Kent D Nash1, David L Pfeifer. 1. Nash & Association Inc., College Station, Texas 77845, USA. kdn62280@aol.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The authors used survey data to estimate the economic rate of return from undertaking an investment in residency training to become a practicing prosthodontist. METHODS: The authors estimated earnings of practicing prosthodontists using results from a survey of 2500 U.S. prosthodontists. Survey data were used to assess the total costs of prosthodontic residency and earnings of practicing general practitioners. The authors applied statistical methods to estimate the internal rate of return (IRR) for prosthodontic residency training. RESULTS: The estimated IRR ranged from 8.23 percent for private practitioners with no financial assistance during residency training to 12.18 percent for full-time private practitioners with stipends and loans. Total costs of residency ranged from 271,835 dollars to 441,321 dollars, depending on the amount of forgone earnings, time in practice and how soon practice began after the residency. CONCLUSIONS: All of the estimates of IRR in this study were positive, indicating that prosthodontic residency is a financially attractive investment. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The positive IRR for prosthodontic residency indicates that the demand for advanced education in prosthodontics will continue, and that the amount of time spent in practice increases the rate of return.
BACKGROUND: The authors used survey data to estimate the economic rate of return from undertaking an investment in residency training to become a practicing prosthodontist. METHODS: The authors estimated earnings of practicing prosthodontists using results from a survey of 2500 U.S. prosthodontists. Survey data were used to assess the total costs of prosthodontic residency and earnings of practicing general practitioners. The authors applied statistical methods to estimate the internal rate of return (IRR) for prosthodontic residency training. RESULTS: The estimated IRR ranged from 8.23 percent for private practitioners with no financial assistance during residency training to 12.18 percent for full-time private practitioners with stipends and loans. Total costs of residency ranged from 271,835 dollars to 441,321 dollars, depending on the amount of forgone earnings, time in practice and how soon practice began after the residency. CONCLUSIONS: All of the estimates of IRR in this study were positive, indicating that prosthodontic residency is a financially attractive investment. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The positive IRR for prosthodontic residency indicates that the demand for advanced education in prosthodontics will continue, and that the amount of time spent in practice increases the rate of return.