|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy. CHAPTER 3
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
Page 47 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 47
A Healthy NIH Intramural Program: Structural Change or Administrative Remedies?
CHAPTER 3
SIZING UP ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS
Many of the problems of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) intramural program are described as administrative or bureaucratic and are related to NIH’s position as a research institution located within a large federal department, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). These particular problems can be organized around three major topics: (1) personnel, including compensation; (2) administrative barriers to a productive work environment; and (3) coping with a changing environment.
As stated in the introduction, the problems posed are neither new nor unique to NIH. Administrative problems seem to plague the entire federal government (National Academy of Public Administration, 1983; Levine and Kleeman, 1986; Volker, 1988). Mark Abramson, executive director of the Center for Excellence in Government, summed up the issue in testimony before a House committee holding hearings on creating a separate Federal Aviation Administration:
The fundamental issue facing all of us concerned about government performance is simply whether government agencies can be made to “work” within the existing system. There are many who have concluded that our existing governmental systems which include departmental oversight and the maze of personnel, procurement, and other regulations, simply does not work, and that there are certain agencies which must now be taken “out of the system” and made independent entities.
Representative Bruce Vento and Senator Bill Bradley recently introduced legislation to make the National Park Service an independent agency. Legislation has also been introduced to make the Social Security Administration and the Food and Drug Administration independent agencies. In all three cases, the reasons for “independence” are nearly identical to those cited for making FAA an independent agency—ineffective departmental oversight; a cumbersome, unpredictable budget process; and personnel and procurement regulations which impede the performance of those agencies (Abramson, 1988).
This ability of an entity to work effectively within the system is the key problem that has been raised with regard to the intramural research program at NIH. This chapter describes the committee’s findings
OCR for page 48
A Healthy NIH Intramural Program: Structural Change or Administrative Remedies?
concerning personnel, procurement, space, travel, and administrative organization of the NIH intramural programs.
Personnel
The intramural research program accounts for approximately 10 percent of the total NIH budget, or $703 million out of $6.7 billion (NIH, 1988a). But it accounts for a majority of the NIH staff (approximately two-thirds of the total NIH full-time equivalent employment of 13,000 in fiscal year [FY] 1988). In addition, some 2,000 researchers who are not NIH employees (guest researchers, Fogarty Visiting Fellows, and scholarship recipients) also work in NIH research laboratories (NIH, 1988a; NIH, 1988b).
There are about 1,100 tenured doctoral-level researchers and 1,300 non-tenured doctoral-level researchers in the intramural research laboratories, assisted by some 2,500 support staff. In addition, approximately 3,400 employees of the intramural research program are in central support, including the Clinical Center, computer services, central supply, biomedical engineering, and central animal facilities.
The academic core of the research program is made up of the 1,100 tenured researchers. Individuals in this group have on average worked at NIH for nearly 15 years and are in their late 40s. The majority came to NIH as postdoctoral fellows and after a period of 4–7 years were granted tenure and have remained as independent research scientists (NIH, 1988a). These scientists are employed under three different personnel systems: the General Schedule, the Senior Executive Service/Senior Scientific Service (SES/SSS), and the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (whose personnel are Commissioned Officers [CO]). Table 3-1a describes these three systems; Table 3-1b lists the current basic pay rates for them. The salary structure between the systems is linked at several points. The ceiling on base pay for General Schedule/General Managerial (GS/GM) employees is set at the pay of Level V of the executive schedule, $72,500. (This does not affect the payment of supplemental funds such as the Physician Comparability Allowance, [PCA]). The payment ceiling for the SES (including the SSS) is Level IV of the executive schedule, $77,500 (again not including PCA). The maximum compensation that can be paid under either system is that of Level I of the executive schedule, currently $99,500.
The salary structure of the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) Commissioned Corps is more complicated because of the greater number of components that influence the pay of members of the uniformed services. Again however, base salary is limited to $77,500. Although there is no formal ceiling or cap, there are limits on the various components described in Table 3-1a, which set a de facto limit of approximately $105,000.
OCR for page 49
A Healthy NIH Intramural Program: Structural Change or Administrative Remedies?
Compensation
The major administrative concern expressed by the senior NIH administration in papers prepared for the committee (NIH, 1988b), in congressional testimony (Wyngaarden, 1988), and as quoted in the popular press, is that the NIH salary structure is not competitive for researchers or for support staff, including nurses and allied health workers. An enduring perception of a general salary crisis notwithstanding,1 the committee found this characterization to be an oversimplification. There are marry strengths that make NIH an extremely attractive working environment for the research scientist and that help offset salary discrepancies and administrative problems. These strengths include: the relative stability in mission, funding, management, and supporting infrastructures; the Clinical Center, which provides a national model for bridging the gap between basic and clinical research; the vast array of research services, facilities, equipment, and personnel; the ability to focus full-time on research activities; the ability to conduct research that may have distant payoffs; and the freedom from grant writing.
The organization of science at NIH does not lend itself to easy answers regarding personnel strategies in terms of how resources ought to be allocated to achieve the desired complement of personnel. For example, if junior scientists were attracted to the organization by the opportunity to work under distinguished senior mentors, it could be argued that resources would best be concentrated at the upper levels. Junior scientists would accept salaries below the market rate. Some laboratories at NIH follow this model, but since outstanding mentors can be found in other places, NIH must compete for junior scientists. An alternative model is less hierarchical and one in which mid-level scientists perform the most significant part of the work. In this case, pay of senior scientists is less important, and resources are concentrated at the mid-level. This model is also found throughout NIH. In an institution with this mixture of approaches, one monolithic recruitment and retention strategy does not satisfy the organization’s needs. It is therefore important to examine the place of the intramural program in the market for each level of scientist.
The committee reviewed evidence concerning the adequacy of NIH compensation in light of the career paths for researchers and the current NIH salary structure. Because the intramural staff is so heterogeneous, the committee considered the adequacy of compensation for three groups of researchers: postdoctoral fellows (non-tenured scientists), mid-level (tenured), and senior scientists (tenured), and for support staff. The committee looked separately at compensation for M.D.s and Ph.D.s, because they are paid significantly different salaries by NIH and the private for-profit and non-profit sectors. In addition, the committee believed it necessary, in order to determine the seriousness of the compensation problem, to look at evidence of recruitment and retention problems and at comparative compensation figures.2
OCR for page 50
A Healthy NIH Intramural Program: Structural Change or Administrative Remedies?
The committee believes evidence shows that NIH faces serious problems in recruiting and retaining senior scientists, particularly physicians, as well as various categories of support staff. The committee believes that evidence supports the concerns expressed by NIH that its salaries are not competitive for the most senior researchers, both M.D.s and Ph.D.s; that salaries are not competitive, in general, for M.D. researchers at the mid-level; and that salaries are not competitive for some support staff. Although there is overlap between Ph.D. and M.D. investigators in biomedical research, they are far from fully interchangeable. An organization whose mission includes both clinical and basic research and which operates a large research hospital cannot always substitute the less expensive Ph.D. for the physician who has alternative, more financially rewarding, career paths.
The committee finds that inflexibility in the current system of compensation causes significant problems. NIH pays higher salaries than necessary for some employees, and for other groups, lower. Its major problem appears to be that, because its salaries are tied to government-wide systems, it lacks the flexibility to respond to its special market demands.
Beginning Researchers
Employment Trends
The group of 1,300 non-tenured researchers represents the pool from which the majority of the tenured scientists are recruited.3 In reviewing Tables 3-2 to 3-6b (which provide details on this group of researchers), signs are seen of continuing strength, as well as some indication of future problems.4
Between 1983 and 1988, the number of non-tenured researchers has fluctuated from year to year, while growing overall by 13 percent. During this period, the proportion represented by physicians held relatively stable at around 45 percent. However, the composition of the physician group changed. Foreign visiting physicians represented 21 percent of the group in 1983. By 1988 this figure had risen to 29 percent (Figure 3-1). The number of domestic physicians also increased, but more slowly. There was a shift toward entry into the Staff Fellow Program, and away from the Medical Staff Fellow Program.
Table 3-5 shows a troublesome trend in physician recruitment, as it presents data on the Medical Staff Fellowship Program and its precursor, the NIH Clinical Associate Program (Table 3-5 treats them as one). The table shows a significant decline in the number of applications distributed in 1987 and 1988, as well as a major reduction in the number completed during the period 1986–1988. These figures are consistent with the reduction in the total number of Medical Staff Fellows (Table 3-2).
OCR for page 51
A Healthy NIH Intramural Program: Structural Change or Administrative Remedies?
FIGURE 3-1
OCR for page 52
A Healthy NIH Intramural Program: Structural Change or Administrative Remedies?
The reasons for these changes are not clear. NIH may be sharing in a national phenomenon. These changes may result from the increasing indebtedness of graduating medical students, and thus their unwillingness to pursue careers in the relatively low-paying field of research; a decline in the competitive position at NIH; or a random series of events. The committee believes, however, that future trends should be watched closely, because they may represent potential problems.
Table 3-4 indicates various combinations of appointments that may be used by non-tenured scientists in the intramural program. These scientists have up to 7 years from the time they become NIH employees to the time they receive tenure. Scientists originally appointed under the Intramural Research Training Awards (IRTA) program or the National Research Council (NRC) program, because they are not technically NIH employees, have an additional 3 years before the tenure decision has to be made. Tenure can, of course, be granted earlier, and in a number of cases, particularly for those with experience before coming to NIH, tenure is granted after 4 years.5
Tables 3-6a and 3-6b provide trend data on the rate of conversion of NIH fellows to permanent, tenured positions, and thus, on the ability of NIH to renew its ranks of career researchers from within.6 These tables indicate that the average conversion rate for staff fellows, senior staff fellows, and epidemiology staff fellows has fallen from 8.3 percent during 1975–1979, to 4.9 percent during 1980–1981, to 4.2 percent in 1983–1987.
Interpreting this decline is complex. In part, it reflects the combination of how attrition rates and the FTE constraints of recent years result in few openings. Declining conversion rates may also indicate decreased ability to retain the best fellows or a sense that there are fewer outstanding scientists among the fellows.
Compensation
Table 3-3 provides information on salary (stipend) levels for NIH non-tenured researchers. Salaries range from $20,000 to $43,452 for Ph.D.s, depending on the program and the experience of the individual, and from $24,000 to $50,744 for M.D.s. Visiting scientists are also included among those without tenure, but they are fully qualified, independent researchers from foreign countries and should be considered separately.
There are some limited, comparative data available on postdoctoral salaries in other institutions. A 1987 survey of biotechnology firms shows that salaries for Ph.D. postdoctoral scientists with 1–2 years of experience average $24,180, and that salaries average $29,053 for those with 2–5 years experience (Industrial Biotechnology Association, 1987). Limited information on nationally-awarded postdoctoral fellowships from organizations such as the American Cancer Society, Damon Runyon-Walter Winchell Cancer Fund, Helen Hay Whitney, and Leukemia Society of America, show stipend levels of $20,000 for the first year, with $1,000 increments
OCR for page 53
A Healthy NIH Intramural Program: Structural Change or Administrative Remedies?
occurring in the next 2 years. It is reported that some institutions supplement these awards with additional funds (telephone interviews, 1988). The 1987–1988 report on medical school faculty salaries indicated that Ph.D. instructors in basic science departments were paid an average of $28,000, and M.D. instructors in departments of internal medicine received an average salary of $51,000, while the average salary of M.D. instructors in all clinical departments was $60,200 (Smith, 1988). The instructor rank for medical schools is considered by NIH to be roughly equivalent to that of senior staff fellow (3–7 years postdoctoral research experience).7
Based on information available to the committee, it appears that NIH salaries/stipends for beginning researchers are roughly comparable to those paid by other organizations, such as medical schools, private research institutes, and biotechnology firms. One reason for the comparability of these salaries/stipends is that unlike salaries for permanent, tenured researchers, NIH has the authority to set stipend rates for trainees at appropriate levels because there is no government-wide salary schedule for postdoctoral researchers.
In spite of competitive salary schedules, such factors as lower conversion rates, lower numbers of applications for the Medical Staff Fellowship Program, and an increased in reliance on foreign M.D.s all point to potential problems in the future.
Mid-Level Researchers
Mid-level researchers (GS/GM 13–15 and CO 4–6), both physicians and Ph.D.s, make up the second major group of scientists in the intramural program. These are tenured, independent investigators, roughly equivalent to assistant, associate, and full professors in an academic setting. Table 3-7 provides information on NIH grades and positions, as well as the university equivalents. It is this group, along with the senior researchers, that NIH has expressed the most concern about being able to recruit and retain.
Employment Trends
The mid-level research staff increased by 6 percent between 1983 and 1988 to 991 (Table 3-8). The major increase occurred in 1984 and 1985. The percentage of physician researchers has declined slightly, from 41 percent in 1983 to a current level of 38 percent. Again, the major change occurred between 1984 and 1985 and represents an increase in the number of Ph.D. investigators rather than any marked reduction in the number of M.D.s.
Grade distribution (Table 3-8) among mid-level researchers has remained fairly constant, with the exception of M.D. researchers in the Commissioned Corps where the percentage of 00–6 officers (equivalent to an
OCR for page 54
A Healthy NIH Intramural Program: Structural Change or Administrative Remedies?
academic rank of professor), has increased from 52 to 70 percent of the CO-04, CO-05, and CO-06s. The percentage of mid-level researchers, as a percentage of the total tenured researchers, remains above 90 percent, but declined slightly as a percentage of the total number of researchers (tenured and non-tenured), being 43 percent in 1983, and after reaching a peak of 44 percent in 1985 and 1986, declining to its current level of 41 percent.
Overall, there have been modest gains in the number of tenured, mid-level researchers during the period 1983 to 1987. These gains have occurred simultaneously with a decline in full-time equivalent (FTE) employment of all types of personnel in the intramural program from 8,729 in FY 1983 to 8,332 in FY 1987 (NIH, 1988a). The increase in the number of researchers (both in actual numbers and as a percentage of intramural employment) is due to such factors as: (1) a deliberate decision by NIH to increase the number of scientists as the budget increased, (2) vacancies in the number of support positions caused by difficulties in recruiting clinical and allied health workers because of non-competitive salaries, (3) management reviews, which convinced NIH that better organization and management could lead to a reduction of the number of positions in the Clinical Center and in research support services (ranging from procurement to central supply), and (4) the decision to contract out certain Clinical Center functions including housekeeping, food services, and escort services. Also during this period, the Clinical Center decided to contract out the departments of anesthesiology and diagnostic radiology. While this decision freed up some 35 FTEs, it was not done for this reason, but because NIH could not fill the positions at the federal salary levels. The increase in the ratio of non-tenured to tenured scientists may also represent a decision to use the former to replace difficult-to-recruit technicians—given both non-competitive salaries and strict FTE ceilings.
Attrition
An important indicator of inadequate compensation is attrition. Table 3-10 provides information on attrition of researchers at NIH, and Figure 3-2 graphically illustrates this information over time. Overall attrition for mid-level investigators averaged 6.3 percent from FY 1983 through FY 1987. The rate was higher for physicians (8.8 percent) than for Ph.D.s (4.5 percent).
With few exceptions, such as in 1983 when more than half the CO-4 and CO-5 level physicians left, attrition rates have fluctuated between 4–9 percent both for physicians and non-physicians. There does not appear to be a trend toward increased attrition and the attrition rate compares favorably with some comparable organizations.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission between 1985 and 1987 had attrition rates among its scientists of 10 percent, 8.9 percent, and 10.9 percent respectively (personal communication with staff of Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1988). The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the Department of Commerce reports an attrition rate of
OCR for page 55
A Healthy NIH Intramural Program: Structural Change or Administrative Remedies?
FIGURE 3-2
OCR for page 56
A Healthy NIH Intramural Program: Structural Change or Administrative Remedies?
approximately 5 percent for its scientists and engineers, and is concerned that such a rate may be too low (personal communication with staff of NIST, 1988). A 1984 study by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) on attrition of scientists and engineers in the SES found an attrition rate of approximately 33 percent in 7 agencies over a 5-year period (GAO, 1985). A 1987 survey of biotechnology firms shows an average turnover rate of approximately 10 percent among scientists (Industrial Biotechnology Association, 1987). Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) show annual attrition rates of between 4 and 6 percent for Ph.D.s, and between 7.5 and 5 percent for M.D.s in U.S. medical schools between 1980 and 1985. The lowest rates for both groups occurred in 1985 (Jolly, 1986).
The committee does not believe that the attrition rate among mid-level researchers is too high. However, this does not mean that NIH may not be losing some of its best researchers. What is not known is the percentage of outstanding researchers who are leaving, or if this percentage is increasing. Indeed, the committee considered whether the 6.3 percent attrition rate, coupled with very slow growth in the NIH workforce, might not indicate problems of organizational stagnation. Like many academic institutions with a significant proportion of tenured faculty, NIH may confront difficulties in providing career growth for valued younger personnel. At the same time, such institutions will find themselves with an aging workforce.8
Recruitment to Mid-level Positions
Between 1983 and 1987 the intramural program lost some 300 mid-level researchers. These 300 were more than replaced through conversion from postdoctoral fellowships (47 percent), hiring from outside government (21 percent) (Table 3-11), and promotion, reassignment, and transfers from other parts of the government.9 Most of those recruited from outside the government were at the GS/GM 14 and 15 levels, equivalent to university associate professor or professor rank (Table 3-12). Thus, contrary to some perceptions, NIH has a mix of promotion and hiring to mid-level positions.
Compensation
It is difficult to determine how the salaries of NIH mid-level researchers compare with their counterparts in other settings, because there are few, if any, direct counterparts to NIH in the private sector. The most logical comparisons are with medical schools, private research laboratories, and private biotechnology firms. However, none of these is identical to NIH in mission, compensation, structure, or work environment. It is also difficult to know if the appropriate salary comparison is at the mean or at some other level and to know what level of comparability is necessary in order to ensure the recruitment and retention of high quality researchers.
OCR for page 57
A Healthy NIH Intramural Program: Structural Change or Administrative Remedies?
With the exception of medical schools, compensation information is relatively limited, and longitudinal data are lacking. Comparisons are also difficult because other organizations are independent and average figures hide great variations between organizations, frequently even within organizations. It is also difficult to decide which jobs are equivalent when surveys are made across positions and organizations.
Table 3-13 compares NIH salaries with a number of groups and organizations which compete with NIH for researchers.10 The picture is mixed and NIH is very competitive for researchers at some levels, while not competitive at others. Generally, NIH is more competitive for Ph.D.s than M.D.s, and more competitive at the lower grades or ranks. It is competitive with Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS) and overall AAMC averages for Ph.D.s through the GS-15/professor level, and relatively competitive with USUHS for M.D.s through the GM-15/professor level. The picture is more complex with regard to AAMC data and exemplifies the problems of making comparisons across organizations. As the table shows, the picture changes, depending on which comparison groups are used.11 However, only at the lower end of the scale (GS/13—assistant professor and, in the case of pediatricians with a base salary, GS/14—associate professor), are NIH salaries for physicians competitive. The picture with regard to private research institutes and biotechnology firms is even less clear, because there are less comprehensive data, and since many private research institutes have only a few researchers, each one is treated individually.
Several facts are apparent with regard to salaries at independent research institutes and academic institutions. They tend to have much broader pay ranges than NIH and, thus, much more flexibility in paying market rates and in meeting competition for researchers whom they particularly want to retain or recruit. This flexibility is enhanced by having the salary ranges overlap, which permits them to pay an associate professor (GS-14) more than a full professor (GS-15). Additional flexibility is provided by not having a cap or ceiling on the full professor (or equivalent) salary at many institutions. Some, though not all, of these institutions allow their researchers to do outside consulting (usually one day per week), and some share patent royalties with the researcher. With regard to biotechnology firms, not only is it difficult to judge comparable jobs, but salary information is treated as highly confidential.
Data from a 1987 survey of more than 130 biotechnology firms also provides useful salary information on 4 categories of Ph.D. researchers:
Scientist I, 0–2 years after completion postdoctoral experience, receive an average salary of $37,000.
Scientist II, with 2–5 years postdoctoral experience receive an average of $43,000.
OCR for page 108
A Healthy NIH Intramural Program: Structural Change or Administrative Remedies?
PAYPLAN/GRADE
M.D.
Ph.D.
STAFF START OF FY
NO. LEFT NIH
LOSS RATE
STAFF START OF FY
NO. LEFT NIH
LOSS RATE
SSS
26
2
7.7%
61
2
3.3%
SUBTOTAL
26
2
7.7%
61
2
3.3%
GS/GM-15
48
4
8.3%
128
12
9.4%
GS/GM-14
40
7
17.5%
166
7
4.2%
GS/GM-13
10
2
20.0%
178
8
4.5%
SUBTOTAL
98
13
13.3%
472
27
5.7%
CO-7
2
0
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
CO-6
160
8
5.0%
42
0
0.0%
SUBTOTAL
162
8
4.9%
42
0
0.0%
CO-5
88
12
13.6%
20
2
10.0%
CO-4
24
1
4.2%
11
0
0.0%
SUBTOTAL
112
13
11.6%
31
2
6.5%
TOTAL
398
36
9.0%
606
31
5.1%
SOURCE: NIH, Office of Associate Director for Administration (1988)
OCR for page 109
A Healthy NIH Intramural Program: Structural Change or Administrative Remedies?
PAYPLAN/GRADE
M.D.
Ph.D.
STAFF START OF FY
NO. LEFT NIH
LOSS RATE
STAFF START OF FY
NO. LEFT NIH
LOSS RATE
SSS
22
1
4.5%
63
2
3.2%
SUBTOTAL
22
1
4.5%
63
2
3.2%
GS/GM-15
51
4
7.8%
135
6
4.4%
GS/GM-14
38
1
2.6%
204
10
4.9%
GS/GM-13
11
1
9.1%
201
10
5.0%
SUBTOTAL
100
6
6.0%
540
26
4.8%
CO-7
2
0
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
CO-6
166
4
2.4%
52
3
5.8%
SUBTOTAL
168
4
2.4%
52
3
5.8%
CO-5
86
5
5.8%
20
1
5.0%
CO-4
20
3
15.0%
14
2
14.3%
SUBTOTAL
106
8
7.5%
34
3
8.8%
TOTAL
396
19
4.8
689
34
4.9%
SOURCE: NIH, Office of Associate Director for Administration (1988)
OCR for page 110
A Healthy NIH Intramural Program: Structural Change or Administrative Remedies?
PAYPLAN/GRADE
M.D.
Ph.D.
STAFF START OF FY
NO. LEFT NIH
LOSS RATE
STAFF START OF FY
NO. LEFT NIH
LOSS RATE
SSS
21
1
4.8%
60
3
5.0%
SUBTOTAL
21
1
4.8%
60
3
5.0%
GS/GM-15
54
4
7.4%
148
10
6.8%
GS/GM-14
41
8
19.5%
197
6
3.0%
GS/GM-13
12
1
8.3%
186
9
4.8%
SUBTOTAL
107
13
12.1%
531
25
4.7%
CO-7
3
0
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
CO-6
180
7
3.9%
47
3
6.4%
SUBTOTAL
183
7
3.8%
47
3
6.4%
CO-5
77
2
2.6%
21
0
0.0%
CO-4
13
4
30.8%
10
0
0.0%
SUBTOTAL
90
6
6.7%
31
0
0.0%
TOTAL
401
27
6.7%
669
31
4.6%
SOURCE: NIH, Office of Associate Director for Administration (1988)
OCR for page 111
A Healthy NIH Intramural Program: Structural Change or Administrative Remedies?
TABLE 3-11 APPOINTMENTS OF SCIENTISTS TO NIH INTRAMURAL POSITIONS BY GRADE AND DEGREE Fiscal Years 1983–1987
FY/Grade
M.D.
Ph.D.
Type of Doc Unknown
Total
1983
SSS
0
0
0
0
GS/GM 13–15
4
2
0
6
CO 4–6
1
0
5
6
Total
5
2
5
12
1984
SSS
0
0
0
0
GS/GM 13–15
4
6
0
10
CO 4–6
4
1
2
7
Total
8
7
2
17
1985
SSS
0
0
0
0
GS/GM 13–15
7
2
0
9
CO 4–6
3
1
0
4
Total
10
3
0
13
1986
SSS
0
0
0
0
GS/GM 13–15
7
3
0
10
CO 4–6
2
1
0
3
Total
9
4
0
13
1987
SSS
0
0
0
0
GS/GM 13–15
7
9
0
16
CO 4–6
2
0
0
2
Total
9
9
0
18
1983–1987
SSS
0
0
0
0
GS/GM 13–15
29
22
0
51
CO 4–6
12
3
7
22
TOTAL
41
25
7
73
SOURCE: NIH, Office of Associate Director for Administration (1988)
OCR for page 112
A Healthy NIH Intramural Program: Structural Change or Administrative Remedies?
Table 3-12 APPOINTMENT OF SCIENTISTS TO NIH INTRAMURAL PROGRAMS DISTRIBUTION BY GRADE. 1983–1987
GRADE
M.D.
Ph.D.
TYPE OF DOC UNKNOWN
TOTAL
GS/GM
15
11
11
0
22
14
13
6
0
19
13
5
5
0
10
SUBTOTAL
29
22
0
51
CO
6
1
1
3
5
5
2
0
3
5
4
9
2
1
12
SUBTOTAL
12
3
7
22
TOTAL
41
25
7
73
SOURCE: NIH, Office of Associate Director for Administration (1988)
OCR for page 113
A Healthy NIH Intramural Program: Structural Change or Administrative Remedies?
TABLE 3-13 COMPARATIVE SALARIES OF RESEARCH SCIENTISTS
NOTE : USUHS is the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.
AAMC is the Association of American Medical Colleges.
For NIN data for Ph.D.s compensation is base salary only, for M.D.s Compensation is base salary plus supplements.
AAMC data is from annual report on medical school faculty salaries 1987–1988. Base only refers to compensation that is fixed by the institution, is exclusive of fringe benefits and is normally not influenced by practice earnings.
OCR for page 114
A Healthy NIH Intramural Program: Structural Change or Administrative Remedies?
TABLE 3-14 Change in Average Annual Salaries Reported by Doctorates at NIH in 1981 by Type of Employer in 1987
n
N
Average 1987 Salary
Average Change in Salary, 1981–1987
Employees of NIH in 1981 and 1987
53
564
$54,500
$15,600
Employees of NIH in 1981, but not in 1987, by 1987 employer:
Business/industry
6
46
$60,700
$26,900
University, Medical school
5
37
$74,300
$35,900
All other
11
108
$55,800
$18,400
Total
22
191
$60,564
$23,837
NOTE: Analysis restricted to full-time employees less than 62 years of age. Doctorates equate to Ph.D.s in other tables.
SOURCE: National Science Foundation, Special Tabulation front the Survey of Doctorate Recipients (1988)
OCR for page 115
A Healthy NIH Intramural Program: Structural Change or Administrative Remedies?
TABLE 3-15 Comparison of Physician Compensation*—NIH and American Medical Schools (Mean NIH Compensation as a Percent of Mean AAMC Compensation)
Gs-13
GS-14
GS-15
SES/SSS
1983
79%
76%
74%
60%
1988
69%
67%
65%
50%
Percent Decrease
10%
9%
9%
10%
* Compensation=Base Salary Plus Supplements
Clinical Science Departments
GS-13=Assistant Professor
GS-14=Associate Professor
GS-15=Professor
SES/SSS=Chairmen
Data from Report on Medical School Faculty Salaries prepared by the Association of American Medical Colleges—1983 through 1988
SOURCE: NIH, Office of Associate Director for Administration (1988)
OCR for page 116
A Healthy NIH Intramural Program: Structural Change or Administrative Remedies?
TABLE 3-16 Comparison of Ph.D. Pay*—NIH and American Medical Schools (Mean NIH Compensation as a Percent of Mean AAMC Compensation)
GS-13
GS-14
GS-15
SES/SSS
1983
133 %
126 %
116 %
100 %
1988
121 %
115 %
102 %
83 %
Percent Decrease
12 %
11 %
14 %
17 %
* Pay=Base Salary Only
Basic Science Departments
GS-13=Assistant Professor
GS-14=Associate Professor
GS-15=Professor
SES/SSS=Chairmen
Data from Report on Medical School Faculty Salaries prepared by the Association of American Medical Colleges—1983 through 1988
SOURCE: NIH, Office of Associate Director for Administration (1988)
OCR for page 117
A Healthy NIH Intramural Program: Structural Change or Administrative Remedies?
TABLE 3-17 Allied Health Specialists Salary Comparison-Washington, D.C. Area January 1988
OCCUPATION
SALARY1 LEADER
NIH MAX HIRE SALARY
DOLLARS2 DIFF. FROM SALARY LEADER
PERCENTAGE DIFF. FROM SALARY LEADER
RANK AMONG SURVEYED HOSPITALS
Nuclear Medicine Tech.
Georgetown
$20,739
−$7,415
−26%
7 of 7
Staff X-Ray Tech.
Georgetown
$18,726
−$7,299
−28%
6 of 6
Ultrasound Tech.
Georgetown
$20,739
−$7,415
−26%
6 of 6
Spec. Proc. X-Ray Tech.
Georgetown
$20,739
−$7,415
−26%
6 of 6
Reg. Respiratory Therapist
Wash. Hosp. Ctr
$20,223
−$6,825
−25%
6 of 6
Pharmacist
Wash. Hosp. Ctr.
$30,804
−$7,597
−20%
6 of 7
Physical Therapist
Suburban
$22,907
−$8,148
−26%
7 of 7
Occupational Therapist
Suburban
$22,907
−$8,148
−26%
7 of 7
Phlebotomist3
Suburban
$15,118
−$1,891
−11%
4 of 7
Medical Technologist3
Holy Cross
$22,907
−$3,306
−13%
5 of 7
NOTES:
1. The following Washington, D.C. area hospitals are included in this survey (not all hospitals reported on all occupations):
Fairfax Hospital George Washington Univ. Medical Center
Georgetown Univ. Hospital Greater Southeast Community Hospital
Holy Cross Hospital Howard Univ. Hospital
Suburban Hospital Washington Hospital Center
2. Salary data is based upon July and November 1987, Confidential Wage and Salary Survey Reports, Hospital Council, National Capital Area.
3. Phlebotomist and Medical Technologist staffing difficulties are relatively recent compared to other occupations but appear to be increasing rapidly.
SOURCE: NIH, Office of Associate Director for Administration (1988)
OCR for page 118
A Healthy NIH Intramural Program: Structural Change or Administrative Remedies?
This page intentionally left blank.