- Joined
- Dec 18, 2015
- Messages
- 3,216
- Reaction score
- 4,930
Planning for Tsunami:
The Growing Oversupply of Radiation Oncologists in the U.S.
Has rad onc always had oversupply agita?! Maybe so.
I'm not going to spend a ton of time dissecting this and will instead let it (mostly) speak for itself. A "time capsule" from Daniel Flynn circa 1997. A few things I did notice...
First, Flynn attempted to calculate new patients per rad onc per year. This can be calculated two ways. First, you could determine what percentage of the approximately 1.8 million people per year who get cancer will get RT for their diagnosis upfront. That proportion is about 30% i.e. 550-600K per year (numerous peer reviewed data points on this). Second, you could just say "How many people per year get RT in the U.S.?" This is a bigger number. It's about 1.1 million per year; there are almost no peer-reviewed data on this however. (NB: there are about 5500 rad oncs in the U.S. now.) I believe Flynn is looking at the first example, not the second...
Re-citing my original chart, and adding in "Flynn data"... there's a definite trend (the yellow is new patients per rad onc)
Keep in mind this is not total number of patients irradiated per year per rad onc (in yellow). But the "new patients per year" is still a valuable metric I think. Again, "new" means recently diagnosed and getting RT as front-line therapy. The ~1.1 million a year getting RT will include a lot of retreats, ie palliative patients etc. If you use this as the numerator in the ratio (1.06 million RT patients per year amongst 5500 rad oncs), it's ~193 pts/rad onc/year.
Also, please read all the "utilization rate" data he talks about; if true, the utilization rate of RT has fallen SUBSTANTIALLY since the 1990s. No one knew the word "hypofractionation" back then, but he touches on "What would happen if fraction numbers drop?"
Finally, here's a cut/paste of a section where Flynn was particularly prescient IMHO:
Some of the dangers of oversupply are as follows:
The Growing Oversupply of Radiation Oncologists in the U.S.
Has rad onc always had oversupply agita?! Maybe so.
I'm not going to spend a ton of time dissecting this and will instead let it (mostly) speak for itself. A "time capsule" from Daniel Flynn circa 1997. A few things I did notice...
First, Flynn attempted to calculate new patients per rad onc per year. This can be calculated two ways. First, you could determine what percentage of the approximately 1.8 million people per year who get cancer will get RT for their diagnosis upfront. That proportion is about 30% i.e. 550-600K per year (numerous peer reviewed data points on this). Second, you could just say "How many people per year get RT in the U.S.?" This is a bigger number. It's about 1.1 million per year; there are almost no peer-reviewed data on this however. (NB: there are about 5500 rad oncs in the U.S. now.) I believe Flynn is looking at the first example, not the second...
Re-citing my original chart, and adding in "Flynn data"... there's a definite trend (the yellow is new patients per rad onc)
Keep in mind this is not total number of patients irradiated per year per rad onc (in yellow). But the "new patients per year" is still a valuable metric I think. Again, "new" means recently diagnosed and getting RT as front-line therapy. The ~1.1 million a year getting RT will include a lot of retreats, ie palliative patients etc. If you use this as the numerator in the ratio (1.06 million RT patients per year amongst 5500 rad oncs), it's ~193 pts/rad onc/year.
Also, please read all the "utilization rate" data he talks about; if true, the utilization rate of RT has fallen SUBSTANTIALLY since the 1990s. No one knew the word "hypofractionation" back then, but he touches on "What would happen if fraction numbers drop?"
Finally, here's a cut/paste of a section where Flynn was particularly prescient IMHO:
Some of the dangers of oversupply are as follows:
- It is likely that our specialty will be increasingly selected by less qualified medical school graduates, while more highly qualified graduates may choose specialties with better future practice opportunities. Programs that don't match with their choices of resident applicants will readily fill vacancies with less qualified candidates due to the increasing number of medical school, osteopathic school, and foreign medical graduates that total over 22,000 per year, nearly double that of twenty years ago.
- Marginal practices, economically inefficient and with diminished technical capabilities, will be created. These facilities will have marginal staffing such as part-time physics (once/week) and diminished quality assurance. For example, two marginal competing centers, serving the same population area, may each treat for a half-day because there are not enough patients to keep them treating at full capacity. This is economically inefficient with a patient volume that would support one center being divided between two centers. Overhead-including the building, accelerator, simulator, service contracts, and personnel -is double. The cost of health care delivery is much greater. Manpower oversupply will encourage unnecessary marginal centers to be built because of readily available physicians to staff them in return for low compensation . Some of these marginal centers might be run by medical oncologists with the radiation oncologists as their employees.
- Many practices will struggle to compete for patients and will be under great economic pressure not to refer complex cases to tertiary centers. The volume of patients at some tertiary centers will drop. Academic centers, non-academic regional centers, and cooperative trials will suffer as a result of fewer patients.
- Some hospitals may close their medical staff and cancel the contract with the existing fee-for service radiation oncologists, put them on salary, and take a significant portion of the physician's professional collections in addition to the technical component that they already collect. If the physicians resist, they would be replaced by those readily available in an oversupply environment.
- Some academic centers will seek to acquire existing community-based practices. This will be done either by competing for contracts up for renewal with the practitioners already practicing at the facility or, in some cases, the larger academic medical center purchasing the smaller community hospital. In either case, some private practitioners may lose their practice in favor of younger practitioners hired at low compensation to staff the academic satellite.
- With an increased number of practitioners and radiation oncology facilities, the productivity of some facilities will drop. There will be a tendency for some to treat patients who might best not be treated, or to increase the number of treatment fractions in patients who might otherwise have been prescribed fewer fractions. This effect will increase the cost of health care and further stimulate other reimbursement models, such as capitation, to move more rapidly into non-capitated regions of the country.
- An increasing number of graduating residents will be under-employed (unemployed or involuntarily employed part-time). Some graduating residents will be locked out of the workforce. This is already happening in Anesthesiology.