Protons are blowing Rad Onc's boat out the CMS water

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members don't see this ad :)
IAmTheWallnerus said:
Someone calculates or quotes a number from published data and someone else says "This is just an illusion." This is not the full picture. These numbers are low, because my feelings tell me so. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

I'm tired of all the digging. Every time somebody digs it's like "Whoa these vetted and published numbers, and multiplication/division as mathematical operators, can't be right!" In theory ASTRO should be digging and telling what's what. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of what you said but if you scroll up just one post from yours you can see that those calculations didn’t include all of the numbers. Maybe you are a highly motivated person and want to crunch the numbers.
 
ramsesthenice said:
This is for UNC. Duke applied for a CON a few years back. I don't know if anything happened with that but it is conceivable that the Durham/Raleigh/CH area could have 2 proton centers in the near(ish) future.
Click to expand...

Literally says Levine Cancer Institute and Atrium Health my dude/dudette.

This is Charlotte/SERO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
evilbooyaa said:
Literally says Levine Cancer Institute and Atrium Health my dude/dudette.

This is Charlotte/SERO.
Click to expand...
Yep. That is what one gets for not even clicking the link.

Point remains. Lots o' protons headed to the Carolinas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
This is from U Penn's price transparency. The example here is a 30 fraction IMRT Medicare case for a given generic diagnosis (no IGRT) versus the same case treated in 30 fractions with commercial protons or commercial IMRT. The "average" is not what you may think. It just means that out of, say, 20 commercial payors, this is the "average" of all 20. Maybe 90% of their commercial payor mix is the "max," but that would not skew the "average" if that makes sense. So even with price transparency you still don't have a great idea of what centers are making without payor mix data. Maybe they get the "average" once a year and the "max" a thousand times a year... who knows.

That said...

For Medicare, Penn will get about $22,000.
For the same case treated the same way from their best private insurance payor they will get $249,000.
(This is about a 11x price difference.)
For the "average" payor, and "average" IMRT case, they'll get $78,000 (still a nice profit margin).
For the same case treated with protons from their best private insurance payor they will get $480,000.
(This is about a 22x price difference.)

I don't know if this is abuse or not, but it at least feels like heavy petting. A quarter million for a "standard" course of IMRT, and a half million for a "standard" course of protons. Awesome. In essence, an "academic proton physician" could theoretically cover his entire salary and professional overhead with just two commercial proton patients per year (or 5-10 commercial IMRTs).

mr09x9c.png
 
Last edited:
  • Wow
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
TheWallnerus said:
This is from U Penn's price transparency. The example here is a 30 fraction IMRT Medicare case for a given generic diagnosis (no IGRT) versus the same case treated in 30 fractions with commercial protons or commercial IMRT. The "average" is not what you may think. It just means that out of, say, 20 commercial payors, this is the "average" of all 20. Maybe 90% of their commercial payor mix is the "max," but that would not skew the "average" if that makes sense. So even with price transparency you still don't have a great idea of what centers are making without payor mix data. Maybe they get the "average" once a year and the "max" a thousand times a year... who knows.

That said...

For Medicare, Penn will get about $22,000.
For the same case treated the same way from their best private insurance payor they will get $249,000.
(This is about a 11x price difference.)
For the "average" payor, and "average" IMRT case, they'll get $78,000 (still a nice profit margin).
For the same case treated with protons from their best private insurance payor they will get $480,000.
(This is about a 22x price difference.)

I don't know if this is abuse or not, but it at least feels like heavy petting. A quarter million for a "standard" course of IMRT, and a half million for a "standard" course of protons. Awesome. In essence, an "academic proton physician" could theoretically cover his entire salary and professional overhead with just two commercial proton patients per year (or 5-10 commercial IMRTs).

mr09x9c.png
Click to expand...
It is frank theft from vulnerable cancer pts and their families and employers. (At least credit penn for being transparent. I can’t imagine the bills from some of the other players) It is technically legal, but that has no bearing on the ethics here. Of course, SDNers are the misanthropes and “uncivilized” players, not those involved in defrauding our country.

During hurricanes and natural disasters, price gouging water and gas etc is illegal- just saying.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
RickyScott said:
It is frank theft from vulnerable cancer pts and their families and employers. (At least credit penn for being transparent. I can’t imagine the bills from some of the other players) It is technically legal, but that has no bearing on the ethics here. Of course, SDNers are the misanthropes and “uncivilized” players, not those involved in defrauding our country.

During hurricanes and natural disasters, price gouging water and gas etc is illegal- just saying.
Click to expand...
But to pay $500K for protons at the proton center versus $50K for 9 weeks of IMRT at the abusive freestanding center... I mean it's the obvious decision. Right?

6YXZeRg.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
TheWallnerus said:
This is from U Penn's price transparency. The example here is a 30 fraction IMRT Medicare case for a given generic diagnosis (no IGRT) versus the same case treated in 30 fractions with commercial protons or commercial IMRT. The "average" is not what you may think. It just means that out of, say, 20 commercial payors, this is the "average" of all 20. Maybe 90% of their commercial payor mix is the "max," but that would not skew the "average" if that makes sense. So even with price transparency you still don't have a great idea of what centers are making without payor mix data. Maybe they get the "average" once a year and the "max" a thousand times a year... who knows.

That said...

For Medicare, Penn will get about $22,000.
For the same case treated the same way from their best private insurance payor they will get $249,000.
(This is about a 11x price difference.)
For the "average" payor, and "average" IMRT case, they'll get $78,000 (still a nice profit margin).
For the same case treated with protons from their best private insurance payor they will get $480,000.
(This is about a 22x price difference.)

I don't know if this is abuse or not, but it at least feels like heavy petting. A quarter million for a "standard" course of IMRT, and a half million for a "standard" course of protons. Awesome. In essence, an "academic proton physician" could theoretically cover his entire salary and professional overhead with just two commercial proton patients per year (or 5-10 commercial IMRTs).

mr09x9c.png
Click to expand...

Well that explains why UPenn is opening a proton center in rural Lancaster County.

www.lancastergeneralhealth.org

Proton Therapy - Penn Medicine Lancaster General Health

Learn more about the first Proton Therapy Center coming to Central Pennsylvania in 2022
www.lancastergeneralhealth.org
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
This from the folks that also published on a need for an pre approved community palliative care network to work against unscrupulous over fractionation. What a joke.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 8 users
Conn Seannery said:
Looks like ASTRO is finally condemning this.

Click to expand...

I won’t say this directly to a proton MD but I will say it in general to the investors, admins, chairmen, etc, overseeing proton therapy.

It’s like the scene in the Big Short where Mark Baum meets the CDO manager in the sushi restaurant and the CDO mgr says “You think I’m a parasite don’t you? But apparently society values me very much.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Man, Penn's proton program continues to be doing very well indeed
 
seper said:
Man, Penn's proton program continues to be doing very well indeed
Click to expand...
Until each and every other major academic medical center releases their charges, I think it's safe to assume every one of them are doing precisely what UPenn is doing.

Renders the Choosing Wisely/Financial Toxicity academic crowd completely powerless in the whole discussion, and gives significant credence to the idea that perhaps these academic institutions are promoting such work as a smokescreen to avoid scrutiny of their abhorrent practices.
 
  • Like
  • Hmm
Reactions: 10 users
I will never understand insurance carriers. I will never understand how 20 min after having to put together a 3D plan for comparison to get coverage for IMRT for a definitive prostate case (which I have to do now that evicore is covering prior authorizations in our area) I can find out places are actually recovering ludicrous charges for proton therapy without a single ounce of positive toxicity data. Why are any payors shelling out for this?

And anyone who is surprised by the charges they are requesting hasn't been paying attention. Politics is politics in government and academics. You may remember a prominent candidate bragging that cheating the tax code makes them smart. None of our "leaders" are any different. My initial gut instinct was along the lines of don't hate the player, hate the game. But then I remembered a lot of these people are actively shaming others for not choosing wisely :mad:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 users
ramsesthenice said:
I will never understand insurance carriers. I will never understand how 20 min after having to put together a 3D plan for comparison to get coverage for IMRT for a definitive prostate case (which I have to do now that evicore is covering prior authorizations in our area) I can find out places are actually recovering ludicrous charges for proton therapy without a single ounce of positive toxicity data. Why are any payors shelling out for this?

And anyone who is surprised by the charges they are requesting hasn't been paying attention. Politics is politics in government and academics. You may remember a prominent candidate bragging that cheating the tax code makes them smart. None of our "leaders" are any different. My initial gut instinct was along the lines of don't hate the player, hate the game. But then I remembered a lot of these people are actively shaming others for not choosing wisely :mad:
Click to expand...
these high end insurances are acting as middlemen/transaction managers. They take 10% or so of the transaction, so high prices are in their interests. Often the “premium” insurances are for large unions- teachers or government workers. For risked based plans like Medicare advantage, payors are very cost conscious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
ramsesthenice said:
I will never understand insurance carriers. I will never understand how 20 min after having to put together a 3D plan for comparison to get coverage for IMRT for a definitive prostate case (which I have to do now that evicore is covering prior authorizations in our area) I can find out places are actually recovering ludicrous charges for proton therapy without a single ounce of positive toxicity data. Why are any payors shelling out for this?

And anyone who is surprised by the charges they are requesting hasn't been paying attention. Politics is politics in government and academics. You may remember a prominent candidate bragging that cheating the tax code makes them smart. None of our "leaders" are any different. My initial gut instinct was along the lines of don't hate the player, hate the game. But then I remembered a lot of these people are actively shaming others for not choosing wisely :mad:
Click to expand...
RickyScott said:
these high end insurances are acting as middlemen/transaction managers. They take 10% or so of the transaction, so high prices are in their interests. Often the “premium” insurances are for large unions- teachers or government workers. For risked based plans like Medicare advantage, payors are very cost conscious.
Click to expand...
RickyScott is exactly right and it's one of the most confoundingly counterintuitive facts-of-life in modern medicine IMHO.

It’s all farce and façade. It behooves the academic leaders for all of us to fraction shame on SDN and fight with our fellow colleagues across the street while the academics garb themselves in their Pharisaical hypofractionation but make five to ten times as much. Sanctimony is a thrilling emotion when it’s making you rich! The insurance companies get to look good by denying reimbursement to the Joe Shmoes while simultaneously shelling out huge sums to the academic and large hospital meccas. When the insurance pays out the insurance guys get bonuses. Every time a proton place gets $500k for protons, the executive at the proton place AND the insurance executive gets a bonus. The really grind-your-gears part: some of these insurances can pay the academic places so much because they vigorously control cost in the community. Community cancer centers "subsidize" academic places! Wild stuff.

"For risked based plans like Medicare advantage, payors are very cost conscious"... you ain't kidding.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 5 users
TheWallnerus said:
RickyScott is exactly right and it's one of the most confoundingly counterintuitive facts-of-life in modern medicine IMHO.

It’s all farce and façade. It behooves the academic leaders for all of us to fraction shame on SDN and fight with our fellow colleagues across the street while the academics garb themselves in their Pharisaical hypofractionation but make five to ten times as much. Sanctimony is a thrilling emotion when it’s making you rich! The insurance companies get to look good by denying reimbursement to the Joe Shmoes while simultaneously shelling out huge sums to the academic and large hospital meccas. When the insurance pays out the insurance guys get bonuses. Every time a proton place gets $500k for protons, the executive at the proton place AND the insurance executive gets a bonus. The really grind-your-gears part: some of these insurances can pay the academic places so much because they vigorously control cost in the community. Community cancer centers "subsidize" academic places! Wild stuff.

"For risked based plans like Medicare advantage, payors are very cost conscious"... you ain't kidding.
Click to expand...
I feel like I need to shower for even being a part of this. Yuck.
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: 3 users
RickyScott said:
these high end insurances are acting as middlemen/transaction managers. They take 10% or so of the transaction, so high prices are in their interests. Often the “premium” insurances are for large unions- teachers or government workers. For risked based plans like Medicare advantage, payors are very cost conscious.
Click to expand...
This was discussed in a recent Freakonomics podcast on why U.S. healthcare costs are broken. During the development of Obamacare, a group of policymakers and healthcare economists got together to hash out new policy.

One point of contention was the idea of a cap on insurance: for every $1 we pay to insurance, $0.80 would need to go to healthcare costs. The policymakers felt like this was necessary to rein in costs. The healthcare economists worried about perverse incentives, thinking that if you cap out profit in this direction, insurance would respond by seeking out more expensive procedures, higher volume, etc. Over the past ten years this prediction has seemed to be correct.

I found it so fascinating that this error was foreseen, but for political reasons (not so much partisanship as much as "has to make sense to the average American, gotta punish those terrible insurance firms everyone hates") Obamacare ended up codifying a policy that probably did more harm than good to the average American consumer.

One explanation of this I found online:

www.aeaweb.org

Capping health insurers’ profit margins

Did Obamacare regulations bring down premiums? Probably not.
www.aeaweb.org
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
wandering star said:
This was discussed in a recent Freakonomics podcast on why U.S. healthcare costs are broken. During the development of Obamacare, a group of policymakers and healthcare economists got together to hash out new policy.

One point of contention was the idea of a cap on insurance: for every $1 we pay to insurance, $0.80 would need to go to healthcare costs. The policymakers felt like this was necessary to rein in costs. The healthcare economists worried about perverse incentives, thinking that if you cap out profit in this direction, insurance would respond by seeking out more expensive procedures, higher volume, etc. Over the past ten years this prediction has seemed to be correct.

I found it so fascinating that this error was foreseen, but for political reasons (not so much partisanship as much as "has to make sense to the average American, gotta punish those terrible insurance firms everyone hates") Obamacare ended up codifying a policy that probably did more harm than good to the average American consumer.

One explanation of this I found online:

www.aeaweb.org

Capping health insurers’ profit margins

Did Obamacare regulations bring down premiums? Probably not.
www.aeaweb.org
Click to expand...
To steal from Tom Eichler, healthcare reform was a protean challenge.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
wandering star said:
This was discussed in a recent Freakonomics podcast on why U.S. healthcare costs are broken. During the development of Obamacare, a group of policymakers and healthcare economists got together to hash out new policy.

One point of contention was the idea of a cap on insurance: for every $1 we pay to insurance, $0.80 would need to go to healthcare costs. The policymakers felt like this was necessary to rein in costs. The healthcare economists worried about perverse incentives, thinking that if you cap out profit in this direction, insurance would respond by seeking out more expensive procedures, higher volume, etc. Over the past ten years this prediction has seemed to be correct.

I found it so fascinating that this error was foreseen, but for political reasons (not so much partisanship as much as "has to make sense to the average American, gotta punish those terrible insurance firms everyone hates") Obamacare ended up codifying a policy that probably did more harm than good to the average American consumer.

One explanation of this I found online:

www.aeaweb.org

Capping health insurers’ profit margins

Did Obamacare regulations bring down premiums? Probably not.
www.aeaweb.org
Click to expand...
Yup- and part of the reason I post here. Insurance company most commonly acting as a "middleman/transaction managers" for most plans with the employer/union paying the expenses. (Insurances love to be out of the "risk business")

Therefore, the insurance co motivated to "negotiate" highest possible costs/prices. As Vinay Prassad said- if you can have only one slice of pizza, you would want the largest possible pizza. In radonc that means large centers with absurd negotiated prices, who then virtue signal about hypofract/sbrt for competitive advantage (where they probably negotiated the highest prices)
freakonomics.com

How to Fix the Hot Mess of U.S. Healthcare - Freakonomics

How to Fix the Hot Mess of U.S. Healthcare - Freakonomics
freakonomics.com
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
RickyScott said:
Yup- and part of the reason I post here. Insurance company most commonly acting as a "middleman/transaction managers" for most plans with the employer/union paying the expenses. (Insurances love to be out of the "risk business")

Therefore, the insurance co motivated to "negotiate" highest possible costs/prices. As Vinay Prassad said- if you can have only one slice of pizza, you would want the largest possible pizza. In radonc that means large centers with absurd negotiated prices, who then virtue signal about hypofract/sbrt for competitive advantage (where they probably negotiated the highest prices)
freakonomics.com

How to Fix the Hot Mess of U.S. Healthcare - Freakonomics

How to Fix the Hot Mess of U.S. Healthcare - Freakonomics
freakonomics.com
Click to expand...
From a utilitarian philosophical perspective, there is a price point (that has long been past) where the treating doctor is causing more harm than good for society. ie. by treating cancer patients at ultra high rates, they are making the world a worse place. Doing harm by showing up at work, but Dont get me wrong- if I had no alternative, I would be doing this as well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
wandering star said:
This was discussed in a recent Freakonomics podcast on why U.S. healthcare costs are broken. During the development of Obamacare, a group of policymakers and healthcare economists got together to hash out new policy.

One point of contention was the idea of a cap on insurance: for every $1 we pay to insurance, $0.80 would need to go to healthcare costs. The policymakers felt like this was necessary to rein in costs. The healthcare economists worried about perverse incentives, thinking that if you cap out profit in this direction, insurance would respond by seeking out more expensive procedures, higher volume, etc. Over the past ten years this prediction has seemed to be correct.

I found it so fascinating that this error was foreseen, but for political reasons (not so much partisanship as much as "has to make sense to the average American, gotta punish those terrible insurance firms everyone hates") Obamacare ended up codifying a policy that probably did more harm than good to the average American consumer.

One explanation of this I found online:

www.aeaweb.org

Capping health insurers’ profit margins

Did Obamacare regulations bring down premiums? Probably not.
www.aeaweb.org
Click to expand...

Its maddening but this is what happens when we let maldistributions in resources and power fester. They saw an issue but were worried that if they threatened the big boys that the workaround/reprisal would be worse than the initial issue (and they may have been right). No different than trying to legislate big corporations swallowing profits and engaging in aggressive stock buy backs to start improving benefits and pay for low level workers. You can make them but instead of having 10,000 poorly paid workers you will have 5,000 with better pay and 5,000 newly unemployed individuals. Slow moving train wrecks can be the hardest to stop I am afraid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
OTN said:
Until each and every other major academic medical center releases their charges, I think it's safe to assume every one of them are doing precisely what UPenn is doing.

Renders the Choosing Wisely/Financial Toxicity academic crowd completely powerless in the whole discussion, and gives significant credence to the idea that perhaps these academic institutions are promoting such work as a smokescreen to avoid scrutiny of their abhorrent practices.
Click to expand...
As bad as all this sounds, don't miss the forest for the trees- all this proton stuff is a drop in the bucket compared to IO. I know you guys on SDN love self-flagellating with regard to our field, but be fair and realistic to other fields too.

Just. A. Drop. In. The. Bucket. Just dare to imagine how offlabel IO is going to send the world into financial oblivion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
FrostyHammer said:
As bad as all this sounds, don't miss the forest for the trees- all this proton stuff is a drop in the bucket compared to IO. I know you guys on SDN love self-flagellating with regard to our field, but be fair and realistic to other fields too.

Just. A. Drop. In. The. Bucket. Just dare to imagine how offlabel IO is going to send the world into financial oblivion.
Click to expand...
Except those IO guys in academics are busy expanding indications for the private guys, not fraction shaming them while charging multiples of the price they are
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
medgator said:
Except those IO guys in academics are busy expanding indications for the private guys, not fraction shaming them while charging multiples of the price they are
Click to expand...
high captured prices leads to satellite expansion and buyouts of community practices with expanding departments and residencies.

UPenn has Something like 20 satellites, 2 of which have protons under construction.(virtua and Lancaster)
 
Last edited:
  • Dislike
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
medgator said:
Except those IO guys in academics are busy expanding indications for the private guys, not fraction shaming them while charging multiples of the price they are
Click to expand...
The easiest way to expand indication of an IO drug is to give it offlabel.

And we should know better to think that pompous academic radoncs actually care a lick about PPers...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
TheWallnerus said:
$7000 per proton FRACTION. That’s Boardwalk. Makes the good ol IMRT days look like Baltic Ave.
Click to expand...
Just tryna keep food on the table at this point...want me to shill for protons? Ill do it. My employer has a proton center...I dont get a dime more for referring if people are interested but you can be damn sure if the numbers on treat start to slip Ill be the first to hear about it and told in not so subtle terms that if this institution is not healthy then I will be made to suffer as well.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Sad
Reactions: 5 users
RadsWFA1900 said:
Just tryna keep food on the table at this point...want me to shill for protons? Ill do it. My employer has a proton center...I dont get a dime more for referring if people are interested but you can be damn sure if the numbers on treat start to slip Ill be the first to hear about it and told in not so subtle terms that if this institution is not healthy then I will be made to suffer as well.
Click to expand...
Majority of docs- across specialties- work for large systems that“over bill.” What sets radonc apart is the fraction shaming, “choosing wisely” bs, promulgated by the worst price gouging abusers in order to attain a competitive advantage.
When it comes to protons, UPenn and mdacc will even publish Frank propaganda that protons somehow actually improve value. Of course none of their work includes actual commercial negotiated prices.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 9 users
RickyScott said:
Majority of docs- across specialties- work for large systems that“over bill.” What sets radonc apart is the fraction shaming, “choosing wisely” bs, promulgated by the worst price gouging abusers in order to attain a competitive advantage.
When it comes to protons, UPenn and mdacc will even publish Frank propaganda that protons somehow actually improve value. Of course none of their work includes actual commercial negotiated prices.
Click to expand...
"Frank" propaganda:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
SubserviantToABR said:
"Frank" propaganda:
Click to expand...


god I hate proton people, esp MDACC proton ppl, to the point that I’m agreeing with Ralph?……..ugh I’m sick of myself right now

Protons are just not cost effective outside of single room centers

I didn’t tell MDACC to build 10 vaults or whatever they have. Big COI to gaslight and make protons seems amazing….

Why do they feel need to go after IMRT?

Should get ahead in the game by proving your stuff works rather than try to drag rest of us down

By their logic we will not gain protons AND also lose IMRT = widespread unemployment
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
ROforbetterorworse said:
god I hate proton people MDACC proton ppl, to the point that I’m agreeing with Ralph?……..ugh I’m sick of myself right now

Protons are just not cost effective outside of single room centers

I didn’t tell MDACC to build 10 vaults or whatever they have. Big COI to gaslight and make protons seems amazing….

Why do they feel need to go after IMRT?

Should get ahead in the game by proving your stuff works rather than try to drag rest of us down

By their logic we will not gain protons AND also lose IMRT = widespread unemployment
Click to expand...
What hate proton people? Protons are more expensive than IMRT, but both are cheap compared to IO. Infighting doesn’t help any of us.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Lamount said:
What hate proton people? Protons are more expensive than IMRT, but both are cheap compared to IO. Infighting doesn’t help any of us.
Click to expand...
There was a clear therapeutic benefit to IMRT vs 3D with a much lower difference in incremental cost. The proton people have had several years to "show us the money", yet they continue to have relatively nothing
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 4 users
Lamount said:
What hate proton people? Protons are more expensive than IMRT, but both are cheap compared to IO. Infighting doesn’t help any of us.
Click to expand...

I do agree public infighting not good but then again I wouldn’t have any interaction with any of you fine folks since SDN would have no purpose then :rofl:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

Gfunk6
Rad Onc? Burnt Out?
Replies
36
Views
2K
thecarbonionangle
thecarbonionangle
TheWallnerus
Rad onc supervision, the epilogue
Replies
10
Views
1K
elementaryschooleconomics
elementaryschooleconomics
P
Rad Onc oral boards
Replies
10
Views
887
Barcelona PSG
B
U
Why is rad onc not more competitive?
2 3 4 5
Replies
239
Views
11K
fiji128
fiji128
W
ProPublica Picks Protons
2 3
Replies
135
Views
6K
TheWallnerus
TheWallnerus
Top