A107 EXAMINING FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO GENDER PAY DIFFERENCES AMONG ONTARIO PHYSICIANS IN PROCEDURAL SUBSPECIALTIES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, INCLUDING GASTROENTEROLOGY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Prior research has shown that gender pay inequity exists among physicians, with little improvement in the last few years. A study examining the physician gender pay gap in Ontario showed that women physicians earned 13.5% less than men daily, even after correcting for factors such as practice characteristics, specialty and rurality. Aims We aimed to identify factors contributing to gender-based differential billing among physicians in Ontario, with a specific focus on providers in procedural sub-specialties of internal medicine including gastroenterology. Methods We performed a cross-sectional study using data from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) in the 2021 and 2022 fiscal years. OHIP billings were used to estimate differences in gross payments between male and female physicians in procedural subspecialties of internal medicine, including gastroenterology, cardiology and respirology. Physicians who submitted claims to OHIP were included. Pay gaps were calculated annually. Chi-square test was used to calculate differences between categorical variables, and t-test for continuous variables. Results A total of 3600 physicians were included in the study sample (1212 [33.7%] women and 2388 [66.3%] men). Male physicians in procedural subspecialties earned an average of $391,734.76 more than female physicians (p<0.001) with male gastroenterologists earning an average of $154,698.86 more (p<0.001). The total number of procedural days was higher for men (49 vs 25; p<0.001), with male gastroenterologists having more endoscopy days as compared to their female counterparts (134 vs 108; p<0.001). Male physicians in procedural subspecialties had higher percentage of days with after-hours billings (8.5 vs 5.4; p< 0.001) and weekend billings (4.2 vs 3.5; p<0.01) compared to female physicians, and were less likely to work part-time (343 men [14%] vs 334 women [28%]; p<0.001). Conclusions Our study noted significant differences in gross payments between men and women physicians in procedural specialties of internal medicine including gastroenterology, which may be explained by total hours worked, after-hours work and number of procedural days. Funding Agencies None
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".