The Pay Gap for Women in Medicine and Academic Medicine
The Pay Gap for Women in
Medicine and Academic Medicine report was launched on Friday 13th November
2009 after the Medical Women's Federation conference. The report was co-authored
by MWF's Honorary Treasurer Dr Anita Holdcroft. This report focuses on differences
between men and women doctors at different stages of their careers and between
NHS and University employed doctors. It compliments the present government’s
consultations on the Equalities Bill and encourages NHS and University employers
to audit their pay according to professions and grade of staff.
The report’s analysis shows the actual pay gap where men and women hold
equally similar characteristics, as well as the average pay gap which is used
to identify areas of additional remunerated work. By considering how pay can
increase within a grade and how even when professional characteristics are
similar a pay gap is measured, reasons for and solutions to the pay gap can
be identified.
Executive Summary
Recent UK Legislation has heightened awareness of the
extent of the gender pay gap leading to consideration of causation. This report
for clinical medicine uses NHS and university responses from men and women
doctors in the Women in Academic Medicine cohort of the Athena Survey of Science,
Engineering and Technology 2006. It is timely because actual salary data in
UK clinical medicine is scarce. Based on average salaries there is a raw pay
gap of £15,245 – that is in general, women doctors earn 18% less
than male doctors. There were mainly two grades of staff in the cohort, trainees
and consultants on NHS and academic contracts. The difference between men
and women reflects the impact of the much larger proportion of male doctors
earning salaries in excess of £100,000. For university employees, average
salaries are 5% lower compared with those whose primary contract is with the
NHS. In academia, women earn 17% less than men whereas women in the NHS earn
21% less than men, but disparities also exist within grades with male professors
earning 15% more than female professors.
Factors that influence and may explain the pay gap include
grade, hours worked, experience, administrative roles and specialty. In order
to determine which factors may generate the pay gap and how much is unexplained
due to differences in treatment, a regression analysis was utilised in order
to control for the different characteristics of the respondents, that is to
compare like with like. For consultants there is a 13% gender pay gap but
this is only partly explained; about 40% of this gap is unexplained due to
different returns for the same characteristics e.g. the benefit of having
been employed in the consultant grade for longer than 10 years is a significantly
higher salary for men than women. For trainees differences in experience,
grade and other factors explain only half the reported salary differences.
Overall, the gender pay gaps are lower for doctors starting their careers
but quite sizeable gaps emerge even amongst similarly successful men and women.
Our estimates that control for confounding factors so that one doctor is compared
with another of similar background, suggest a true gender pay gap amongst
consultants of 5.6% worth £5,500 per annum and amongst trainees of 4.1%
worth £2,000 per annum. Using free text comments from the survey, we
attempt to identify which, if any, aspects of the workplace culture serve
to disadvantage or undermine the position of women in medicine. Caring roles,
hostile culture and geographical limitations are expressed as common concerns.
This report raises equality issues on pay that warrant
further research within larger and more defined groups of doctors. However,
this initial evidence suggests a partly unexplained gender pay gap that will
be a benchmark within the medical profession.
