Volume 2, Issue 3 , Pages 370-387, September 2006
Examining gender salary disparities: an analysis of the 2003 multistate salary survey
Article Outline
- Abstract
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Background
- 3. Objectives
- 4. Methods
- 5. Results
- 6. Discussion
- 7. Limitations
- 8. Conclusion
- Acknowledgments
- References
- Copyright
Abstract
Background
Pharmacist salary and wage surveys have been conducted at the state and national level for more than 20 years; however, it is not known to what extent, if any, wage disparities due to gender still exist.
Objectives
The overall objective of this study was to determine if wage disparities exist among male and female pharmacists at the multistate and individual state level for each of 6 states studied. A secondary objective was to explore the effect of various demographic variables on the hourly wages of pharmacists.
Methods
Data were collected from 1,688 pharmacists in 6 states during 2003 using a cross-sectional descriptive survey design. A multiple regression analysis on hourly wage testing the effects of state of practice, practice setting, position, terminal degree, and years in practice was conducted. Subsequent multiple regression analyses were conducted individually for each of the 6 states to test the effects of the above variables on hourly wage for both male and female pharmacists, followed by state-level analyses for male and female pharmacists, respectively.
Results
For the pooled data, all variables were found to be significant predictors of hourly wage, except for earning a PharmD degree without a residency or graduate degree. Gender was not a significant predictor of wage disparities in the state-level analyses. Position was the only significant predictor of wage disparities in all states (except Tennessee) such that pharmacists in management positions make significantly higher salaries than those in staff positions.
Conclusions
The results of these analyses suggest that wage disparities due to gender do not exist at the state level for the 6 states surveyed, when controlling for practice setting, position, terminal degree, and years in practice. The larger number of men in management positions may explain lower wages for female pharmacists.
Keywords: Pharmacy, Pharmacists, Gender issues, Salary, Salary disparities, Female pharmacists, Salary survey
1. Introduction
Pharmacy was once a profession comprised almost entirely of men; however, with the increase in the number of female pharmacists the face of pharmacy has changed. And with this change, the issue of salary disparities between male and female pharmacists continues to merit further investigation. At the core of this issue is the right for women to receive equal pay for equal work. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 that “precludes any wage irregularity on account of sex in substantially equal jobs” has been the stick used to gain equal pay for some women.1 However, previous research studies have shown that female pharmacists received less pay compared to their male counterparts. Equal pay should be of interest to the profession, when the (gender) demographic profile of current and graduating pharmacy students are taken into account.2, 3, 4 The percentage of female pharmacy graduates has grown steadily from only 12.9% in 1960 to 52.6% in 1984, to the current composition of nearly 67% nationwide.2, 3, 4 Additionally, given the large percentage of male pharmacists retiring or nearing retirement age, females are expected to exceed the number of male pharmacists before 2010.5, 6
There have been a number of state and national salary surveys conducted over the past 20 years documenting the difference in salaries for male and female pharmacists6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21; however, there has yet to be published a multistate study to examine these salary disparity issues in greater detail. Such a study whereby several states may be analyzed at the aggregate and individual level may clarify the salary disparity finding revealed in previous studies. As salary studies have been conducted with a national sample or an individual state sample, it is somewhat difficult to understand wage variability that may exist between states, gender disparities aside. For example, a lower or higher than average wage for a particular state may be the result of market forces such as cost of living or a hyper demand for pharmacists in that state. A multistate study may help begin to clarify some of these issues.
An additional limitation of many of these studies is that salary statistics have largely been presented as overall mean salaries without differentiating them by practice setting, position, age, type of degree, years in practice, hours worked per week, or testing for statistical significance. Indeed, differences in salaries among male and female pharmacists may no longer exist after controlling for these demographic variables. As a result, the investigators conducted a multistate study that allows comparisons to be made among several states, whereas at the same time controlling for various demographic variables that alone may impact salary disparity.
2. Background
Researchers have conducted pharmacist salary survey studies for over 20 years. Although there have been some national and multistate salary studies, the majority are single state surveys. Additionally, the studies provide conflicting results as to whether salary disparities due to gender exist.
Of the studies published since 1983 studies that found salary disparities for female pharmacists, 2 of the studies surveyed hospital pharmacists only.13, 15 Both of these studies found that females earned significantly less than males, when controlling for other variables. The first study was published by Oakley and Bradham in 1983. They found that male pharmacy directors in large hospitals received a median salary of $34,000, which was more than the median salary of $32,000 for their female counterparts in equivalent positions.13 Also, the data showed that male pharmacists had a mean salary of $43,212, whereas females had a mean salary of only $31,345. Stepwise regression analysis showed that females earned approximately $2,000 less than males with the same amount of experience, education, training, and age.13 The second study that found a difference in hospital pharmacists' salaries was published in 1989.15 In this study of Texas hospital pharmacists, Shepherd et al found that female pharmacists earned approximately $1,550 less than male pharmacists with the same characteristics, even after controlling for factors such as position, degree, seniority, hours worked per week, and the size of the hospital.15
However, the majority of studies that found a difference in salaries for male and female pharmacists based their findings on descriptive data only. In a 1987 study, Herfindal et al followed the careers of graduates from the University of California at San Francisco Doctor of Pharmacy program.14 Higher salary ranges for men suggested a possible disparity; however, there were a greater percentage of males in management positions, which might indicate that the difference was due to position rather than gender.
Another study reporting only descriptive data was a survey published by Drug Topics in 2003, which chronicled the salaries of pharmacists in hospital, retail, and independent settings.16 Male pharmacists had total incomes higher than females in every setting, even though females had a higher annual base salary in the chain settings. Male pharmacists earned $5,793 more in total income in independent settings, $6,583 in chains and $10,821 more in hospitals, respectively.16 Although it was not reported, the difference in annual total salary could have also been due to a higher percentage of male pharmacists in management positions or to more hours worked by males.
Another 2003 report also found that males did not earn more than females in all settings.18 Although Cline's report of pharmacists' salaries in multiple settings over 4 states revealed no salary disparity between single men and married or single women, single men earned significantly more than single women in large chain settings and married women working in mass merchandiser or supermarket settings.18 Interestingly, however, married women in HMO/Outpatient hospital settings earned significantly more than single men in these settings.18 The Cline study is also significant in that it was the only multistate study that examined the effect of marital status on salaries.
A study that seems to corroborate Cline's findings of higher female compensation in some settings is the most recent results of the 2005 National Salary Survey by Drug Topics, which demonstrated that males made higher salaries in independent and hospital settings, but females made higher salaries in chain settings.17 However, while men made higher average hourly wages in independent pharmacies, the hourly wages were the same in chains, and females made higher hourly wages in hospitals.17 This study also shows the confounding that can occur when examining salaries rather than hourly wages.
There have also been at least 3 studies that suggest wage disparities among male and female pharmacists may not exist, when other factors are considered.19, 20, 21 Two of these studies used a national sample of pharmacists. Schondelmeyer et al19 published the results of a national survey sent to pharmacists from varying backgrounds in 1992. This study demonstrated that men had an average total compensation package of $51,032, whereas women had an average total compensation package of $44,751. However, after adjusting for the number of years in practice and hours worked, males had an hourly wage that was higher than females for only years 21-25 in practice, because, on average, males had more experience in practice and more years with their present employer.19
A study by Carvajal and Hardigan (2004) examined salaries among a national sample of pharmacists in various fields.20 Males were found to earn significantly more money, but when males and females had the same experience and work effort, the differences in salary dropped from an unadjusted difference of 17.3% to 9.0%. The difference becomes almost negligible when other factors such as race are similar between the 2 groups.20
Another recent study by Mott and Kreling (2004) found that the difference in annual pay and hourly salary for male and female pharmacists in Wisconsin was not significant when setting, position, and years in practice were controlled.21
The data from these national and state wage/salary surveys are inconclusive as to whether wage disparities exist due to gender; however, the Carvajal study and the Mott study seem to suggest that the disparity no longer exists when other factors are taken into consideration. In addition, of the studies that seemed to indicate an overall salary disparity for females, none of them used a statistical test to test for significance nor controlled for other variables. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze multiple-state wage data in a way that controls for various demographic variables to clarify if gender wage disparities exist, and if they do not, what is responsible for the difference in wages seen between male and female pharmacists in the United States.
3. Objectives
The overall objective of this study was to determine if wage disparities exist between male and female pharmacists at the multistate and individual-state level for Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Tennessee, and Florida. A secondary objective was to explore the effect of various demographic variables on the hourly wage of male and female pharmacists.
4. Methods
Data were collected from pharmacists in 6 states during 2003 using a cross-sectional descriptive survey design. Names and addresses of pharmacists who maintained active licenses to practice pharmacy in the state of their residence were collected from respective state boards of pharmacy. Surveys were mailed to 8,550 pharmacists: 4,000 in Florida, 1,500 in Illinois, 1,000 in Wisconsin, 800 in Tennessee, 650 in Iowa, and 600 in Minnesota. The number of pharmacists surveyed in each state was based on the total number of licensed pharmacists residing in the state for an expected response rate of 40%. (Previous salary surveys in these states obtained a 40% response rate.)
Each pharmacist received an initial mailing that included a cover letter stating the purpose of the survey and inviting participation, a 4-page survey instrument, and a postage-paid return envelope. The survey questions were designed to obtain information about the primary job the pharmacist held at the time of the survey in 2003. Information related to the number of hours worked by the pharmacist in a typical week, including compensated and uncompensated hours, was also collected. The researchers attempted to maximize the response rate by sending reminder postcards to all sampled pharmacists, 1 week after the initial mailing, and a replacement survey packet was sent to nonresponders 3 weeks after the postcard mailing.
Student t tests were used to determine where differences in hourly wage existed between male and female pharmacists who worked full time in each of the 6 states. Full-time pharmacists were defined as those working 30 hours or more per week. To determine the effect of gender and other variables on pharmacists' hourly wage, a number of multiple regressions were run.
A standard multiple regression analysis was conducted on all of the data to predict the effect of state of practice, practice setting, position, gender, terminal degree, and years in practice on hourly wage. An additional multiple regression analysis was run on the data from each state individually, to determine the differences in hourly wage when controlling for all of the above demographic variables except state of practice. These multiple regressions were used to determine trends in the effect of gender and other variables on the hourly wage of pharmacists within the 6 states.
Finally, to determine what factors affect the hourly wage of male and female pharmacists similarly or differently, a multiple regression was run separately on the data for each gender and state of practice.
For the variables, practice setting was categorized as independent, chain (small and large chains, mass merchandiser, supermarket pharmacies), hospital (inpatient and outpatient), and other (HMO pharmacy, nursing home/long term care, home health/infusion, and others). Position categories included owner, staff, or management. Degree categories were B.S., PharmD only, and other degrees. Finally, years in practice was categorized as less than or equal to 10, 11-20, and greater than 20 years. SPSS version 13.0 software (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL) was used to analyze the data.
5. Results
Of the 8,550 surveys mailed, 323 (3.8%) were returned as undeliverable, and of the 8,227 deliverable surveys, 2,743 were returned, for an overall response rate of 33.3%. Categorizing this by state, 653 surveys were returned from pharmacists in Florida, 511 from Illinois, 522 from Wisconsin, 352 from Tennessee, 353 from Iowa, and 352 from Minnesota, for response rates of 17.1%, 36.9%, 52.4%, 44.8%, 54.5%, and 58.9%, respectively. Three-fourths of respondents reported that they were practicing pharmacists working full time (at least 30 hours per week) during 2003. The demographic data for full-time pharmacists from each state are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Demographic profile for all respondents
| Iowa, N (%) | Minnesota, N (%) | Wisconsin, N (%) | Illinois, N (%) | Tennessee, N (%) | Florida, N (%) | Overall, N (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Practice setting | N =331 | N=326 | N=461 | N=446 | N=334 | N=589 | N=2,487 |
| Independent | 78 (23.6) | 55 (16.9) | 69 (15.0) | 44 (10.3) | 55 (16.5) | 64 (10.9) | 367 (14.8) |
| Chain | 63 (19.0) | 73 (22.4) | 115 (24.9) | 108 (24.2) | 83 (24.9) | 163 (27.7) | 605 (24.3) |
| Hospital | 67 (20.2) | 91 (27.9) | 128 (27.8) | 112 (25.1) | 69 (20.7) | 148 (25.1) | 615 (24.7) |
| Othera | 123 (37.2) | 107 (32.8) | 149 (32.3) | 180 (40.4) | 127 (38.0) | 214 (36.3) | 900 (36.2) |
| Position | N=310 | N=307 | N=443 | N=430 | N=303 | N=571 | N=2,364 |
| Managementb | 135 (43.5) | 103 (33.6) | 167 (37.7) | 164 (38.1) | 126 (41.6) | 222 (38.9) | 917 (38.8) |
| Staff | 175 (56.5) | 204 (66.4) | 276 (62.3) | 266 (61.9) | 177 (58.4) | 349 (61.1) | 1,447 (61.2) |
| Age (years) | N=353 | N=351 | N=502 | N=502 | N=358 | N=650 | N=2,716 |
| ≤30 | 57 (16.1) | 54 (15.4) | 84 (16.7) | 93 (18.5) | 44 (12.3) | 61 (9.4) | 393 (14.5) |
| 31-40 | 85 (24.1) | 70 (19.9) | 103 (20.5) | 100 (19.9) | 78 (21.8) | 165 (25.4) | 601 (22.1) |
| 41-50 | 105 (29.7) | 99 (28.2) | 137 (27.3) | 146 (29.1) | 103 (28.8) | 164 (25.2) | 754 (27.8) |
| 51-60 | 73 (20.7) | 77 (21.9) | 133 (26.5) | 90 (17.9) | 89 (24.9) | 118 (18.2) | 580 (21.4) |
| ≥61 | 33 (9.3) | 51 (14.5) | 45 (9.0) | 73 (14.5) | 44 (12.3) | 142 (21.8) | 388 (14.3) |
| Gender | N=353 | N=349 | N=500 | N=503 | N=358 | N=644 | N=2,707 |
| Female | 199 (56.4) | 198 (56.7) | 316 (63.2) | 259 (51.5) | 193 (53.9) | 363 (56.4) | 1,528 (56.4) |
| Male | 154 (43.6) | 151 (43.3) | 184 (36.8) | 244 (48.5) | 165 (46.1) | 281 (43.6) | 1,179 (43.6) |
| Degree | N=352 | N=348 | N=500 | N=502 | N=352 | N=461 | N=2,515 |
| B.S. | 258 (73.3) | 233 (67.0) | 357 (71.4) | 303 (60.4) | 209 (59.4) | 287 (62.3) | 1,647 (65.5) |
| PharmD | 53 (15.1) | 69 (19.8) | 65 (13.0) | 102 (20.3) | 85 (24.1) | 103 (22.3) | 477 (19.0) |
| Otherc | 41 (11.6) | 46 (13.2) | 78 (15.6) | 97 (19.3) | 58 (16.5) | 71 (15.4) | 391 (15.5) |
| # years in practice | N=337 | N=343 | N=495 | N=492 | N=351 | N=628 | N=2,646 |
| ≤10 | 95 (28.2) | 85 (24.8) | 144 (29.1) | 142 (28.9) | 85 (24.2) | 188 (29.9) | 739 (27.9) |
| 11-20 | 80 (23.7) | 69 (20.1) | 100 (20.2) | 116 (23.6) | 81 (23.1) | 112 (17.8) | 558 (21.1) |
| >20 | 162 (48.1) | 189 (55.1) | 251 (50.7) | 234 (47.6) | 185 (52.7) | 328 (52.2) | 1,349 (51.0) |
| Schedule hours for base pay | N=319 | N=307 | N=467 | N=443 | N=313 | N=559 | N=2,408 |
| <20 | 16 (5.0) | 24 (7.8) | 24 (5.1) | 39 (8.8) | 23 (7.3) | 49 (8.8) | 175 (7.3) |
| 20-29 | 17 (5.3) | 36 (11.7) | 44 (9.4) | 38 (8.6) | 22 (7.0) | 42 (7.5) | 199 (8.3) |
| 30-39 | 32 (10.0) | 51 (16.6) | 57 (12.2) | 42 (9.5) | 52 (16.6) | 75 (13.4) | 309 (12.8) |
| ≥40 | 319 (79.6) | 307 (63.8) | 467 (73.2) | 443 (73.1) | 216 (69.0) | 559 (70.3) | 2,408 (71.6) |
aOther includes HMO, clinic, long term care, home health/infusion, managed care, primary benefit manager, and other nontraditional setting. |
bManagement includes owner, partner, manager, director, assistant manager, associate manager, or director. |
cOther includes residency, M.S., M.B.A., Ph.D., and other nonpharmacy degree. |
Table 2 presents the data for the mean hourly wages of male and female pharmacists in each of the 6 states. The t test results demonstrated a significant difference in the states' mean hourly wage of male and female pharmacists in Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois. In these states, female pharmacists earned significantly less. In Tennessee and Florida, although females earned less per hour, their wages were not significantly different from the hourly wage for males.
Table 2. Mean hourly salary for all full-time respondents by state and gender
| State | Gender | N | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iowa | Male | 121 | 40.00a | 5.09 |
| Female | 93 | 38.70 | 3.81 | |
| Minnesota | Male | 116 | 44.92a | 3.55 |
| Female | 92 | 43.76 | 4.1 | |
| Wisconsin | Male | 205 | 44.79b | 5.1 |
| Female | 101 | 43.23 | 3.41 | |
| Illinois | Male | 194 | 44.07a | 8.79 |
| Female | 152 | 42.12 | 5.23 | |
| Tennessee | Male | 121 | 44.69 | 5.98 |
| Female | 90 | 43.32 | 5.65 | |
| Florida | Male | 227 | 43.26 | 3.53 |
| Female | 162 | 42.66 | 3.81 | |
| Overall | Male | 989 | 43.62c | 5.16 |
| Female | 691 | 42.33 | 4.65 | |
5.1. Male and female pharmacists
Table 3 reports the results of the multiple regression analysis that was conducted on all of the states' data combined, with hourly wage as the dependent variable. The adjusted R2 (R2=0.174) shows that the model fits the data relatively poorly; however, all of the variables significantly contributed to the variance in the mean hourly wage except for pharmacists having a PharmD versus a B.S. degree. The results also show that when examining the combined data, females earned 64 cents (P=.008) less than male pharmacists.
Table 3. Earning (hourly age) functions for full-time pharmacists by state (n=1,688)
| Variable | Coefficient β | Standard error | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | 39.441 | 0.537 | — |
| Practice setting | |||
| Independent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Chain | 1.369 | 0.429 | 0.001 |
| Hospital | 1.039 | 0.435 | 0.017 |
| Other setting | 0.922 | 0.412 | 0.025 |
| Position | |||
| Manager | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Staff | −2.439 | 0.232 | <0.001 |
| Years in practice | |||
| <11 years | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| 11-20 years | 0.979 | 0.329 | 0.003 |
| >20 years | 1.125 | 0.305 | <0.001 |
| Terminal degree | |||
| B.S. only | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| PharmD | 0.175 | 0.323 | 0.589 |
| Other degree | 0.871 | 0.337 | 0.010 |
| Gender | |||
| Male | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Female | −0.642 | 0.242 | 0.008 |
| State | |||
| Iowa | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Minnesota | 4.927 | 0.443 | <0.001 |
| Wisconsin | 4.664 | 0.404 | <0.001 |
| Illinois | 3.138 | 0.399 | <0.001 |
| Tennessee | 4.168 | 0.445 | <0.001 |
| Florida | 3.360 | 0.387 | <0.001 |
| Model fit statistics | |||
| Adjusted R2 | 0.174 | — | — |
| F statistic (df) | 26.427 (14, 1673) | — | <0.001 |
Table 4 reports the results of the multiple regressions that were conducted on the data from each state separately, for all pharmacists working 30 hours per week or more. The equations fit the data poorly, with adjusted R2 values ranging from a low of 0.022 for Tennessee to a high of only 0.172 for Illinois.
Table 4. Earning (hourly age) functions for full-time pharmacists by state (n=1,688)
| Coefficient β (standard error) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Iowa (n=214) | Minnesota (n=210) | Wisconsin (n=314) | Illinois (n=345) | Tennessee (n=212) | Florida (n=393) |
| Constant | 41.076 (1.232) | 43.474 (1.124) | 42.196 (0.964) | 40.986 (1.186) | 46.725 (2.105) | 44.435 (0.868) |
| Practice setting | ||||||
| Independent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Chain | −1.232 (1.070) | 3.770 (0.941)c | 3.885 (0.861)c | 1.685 (1.180) | −1.962 (1.635) | 0.503 (0.830) |
| Hospital | −1.522 (1.048) | 3.735 (0.910)c | 3.802 (0.883)c | −0.474 (1.219) | −1.282 (1.735) | 0.165 (0.846) |
| Other setting | −0.848 (0.959) | 2.840 (0.907)b | 3.155 (0.823)c | 1.524 (1.118) | −2.097 (1.617) | −0.465 (0.816) |
| Position | ||||||
| Manager | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Staff | −2.251 (0.655)c | −2.510 (0.530)c | −2.252 (0.548)c | −3.219 (0.592)c | −1.932 (0.855)a | −2.256 (0.365)c |
| Years in practice | ||||||
| <11 years | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| 11-20 years | 2.060 (0.950)a | 0.286 (0.898) | 0.533 (0.778) | 1.783 (0.844)a | 0.979 (1.240) | −0.021 (0.498) |
| >20 years | 0.778 (0.911) | −0.163 (0.802) | 0.941 (0.700) | 3.406 (0.730)c | 0.922 (1.461) | 0.096 (0.448) |
| Terminal degree | ||||||
| B.S. only | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| PharmD | 1.181 (0.968) | −1.109 (0.864) | −0.580 (0.830) | 1.887 (0.762)a | −0.990 (1.288) | −0.441 (0.495) |
| Other degree | 1.388 (1.100) | −0.362 (0.721) | 0.713 (0.745) | 2.620 (0.765)c | −0.401 (1.474) | 0.511 (0.581) |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Female | −1.202 (0.681) | −0.413 (0.540) | −0.812 (0.594) | −0.563 (0.599) | −0.755 (0.882) | −0.413 (0.383) |
| Model fit statistics | ||||||
| Adjusted R2 | 0.088 | 0.149 | 0.125 | 0.172 | 0.022 | 0.087 |
| F statistic (df) | 3.279 (9, 204)c | 5.077 (9, 200)c | 5.981 (9, 304)c | 8.913 (9, 335)c | 1.529 (9, 202) | 5.150 (9, 383)c |
In all 6 states, staff pharmacists earned significantly less per hour than their manager counterparts (Tennessee P<.05, all other states P<.001), with other variables held constant. The regressions estimated that staff pharmacists' hourly salaries are anywhere from $1.93 less per hour (Tennessee) to $3.22 less in Illinois. For Tennessee and Florida, this was the only variable that significantly affected the hourly wage. For Iowa, the hourly wage was affected both by position (staff) and years in practice (11-20 years).
Minnesota and Wisconsin were the only 2 states where the hourly wage was significantly different for practice settings. In Minnesota, pharmacist wages in chain ($3.77/h more, P<.001), hospital ($3.74/h more, P<.001), and other types of pharmacies ($2.84/h more, P<.01) were significantly higher than independent pharmacies. In Wisconsin, wages in all 3 practice settings were significantly higher ($3.85, $3.80, and $3.16 per hour more for chain, hospital, and “other,” respectively, P<.001), than among independents. Iowa and Illinois were the only 2 states where salaries differed based on years in practice.
Pharmacists who reported practicing for 11-20 years in Iowa made almost $2.00 more per hour (P<.05), and in Illinois they made almost $1.80 more per hour (P<.05) than pharmacists who have worked 10 years or less. Illinois pharmacists in practice over 20 years made almost $3.50 more (P<.001) than those who have worked 10 years or less. Illinois was the only state where pharmacists holding a PharmD (P<.05) and/or other advance degrees (P<.001) made significantly higher wages than pharmacists who hold a B.S. as their terminal degree. Finally, the analysis did not detect any state where female pharmacists earned significantly less than male pharmacists (P<.05 for all states) when controlling for practice setting, position, years as a pharmacist, and terminal degree of pharmacist.
5.2. Male pharmacists
Table 5 reports the results of the multiple regression analyses that were conducted on the data from each state separately, for all male pharmacists getting paid for working 30 hours a week or more. Each states' regression equation exhibited a poor fit. The adjusted R2 values ranged from a low of −0.012 for Tennessee to a high of 0.194 for Illinois. In all 6 states except Tennessee (P<.05), male staff pharmacists earned significantly less per hour than their male manager counterparts, with other variables held constant. The regressions estimated that male staff pharmacists made anywhere from $2.00 less per hour (Tennessee and Florida) to $3.94 less in Illinois. Position was the only variable that significantly affected males' hourly wage in Florida.
Table 5. Earning (hourly age) functions for male full-time pharmacists by state (n=989)
| Coefficient β (standard error) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Iowa (n=121) | Minnesota (n=116) | Wisconsin (n=211) | Illinois (n=193) | Tennessee (n=121) | Florida (n=227) |
| Constant | 44.04 (1.78) | 41.49 (1.70) | 41.72 (1.28) | 42.51 (1.48) | 48.50 (3.03) | 44.02 (1.04) |
| Practice setting | ||||||
| Independent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Chain | −4.11 (1.56)b | 4.49 (1.27)c | 3.77 (1.11)c | 1.78 (1.38) | −2.53 (2.22) | 0.52 (0.98) |
| Hospital | −2.98 (1.45)a | 4.30 (1.25)c | 4.27 (1.18)c | −0.86 (1.52) | −1.98 (2.55) | 1.13 (0.98) |
| Other setting | −3.02 (1.37)a | 4.49 (1.22)c | 3.11 (1.05)b | 3.09 (1.33)a | −1.92 (2.23) | −0.19 (0.96) |
| Position | ||||||
| Manager | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Staff | −2.30 (0.91)a | −2.16 (0.63)c | −2.86 (0.70)c | −3.94 (0.84)c | −2.00 (1.22) | −2.01 (0.47)c |
| Years in practice | ||||||
| <11 years | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| 11-20 years | 0.32 (1.50) | 0.44 (1.37) | 1.75 (1.23) | −0.29 (1.32) | −1.17 (2.07) | −0.22 (0.73) |
| >20 years | −1.24 (1.26) | 0.43 (1.17) | 1.55 (0.97) | 1.29 (1.08) | −0.75 (2.26) | −0.17 (0.59) |
| Terminal degree | ||||||
| B.S. only | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| PharmD | 2.10 (1.55) | −0.17 (1.39) | 0.83 (1.40) | 0.58 (1.10) | −1.24 (1.86) | 0.02 (0.72) |
| Other degree | 4.21 (1.53)b | 1.22 (0.86) | 1.12 (1.02) | 3.02 (1.11)b | 0.90 (2.10) | 1.17 (0.81) |
| Model fit statistics | ||||||
| Adjusted R2 | 0.155 | 0.156 | 0.111 | 0.194 | −0.012 | 0.062 |
| F statistic (df) | 3.743 (8, 112)c | 3.655 (8, 107)c | 4.283 (8, 202)c | 6.768 (8, 184)c | 0.825 (8, 112) | 2.878 (8, 218)b |
Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin were the only states where male pharmacists working in the chain, hospital, and other settings made significantly more than those working in independent pharmacies. In Minnesota, pharmacist salaries in chain pharmacies and “other” pharmacies were $4.49 more per hour (P<.001), whereas earnings for hospital pharmacists were $4.30 more (P<.001). In Wisconsin, earnings were $3.77, $4.27, and $3.11 per hour more for chain (P<.001), hospital (P<.001), and other settings, respectively (P<.01), than for independents. In Illinois, only male pharmacists working in “other” settings made more than male independent pharmacists ($3.09, P<.05). In Iowa, pharmacists earned lower wages in chain ($4.11, P<.01), hospital ($2.98, P<.05), and “other” settings ($3.02, P<.05) than did those in independent community pharmacy.
In none of the states did male pharmacists obtain higher wages based on how long they had been in practice or whether they held a PharmD degree. And only in Iowa did male pharmacists with other advanced degrees make significantly more than pharmacists who only had a B.S. degree. Only in Iowa ($4.21, P<.01) and Illinois ($3.02, P<.01) did male pharmacists with other advanced degrees make significantly more than pharmacists who hold a B.S. degree as their terminal degree.
5.3. Female pharmacists
Table 6 reports the results of the multiple regression analyses conducted on the data for each state, for all female full-time pharmacists. The regressions equations exhibited poor fit, with adjusted R2 values ranging from a low of 0.024 for Tennessee to a high of 0.249 for Illinois.
Table 6. Earning (hourly age) functions for female full-time pharmacists by state (n=691)
| Coefficient β (standard error) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Iowa (n=93) | Minnesota (n=92) | Wisconsin (n=102) | Illinois (n=152) | Tennessee (n=90) | Florida (n=162) |
| Constant | 38.64 (1.39) | 44.13 (1.64) | 41.54 (1.29) | 42.02 (2.54) | 45.16 (2.90) | 45.00 (1.57) |
| Practice setting | ||||||
| Independent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Chain | 1.88 (1.20) | 4.29 (1.50)b | 4.47 (1.24)c | −0.35 (2.63) | −0.82 (2.48) | 0.27 (1.59) |
| Hospital | 0.37 (1.27) | 3.58 (1.39)a | 3.52 (1.21)b | −2.07 (2.54) | −0.69 (2.44) | −1.17 (1.64) |
| Other setting | 1.70 (1.11) | 1.56 (1.39) | 3.64 (1.23)b | −1.76 (2.49) | −2.27 (2.39) | −0.98 (1.58) |
| Position | ||||||
| Manager | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| Staff | −2.79 (0.81)c | −2.84 (0.94)b | −0.92 (0.81) | −2.86 (0.82)c | −2.07 (1.29) | −2.63 (0.61)c |
| Years in practice | ||||||
| <11 years | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| 11-20 years | 1.79 (1.02) | 0.54 (1.26) | −0.79 (0.85) | 2.67 (1.08)a | 2.12 (1.65) | −0.06 (0.71) |
| >20 years | 2.51 (1.23)a | −0.10 (1.23) | 0.09 (0.99) | 4.65 (0.98)c | 1.86 (2.10) | 0.67 (0.76) |
| Terminal degree | ||||||
| B.S. only | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent |
| PharmD | −0.26 (1.04) | −1.58 (1.22) | −2.33 (0.85)b | 2.42 (1.04)a | −0.69 (1.91) | −1.05 (0.71) |
| Other degree | −1.98 (1.34) | −3.21 (1.29)a | −0.92 (0.98) | 1.76 (1.03) | −1.72 (2.16) | 0.18 (0.88) |
| Model fit statistics | ||||||
| Adjusted R2 | 0.249 | 0.175 | 0.141 | 0.169 | 0.024 | 0.124 |
| F statistic (df) | 4.807 (8, 84)c | 3.418 (8, 83)b | 3.077 (8, 93)b | 4.842 (8, 143)c | 1.275 (8, 81) | 3.854 (8, 153)a |
In all 6 states except Wisconsin (P=.260) and Tennessee (P=.103), female staff pharmacists earned significantly less per hour than their female manager counterparts, with other variables held constant. For Florida, this was the only variable that was associated with females' hourly wage.
Minnesota and Wisconsin were the only states where practice setting had an association with salaries. In Minnesota, pharmacist salaries in chain pharmacies were $4.29 per hour (P<.01) and hospital pharmacies were $3.58 per hour more (P<.051). In Wisconsin, pharmacists in chain ($4.47/h more, P<.001), hospital ($3.52/h more, P<.001), and “other” settings ($3.64/h more, P<.001) reported higher earnings than their counterparts in independent community pharmacy.
Only in Iowa and Illinois did female pharmacists make more based on how long they have been in practice. Female pharmacists in Iowa who have worked more than 20 years made $2.51 more per hour (P<.05) than those working less than 11 years. Female pharmacists in Illinois made $2.67 more per hour (P<.05) after working 11-20 years and $4.65 more (P<.001) after working over 20 years.
Female pharmacists with a terminal PharmD degree were paid $2.33 less per hour (P<.01) in Wisconsin and $2.42 more (P<.05) in Illinois. In Minnesota (−$3.21, P<.05), female pharmacists with other advanced degrees or training were paid less than female pharmacists who only had a B.S. degree. For all other states, there was no difference in hourly wage based on degree.
6. Discussion
The results from this study show that although statistically significant wage disparities may exist for males and females when data from multiple states are pooled for analysis, the same statistically significant disparities do not exist at the state level. This is consistent with previous studies that found no significant difference in salary for females once other variables such as position and years in practice were controlled for.19, 20, 21
This study gives further evidence for the need to collect data from multiple states, but to conduct wage surveys at the state level rather than pooling the data. It is possible that extremely large sample sizes of national or pooled multistate surveys may be at the root of statistical differences in salary due to gender. Although national surveys are quite useful in providing a broad view of gender wage disparities, they would provide better information if they had an adequate sample size to allow for statistical analysis of each state. However, conducting such a national survey may be time and/or cost prohibitive. To get at least 250 usable surveys from full-time pharmacists in each state, printing and mailing out of nearly 35,000 surveys would be required. One possible solution might be to send out surveys to a random sample of U.S. pharmacists in 2 states from each of 4 regions (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West).
In most states, the variable explaining the most variation in hourly wage was position, whereby staff pharmacists made a lower wage relative to managers. This result is similar to Herfindal's 1987 study that found a higher wage for managers.14 These results would give the impression that pharmacists in each state make significantly less if they are not in a management position, regardless of their gender. This is not a surprising finding, because one would expect pharmacists in management to make more than staff pharmacists. Also, because a larger percentage of males are in management positions, this could largely explain the difference in wages for female pharmacists. (In this study, 40% of male pharmacists held management positions, but only 29% of females were managers.) Results from both gender-specific analyses (Table 5, Table 6) show that this wage difference due to position does not exist in Tennessee for male or for female pharmacists individually, but did exist overall (Table 4).
Another interesting finding from the state analyses that included gender as a factor is that only pharmacists practicing in Illinois have a higher hourly wage due to more years in practice and holding an advanced degree (Table 4). The results of the analyses by gender and state showed that this difference in wage due to years in practice was only significant for female pharmacists. Female pharmacists in Illinois who had been in practice 11-20 years made $2.67 more per hour than female pharmacists who had 10 years or less in practice, and females with more than 20 years in practice made $4.65 more per hour in Illinois and $2.51 more in Iowa. These results illustrate the importance of analyzing data at the state and gender level. The results of the multiple regression analysis that included gender as a variable gave the impression that greater wages for increased experience were true for all pharmacists in Illinois; however, the results from the gender-specific regressions allow for the correct interpretation that only female pharmacists in Illinois received higher wages for more work experience.
Other factors that should be considered in future wage surveys are the effects of pharmacist-provided medication therapy management services. If a larger percentage of women decide to provide these services as an alternative to traditional community or institutional pharmacy practice, and if pharmacy employers resultantly compensate pharmacists differently for providing medication therapy management versus dispensing services, wage disparities due to work activities may emerge.
7. Limitations
This study was based on data from only 6 states; therefore, the results are not representative of the wage differentials in every state. It is possible that wage disparities due to gender may exist in other states that were not surveyed. Additionally, this study is limited by the accuracy of self-reported data. Although the response rates for each of the states were over 35% for all states except Florida (17.1% response rate), the data may not be truly representative of all pharmacists in each state.
Additionally, although survey respondents were asked to mark “all that apply” in regard to their education level, the researchers decided to limit the analysis to the 3 categories of B.S., PharmD only, and “other.” The PharmD category included those with entry-level PharmDs and postbaccalaureate PharmDs. Therefore, it was not possible to determine if higher wages were paid based on the type of PharmD degree.
One other factor that could also have had an effect on the difference in wages was the larger percentage of males who worked 30 or more paid hours. Although the results of this analysis were not reported in this study, there was a significant difference in the number of full-time pharmacists in each state. It is possible that the combination of having more male pharmacists in management positions and a larger percentage of male pharmacists working full time may have been an additional factor that accounts for the difference in gender wages.
This study did not report the contribution of interaction terms in the models. Two-way interaction terms with gender and the other variables were conducted; however, none of the interaction terms were significant. Given the lack of significance of the interaction terms and the difficulty of expressing a monetary difference based on the main effects of the model, the researchers reported only the main effects model.
8. Conclusion
The results of this multistate wage survey of full-time employees suggest that while wage disparities due to gender might seem to exist at the multistate level, they do not appear to exist in the 6 states surveyed; however, it is still important to continue to conduct state salary surveys. These state wage surveys provide important information about the factors that impact U.S. pharmacists. Continued collection of wage data would allow for identification of the affect of various factors such as gender, terminal degree, or years in practice on wages over time.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the various graduate students from each university who helped with the survey distribution and data entry process. The corresponding author would like to specifically thank Mr. LaMarcus Wingate, Ms. Thananan Rattanachotphanit, Ms. Onanong Waleekhachonloet, Ms. Crescent Rowell, and Ms. Brenda Scott for their assistance on this project. This study is a result of the Pharmacist Workforce Research Consortium.
References
- The Equal Pay Act of 1963. (Pub. L. 88-38). Available at: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/epa.html. Accessed 23.02.06.
- . First-job surprises for college graduates: an exploratory investigation. J Coll Stud Dev. 1998;29:441–448
- . The relative importance of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards as determinants of work satisfaction. Sociol Q. 1985;26:365–385
- . The pharmacy student population: applications received 1997-98; degree conferred 1997-98; fall 1998 enrollments. Am J Pharm Educ. 1999;(suppl):57S–67S
- National Pharmacist Workforce Survey: 2000. Washington DC: Pharmacy Manpower Project Inc; 2000;Available at: www.aacp.org. Accessed 23.02.06.
- . How many pharmacists are in our future? The bureau of health professions projects supply to 2020. J Manag Care Pharm. 2000;6(6):474–482
- . Women in pharmacy. Contemp Pharm Pract. 1981;4(1):16–21
- . Drug information pharmacists at health-care facilities, universities, and pharmaceutical companies. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1992;49:1121–1130
- . Salary survey of ambulatory care clinical pharmacists. Pharmacotherapy. 1997;17(3):565–568
- . Pharmacists' work activities in two Midwestern states. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2001;41:760–762
- 1999 Minnesota pharmacist compensation and salary survey, part 1: pharmacists' hourly wages and benefits. Minn Pharm. 1999;53(6):13–15, 24, 26–28
- . 1999 compensation and labor survey for Ohio pharmacists. Ohio Pharm. 1999;48(12):12–17
- . Factors affecting the salaries of pharmacy directors in large hospitals. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1983;40:591–597
- . Effect of postgraduate training on the careers of university of California Pharm.D. graduates. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1987;44:536–543
- . Use of a path model to analyze factors that influence hospital pharmacists' salaries. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1989;46:77–83
- . Exclusive R.Ph. Salary survey: cashing in. Drug Top. 2003;Available at: http://www.drugtopics.com/drugtopics/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=110832. Accessed 23.02.06
- . Flying high. Drug Top. 2005;Available at: http://www.drugtopics.com/drugtopics/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=151425. Accessed 23.02.06
- . Disequilibrium and human capital in pharmacy labor markets: evidence from four states. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2003;43:702–709
- . Pharmacists' compensation and work patterns, 1990-91. Am Pharm. 1992;NS32:38–45
- . Gender and wage earnings differences among pharmacists. J Pharm Finance Econ Policy. 2004;13:5–32
- . 2003 Wisconsin pharmacist—salary survey—compensation, hours worked, and fringe benefits for practicing pharmacists. J Pharm Soc Wisconsin. 2004;(May-Jun):58–64
PII: S1551-7411(06)00070-2
doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2006.07.006
© 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Volume 2, Issue 3 , Pages 370-387, September 2006
