Employer retirement contributions during graduate medical training could grow to more than $600,000 by retirement age under an illustrative financial model published in The Permanente Journal, highlighting the potential long-term value of early investing for physicians entering the workforce later than most professionals.

In the commentary, researchers modeled retirement savings for a physician beginning residency at age 28 and retiring at age 67 using salary data from the 2024 Association of American Medical Colleges Resident and Fellow Benefits Survey. The analysis was led by Krittika Joshi, MD, of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences/Arkansas Children’s Hospital, and colleagues.

The researchers evaluated 3 representative training durations: 3, 5, and 7 years. Salaries ranged from approximately $66,700 for postgraduate year 1 to $85,900 for postgraduate year 7. The model assumed a 10% employer retirement contribution, which the researchers described as aligning with the upper range of benefits offered by some graduate medical education programs and academic employers. The commentary noted that nationally representative data on retirement matching across sponsoring institutions remain limited.

Two contribution scenarios were modeled:

• employer contributions alone at 10% of salary

• combined employer and trainee contributions of 10% each annually

For a representative 7-year training pathway, total employer contributions were approximately $52,000 in nominal terms.

Researchers modeled projected future values using 3%, 5%, and 7% real annual return assumptions, expressed in 2025 dollars. At a 7% real return, the 10% employer contribution alone was projected to grow to more than $600,000 for physicians completing 7 years of training and to more than $270,000 for physicians completing 3 years of training. When paired with an equivalent 10% trainee contribution, projected retirement savings approached $1.2 million for 7-year programs.

Under the most conservative modeled scenario—a 3% real return—projected savings still reached approximately $350,000 for physicians completing 7 years of training.

The researchers argued that graduate medical education represents a uniquely important period for retirement investing because physicians begin salaried employment later than most workers. Delayed workforce entry may reduce opportunities for long-term compounding during physicians’ highest-growth investment years.

Institutional costs were relatively modest in the model. A 10% employer contribution during a 3-year residency program cost approximately $20,700 in nominal terms but was projected to grow more than 10-fold by retirement under higher-return assumptions.

The commentary also cited broader workforce evidence showing that employer matching is associated with higher participation rates in defined-contribution retirement plans. The researchers suggested that retirement matching during training could encourage earlier saving habits and improve financial literacy among resident physicians.

In addition, the researchers noted potential equity implications. Residents from lower-income backgrounds or those supporting families may be less able to contribute independently during training, potentially widening long-term wealth disparities. Automatic employer contributions not contingent on employee participation could help address that gap, according to the commentary.

The authors also suggested that retirement matching could serve as a recruitment and retention tool, particularly in competitive specialties or high-cost-of-living regions.

The researchers emphasized that the model was illustrative and depended on assumptions, including uninterrupted investing through retirement, full vesting, fixed real return rates, and consistent salary progression. The analysis did not evaluate actual retirement outcomes, program adoption rates, or institutional cost-effectiveness.

“Employer retirement matching during US graduate medical training is an underutilized, high-yield strategy for improving physician financial wellness,” the researchers wrote.

Disclosures: The researchers reported no conflicts of interest and no funding sources. ChatGPT was used to edit the initial manuscript draft for grammar and language; subsequent human edits were made before submission.

Source: The Permanente Journal