Money Cuts, Lower Interest in Rad/Onc? Better Chances?

[medsRus]

With the cuts in radiation oncology, will securing rad/onc residencies be easier? Has anyone been deterred from entering this field? Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[radonc]

i think your question should read:

With the proposed cuts in radiation oncology, will securing rad/onc residencies be easier? Has anyone been deterred from entering this field in the one month the proposed cuts were released? Thanks!

here are some take home points:
the cuts are only proposed
and only in the past month

if there is any student out there who would base a life decision on a proposal, please do not go into radiation oncology. in real life, we use level 1 evidence to support our treatment recommendations, not hearsay.

 

[medsRus]

Federal bills, a zealot president, and public support are not "hearsay". Looks like rad/onc will be one of the financially worst hit fields in medicine. I genuine hope that prospective rad/onc physicians will consider this in their long term planning and residency choices. After all, those who have a decent chance of matching in this field have at least some part of their brain working.

 

[Gfunk6]

Dude, I realize that you want to match in Rad Onc badly. But this cheap attempt at scare tactics is beneath you.

 

[medsRus]

Dude, I realize that you want to match in Rad Onc badly. But this cheap attempt at scare tactics is beneath you.

Sure, I inquired about this field because it interests me. I think everyone should follow their passion. Some probably were following the money in rad/onc, and those individuals should think again. That's all... Where's the scare tactic... the truth, yes, can be horrific. Bye.

 

[OTN]

Sure, I inquired about this field because it interests me. I think everyone should follow their passion. Some probably were following the money in rad/onc, and those individuals should think again. That's all... Where's the scare tactic... the truth, yes, can be horrific. Bye.

The cuts proposed this year affect technical fees/income MUCH more than professional fees/income. It's my understanding professional fees will be affected little, if at all. A private practicioner can easily clear the $500k mark on professional fees alone, even with a so-so busy private practice. Easily. Regardless, there are very few private practice jobs availble in desirable locations which would give a young radiation oncologist an opportunity to buy into/recoup the technical component of billing. Given the uncertain political/economic environment, buying into the technical component might not be a wise financial decision anyway.

Every year drastic cuts are proposed to several specialities. This year radonc was included. Every year lobbying groups go crazy, and the proposed cuts are usually much higher than the end result.

In my opinion, cutting technical payments makes sense. At the time they were implemented, IMRT was a very difficult and time-consuming process, and the reimbursement reflected this. Patient through-put was nowhere NEAR what it is now; ask the urorad practices treating 50+ prostate patients a day.

40%, however? Far too high, as it doesn't adequately value capital investments which were made with a certain amortization in mind. Will never happen. The end cut will likely be in the 15-20% range. What does this mean? It means those radiation oncologists who own their machines and were making low-seven figure salaries may find themselves making high-six figure salaries.

Hardly horrific.

Posts in this forum about radonc being a "dying field" because of these proposed cuts demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of:

- current private practice reimbursement structure
- the true income of private practice radiation oncologists
- the CMS political process

T

p.s. Given the aging population and the upcoming oncologist shortage, it's important to keep in mind that any potential cuts may be more than offset by increases in volume.

 

[G'ville Nole]

The cuts proposed this year affect technical fees/income MUCH more than professional fees/income. It's my understanding professional fees will be affected little, if at all. A private practicioner can easily clear the $500k mark on professional fees alone, even with a so-so busy private practice. Easily. Regardless, there are very few private practice jobs availble in desirable locations which would give a young radiation oncologist an opportunity to buy into/recoup the technical component of billing. Given the uncertain political/economic environment, buying into the technical component might not be a wise financial decision anyway.

Every year drastic cuts are proposed to several specialities. This year radonc was included. Every year lobbying groups go crazy, and the proposed cuts are usually much higher than the end result.

In my opinion, cutting technical payments makes sense. At the time they were implemented, IMRT was a very difficult and time-consuming process, and the reimbursement reflected this. Patient through-put was nowhere NEAR what it is now; ask the urorad practices treating 50+ prostate patients a day.

40%, however? Far too high, as it doesn't adequately value capital investments which were made with a certain amortization in mind. Will never happen. The end cut will likely be in the 15-20% range. What does this mean? It means those radiation oncologists who own their machines and were making low-seven figure salaries may find themselves making high-six figure salaries.

Hardly horrific.

Posts in this forum about radonc being a "dying field" because of these proposed cuts demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of:

- current private practice reimbursement structure
- the true income of private practice radiation oncologists
- the CMS political process

T

p.s. Given the aging population and the upcoming oncologist shortage, it's important to keep in mind that any potential cuts may be more than offset by increases in volume.

+1. Reports of our death are greatly exaggerated.