Free
Correspondence  |   June 2013
Is 64 the New 57? Probably Not!
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • (Accepted for publication February 28, 2013.)
    (Accepted for publication February 28, 2013.)×
Article Information
Correspondence
Correspondence   |   June 2013
Is 64 the New 57? Probably Not!
Anesthesiology 06 2013, Vol.118, 1483-1484. doi:10.1097/ALN.0b013e318291c32b
Anesthesiology 06 2013, Vol.118, 1483-1484. doi:10.1097/ALN.0b013e318291c32b
To the Editor:
In their interesting and important report of a national survey of older anesthesiologists, Orkin et al.1  note that “Retirement age has been increasing, from a mean age of 57.4 yr among anesthesiologists who retired before 1985 to 63.9 yr among those who retired in the period 1995–1999 (r = 0.28; P value less than 0.001).” The title of the accompanying editorial2  asks “Is 64 the New 57?”
We believe that the retirement age of only 57 yr, reported for those who retired before 1985, is most likely incorrect. The survey included only physicians who were aged 50–79 yr in the spring of 2006; that is, anyone who would have been older than 58 yr in 1985 was excluded from the sample population. So, no surprise that for those doctors in the surveyed group, who had retired before 1985, the mean age was 57.4 yr. Clearly, a broader sample population, which included anesthesiologists up to 90 yr of age, would be needed to estimate retirement age more accurately for those who retired before 1985.
Richard A. Steinbrook, M.D.,* Marcia L. Weinstein, Ph.D. *Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. rsteinbr@bidmc.harvard.edu
References
Orkin, FK, McGinnis, SL, Forte, GJ, Peterson, MD, Schubert, A, Katz, JD, Berry, AJ, Cohen, NA, Holzman, RS, Jackson, SH, Martin, DE, Garfield, JM United States anesthesiologists over 50: Retirement decision making and workforce implications.. Anesthesiology. (2012). 117 953–63 [Article] [PubMed]
Turner, JA, Cole, DJ Baby boom or bust … Is 64 the new 57?. Anesthesiology. (2012). 117 931–3 [Article] [PubMed]