FICO scores and borrowing patterns among hematology-oncologists compared to other medicine subspecialties: A cross-sectional analysis.

Abstract

e23148 Background: The average cost for tuition, fees, and living expenses exceeds $275,000 at 50% of U.S. medical schools. In addition, Hematologist-Oncologists pursue 3 years of additional training after completing 3 years of residency, all at a fraction of their projected income. Virtually no data exists on the credit profiles of Hematology-Oncology borrowers and their reasons for borrowing. In the first analysis of its kind, we assessed the credit profiles of Hematology-Oncology borrowers by FICO score and reasons for borrowing, comparing these against internal medicine and medicine subspecialty residents and attendings. Methods: This cross-sectional study was based on FICO scores from 1,048 trainee and attending borrowers from 2019-2024 sourced from a privately held physician and dentist financial services company in compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). Borrowers applied for loans from October 1, 2019, to January 4, 2024. Descriptive analyses were performed to characterize the mean borrower FICO score based on status (trainee vs. attending), years out from training, and reasons for loan requests. FICO score excludes age, employment history, gender, location, income, marital status, national origin, and race to protect customers from potentially discriminatory credit decisions. The FICO score pulls data from the three credit bureaus (Equifax, Experian, and Transunion), weighing the following categories when being calculated: payment history (35%), amounts owed (30%), length of credit history (15%), recent credit applications (10%), and credit mix (10%). Results: The mean FICO score of the hematology-oncologists was 758.3 (n = 17), 37.9 points higher than the pooled medicine subspecialties (n = 67), and 25.7 points higher than internal medicine attendings (n = 464). These differences were statistically significant. Hematology-oncologists had significantly higher FICO scores than the internal medicine residents (p < 0.005), with a mean difference of 72.2 points (n = 500). The most common reason for borrowing among hematologist-oncologists was home improvement, while the other groups stated debt consolidation as the most prevalent reason for borrowing. Conclusions: There is a statistically significant difference of 72.2 points between the FICO scores of Internal Medicine and Hematology-Oncology physicians, suggesting that an increase in perceived creditworthiness mirrors an increase in salary. Though other specialties in medicine have similar increases in income, they do not follow the same trend as Hematology-Oncology. Further investigation is needed to elucidate the cause of this correlation. Additionally, further comparison between additional subspecialties that practice predominantly clinical medicine should be pursued.