A recent article in the VIN News Service1 on the subject of compensation structure and mental health offered a fresh take on the subject, arguing production-based pay structures are detrimental to our mental health. Predictably, this led to a long, lively discussion on how veterinarians should be paid, revealing a broad, interesting and informed range of opinions but somehow largely sidestepping the more fascinating issue: how modes of compensation may affect our profession's mental health.
Exploring the flip-side of production pay
As a long-time proponent of production-based pay for myself (as well as for most of my full-time associates), it was exciting to dig into the flip-side. Could it be, as the article (along with a cited study on the human side) seemed to caution, that paying clinicians more when they produce more income for the practice is taxing to our mental health?
After reviewing two studies in the human literature (one of which the VIN article cites), there is clearly some evidence here. Both identified a modest increase in burnout rates among oncologists and surgeons in both hospital and academia production-pay environments when compared to their salaried counterparts. But I had to ask, can the experience of specialists in large-scale environments prove relevant to most veterinarians in private practice?
Enter another much smaller study, undertaken by the author of the VIN article, which reportedly identified no such connection between burnout and production pay. If anything, it skewed toward supporting my long-held contention that veterinarians in production pay environments tend to feel both more financially secure and more in control of their professional destinies.
