office visits (27 percent more for public, 70 percent more for private) and much higher fees to orthopedic physicians for hip replacements (70 percent more for public, 120 percent more for private) than public and private payers paid these physicians’ counterparts in other countries. US primary care and orthopedic physicians also earned higher incomes ($186,582 and $442,450, respectively) than their foreign counterparts. We conclude that the higher fees, rather than factors such as higher practice costs, volume of services, or tuition expenses, were the main drivers of higher US spending, particularly in orthopedics.”
In light of this finding, one might be tempted to conclude that physicians in the US are overpaid relative to other countries. However, while it is true that physicians in the US make more than physicians in other countries, in order to interpret this finding it is critical to note that high earners in the US in general make more than high earners in other countries. Relative to other countries, the US income distribution is more skewed, meaning, for example, that the highest 1% of earners in the US make more than the highest 1% of earners in other countries.
Now, we might ask ourselves, what is the relevant comparison group for a US physician? A US college student who is deciding whether to be a physician doesn’t compare the income that could be made as a physician in the US with the income that could be made as a physician in German. He or she compares the income to be made as a US physician with the income to be made as a US lawyer or MBA. In other words, the right question isn’t whether US physicians are paid too much relative to German physicians, but whether US physicians are paid too much relative to others at the top end of the US skill/eduction/income distribution. With respect to this point, the answer seems to be that incomes for US physicians are largely in line with incomes to other high earners in the US. (Not to be too hard on Laugesen and Glied, they discuss this point at the end of their article.)
The issue of how physician incomes fit into the broader income distribution is discussed in a paper from earlier this year by David Cutler and Dan Ly that appeared in the Journal of Economic Perspectives. They compare incomes for general practitioners and specialists to the income of “high earners,” (people in the 95th to 99th percentile of the income distribution) in 13 other OECD countries. In the US, this ratio is about 1.37 for specialists. In the other OECD countries, the ratio ranges from 2.56 in the Netherlands to 0.8 in the UK, with the average being 1.45. For GPs, the ratio of income for US physicians to that of other US high earners is 0.92. In the other countries, this GP ratio ranges from 0.68 in Norway to 1.41 in Canada, with the average being 0.98. Thus, in both cases, US physician earnings seem to be in line with earnings of high earners, with the US being slightly below the OECD average for both GPs and specialists.
So, what do we make of the two studies? Well, Laugesen and Glied have a point that high physician incomes appear to drive the high cost of healthcare in the US relative to other countries. But, the reason why US physicians earn so much isn’t because “the system is broken,” they “take advantage of the system” or some other nefarious motive. Rather, US physicians earn a lot because high earners in the US earn a lot. So, the skewness of the US income distribution is in part responsible for the high cost of health care in the US.
This point is potentially important for understanding how we might reduce healthcare costs in the US. Often, proposals to reduce Medicare spending focus on reducing provider payments. However, if this reduces physician incomes we might expect that in the long run, as physician incomes drop relative to other professions, we’ll have fewer physicians and more lawyers, MBAs, etc. As long as wages in these competing professions remain high, it will be difficult to squeeze down on physicians too much without driving them out of medicine. If the highest-ability students are the most likely to move to a different profession, we might find that those who still choose to be doctors are not as good: the overall quality of the talent pool of young physicians might drop. At the same time, to the extent that this reduced physician supply leads to shortages, it will put upward pressure on physician fees, and we’ll be right back where we started from. In short, it is unclear that we can reduce healthcare costs too much by reducing payments to physicians.