Interesting Interview

You are probably fine, my medical director wouldn't have that power either......that just comes with the bigger organizations.

ok Rins, thank you for your post

Looks like the doctor just texted me and ok'ed 70 an hr.

He wasn't bluffing. I am pretty dumbfounded right now- can't believe I got this opportunity.

Rnis do you work in urgent care?

9 hours ago, traumaRUs said:

Good for you!

We have a large 21 MD, 9 mid-level provider practice - our MDs don't make the final salary determination either. Our practice manager has the power

And there in lies the problem. Not to say than an MD or DO who owns the practice or is in hospital administrative position won't try to nickle and dime, but when a non-medical business person determines the salary (which is most common), the problem can get really bad.

They just don't have an understanding of what NPs ACTUALLY do. Many think the role is just an 'assistant' to the doctor rather than that of a knowledgeable clinician duly licensed and regulated. I'm sure they know theoretically, but I find they just don't fully appreciate. Therefore, it can be hard to justify certain benefits etc. I know personally that I have had to negotiate hard, fight tooth and nail to get what I wanted. And it wasn't easy let me tell you.

That and the fact that HR and business world in general is very secretive about the budget for a particular position, trying to force candidates to accept lower salaries or pretend that a particular salary is not within the budget etc. etc. We all know the gimmicks.

NP reimbursement, salary, and benefits is actually a topic in quite passionate about. Sorry for the diatribe. ?

Rest assured, you'll bring in close to 400k, so somehow, someway, they will figure out how scrape together your 140k.

Not to be too snide. It's a good job. Congrats.

19 hours ago, Power2020 said:

Rnis do you work in urgent care?

No, in family medicine........

Thanks for the replies,

Well I have the contract in hand and now it says minimum required hours to work is 139/month to be considered fulltime I feel this is a slick way to say hey it's 79/hr but we will make sure not to schedule you for 40 hours a week? Because normal hours a year for full time is 2080 and this would be 1662??

Thoughts?

2 hours ago, Power2020 said:

Thanks for the replies,

Well I have the contract in hand and now it says minimum required hours to work is 139/month to be considered fulltime I feel this is a slick way to say hey it's 79/hr but we will make sure not to schedule you for 40 hours a week? Because normal hours a year for full time is 2080 and this would be 1662??

Thoughts?

That works out to just a little over 32 hours a week. (if you take the 139x12/52) I think that is a positive thing in my book because you will still qualify for full time benefits. I am sure if you want to work 40 (or more) that will likely be available