Radiation oncology now offered lowest locum rates in "radiology"?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
The situation is dire because even if you took no residents for many years for the entire field, 100s of people would be pumped into job market over next few years, one that is oversupplied by the most conservative estimates. Folding into rads or opening up a med onc pathway would not help many young ROs unless they want to retrain which is hard once you have bought a house, have kids, to go back to “living like a resident”.
We will see a lot of suffering and ruin in the breadlines. The situation is depressing af.

Financial ruin in imminent for mid career physicians in radiation oncology. If your in your late 30's-40s with wife and kids and have already tasted the good life its gonna be hard but the issue is that you can take some pain now and retrain or end up in your 50's and run the risk of getting canned. Guess who hires 50 year olds for non exec positions? Not many people.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The situation is dire because even if you took no residents for many years for the entire field, 100s of people would be pumped into job market over next few years, one that is oversupplied by the most conservative estimates. Folding into rads or opening up a med onc pathway would not help many young ROs unless they want to retrain which is hard once you have bought a house, have kids, to go back to “living like a resident”.
We will see a lot of suffering and ruin in the breadlines. The situation is depressing af.
Folding back into radiology more of a long term solution. Near term future is f’ed no matter what course is taken at this point since we have no alternative means of employment in the medical field.
 
Folding back into radiology more of a long term solution.
As many avenues as possible. If there is one thing the people who entered into peak RO under false pretenses in the last 10 years should have its options (IR, Rads, Oncology)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Members don't see this ad :)
The situation is dire because even if you took no residents for many years for the entire field, 100s of people would be pumped into job market over next few years, one that is oversupplied by the most conservative estimates. Folding into rads or opening up a med onc pathway would not help many young ROs unless they want to retrain which is hard once you have bought a house, have kids, to go back to “living like a resident”.
We will see a lot of suffering and ruin in the breadlines. The situation is depressing af.
Now, if someone were to offer "remote" Fellowships, where I could stay in my current job but have supervised practice prescribing things like Temodar and Tamoxifen leading to some sort of certification (or whatever would satisfy the hungry, gaping maw of the insurance companies for reimbursement and keep the malpractice lawyers from coming for my soul), I would jump on that IMMEDIATELY.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Now, if someone were to offer "remote" Fellowships, where I could stay in my current job but have supervised practice prescribing things like Temodar and Tamoxifen leading to some sort of certification (or whatever would satisfy the hungry, gaping maw of the insurance companies for reimbursement and keep the malpractice lawyers from coming for my soul), I would jump on that IMMEDIATELY.
I’ve always felt that neuro oncology med oncs had it good… 90% of patients receive Temodar, the remaining Avastin when Temodar fails. Sure there may be some who may do PCV but it seems like a good niche.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I’ve always felt that neuro oncology med oncs had it good… 90% of patients receive Temodar, the remaining Avastin when Temodar fails. Sure there may be some who may do PCV but it seems like a good niche.
Assuming you get a lot of primary CNS.
 
Now, if someone were to offer "remote" Fellowships, where I could stay in my current job but have supervised practice prescribing things like Temodar and Tamoxifen leading to some sort of certification (or whatever would satisfy the hungry, gaping maw of the insurance companies for reimbursement and keep the malpractice lawyers from coming for my soul), I would jump on that IMMEDIATELY.
Now wait. Why can't/don't rad oncs do that now

1) It would make the med oncs mad and would ruin referrals
2) It's illegal
3) No rad onc has the entrepreneurial smarts to put in their own in-office pharmacy (p.s. I did!)
4) Insurance companies secretly reimburse docs for prescribing medications (rad oncs not "in the in crowd")
5) National standard is that the only non-med oncs who get to Rx tamoxifen are family practice docs and surgeons and pediatricians... and MAYBE rad oncs, but only to men, if their irradiations fail
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 3 users
You lost me on this one. There are a few rad oncs in the US who prescribe some of their own concurrent oral chemo, who are just rad onc trained. I assumed it was more of a risk management issue.
I prescribed xeloda on one occasion due to special circumstances
 
Members don't see this ad :)
It is a race to the bottom.
Ten years ago average locum rate was 2-3 k a day, which was even more money adjusted for inflation
Today ASTRO says: just be happy you get A job
today Kearney Nebraska says: just be happy we even give you 1.5k a day to live in these BEAUTIFUL mountains
ASTRO: just be happy you get stale bread in the breadline. It could be fried crickets and worms. Hakuna matata! Stay thirsty my friends.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 3 users
That was 10 years ago. To those that say the job market is the same now as it was 5 or 10 years ago, sorry to say, it just ain’t true.
Chairs of places like LIJ or UCLA were not making 1-2 million 10 years ago. When I graduated the average chair salary was on par with the average in private practice. Now lou makes almost 2 million …
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
$1600/day in Kearney NE sounds awfully low to me compared to 10 or even 5 years ago. @scarbrtj ?
Honestly... even two years ago you could fetch $2500 for that location. But that was back when they needed your daily presence in order to collect revenue from the treatments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Honestly... even two years ago you could fetch $2500 for that location. But that was back when they needed your daily presence in order to collect revenue from the treatments.
So even even bother advertising if they don't even need you for that?
 
Yup, earned more as a resident covering as well.

Wow. what century did this happen in? I guess I missed it. I never had any opportunities to cover anything for extra money. no moonlighting at a center or the ED nothing. The one time I did when I was a chief my PD shot it down immediately. What a scam.
 
Wow. what century did this happen in? I guess I missed it. I never had any opportunities to cover anything for extra money. no moonlighting at a center or the ED nothing. The one time I did when I was a chief my PD shot it down immediately. What a scam.
It exists still but seems pretty rare. I personally know maybe 10 people who were able to moonlight in clinical positions over perhaps the last 5 years, myself included, though only one of those people were moonlighting in Radiation Oncology (and that person was, sadly, not me).

It really comes down to the state you're doing residency in and who you/your residency program knows (and what is allowed). Regardless, this locums email has been really bumming me out today...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Honestly... even two years ago you could fetch $2500 for that location. But that was back when they needed your daily presence in order to collect revenue from the treatments.

yep.

you reap what you sow when you favor relaxed supervision.

under value yourself and others will follow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Wow. what century did this happen in? I guess I missed it. I never had any opportunities to cover anything for extra money. no moonlighting at a center or the ED nothing. The one time I did when I was a chief my PD shot it down immediately. What a scam.
2010s. A sweet deal if I’m honest, although amazing training for the future.
 
yep.

you reap what you sow when you favor relaxed supervision.

under value yourself and others will follow.
So then why do they need a daily locums at all?
Considering a few of us have gotten emails from locums companies offering existing physicians looking for work, it's probably a more multifactorial explanation than what you think.

CMS made supervision changes after seeing what happened with centers that were under the rural exemption the entire time (basically looked safe). We were all just along for the ride, including ASTRO who never spoke up during the rural exemption.

Too many rad oncs looking for locums are what is likely driving down rates in that situation imo
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
yep.

you reap what you sow when you favor relaxed supervision.

under value yourself and others will follow.
That supervision as defined—which currently equals watching YouTube in your office while the patients are treated—equals value is a logical fallacy. It only feels that way because rad onc is oversupplied. If there were 2000 rad oncs in America virtual supervision would be hailed as a modern breakthrough... in, like, 2005.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
So then why do they need a daily locums at all?
Considering a few of us have gotten emails from locums companies offering existing physicians looking for work, it's probably a more multifactorial explanation than what you think.

CMS made supervision changes after seeing what happened with centers that were under the rural exemption the entire time (basically looked safe). We were all just along for the ride, including ASTRO who never spoke up during the rural exemption.

Too many rad oncs looking for locums are what is likely driving down in that situation imo
I bet they haven't been able to find someone permanent. I check practicelink occasionally and this job has been posted and re-posted for at least one year.

Places have learned they can get by hiring a locums for one or two days a week. Patients go through their treatment without access to the doctor except for that day or two. Set up problem? The therapist either figures it out or puts the treatment on hold till the doctor comes back. Remote dosimetry for planning. Physics comes by once a week for QA. If they happen to have multiple different doctors rotating there for each step of the treatment plan (consult, sim, treatment planning) it ends up being a complete disaster. But no one knows what the hell we do anyway so it goes on without anyone batting an eyelash.

Its sad... I know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
yep.

you reap what you sow when you favor relaxed supervision.

under value yourself and others will follow.
If you think that “value” = standing by a machine, that a retired doc that knows nothing and treats 2D provides more value standing by the machine than a highly skilled doc who is able to do it remotely, than we have very different ideas of value…
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
you reap what you sow when you favor relaxed supervision.

under value yourself and others will follow.

If you think that “value” = standing by a machine,

Point of order @jondunn. ASTRO launched the first supervision relaxation salvos. Direct supervision does not equal standing by the machine, of course; but it used to be this was what was required.

CMS said rad oncs had to stand by the machine ("present in the room") during IGRT (personal supervision). ASTRO "advocated" (see below) to decrease IGRT supervision from personal to direct.

This was, historically speaking, the very first decrease in supervision level in radiation oncology's history. And, again, ASTRO pushed for it. I also recall radiation oncologists across the country at that time letting out a collective sigh of "Thank you Jesus."

ZEbhjt8.png


Now... we could go back to the higher level of personal supervision required. (Sure, you can't actually do consults or see patients w/ personal supervision because you have to stand by the machine all day during treatment.) But maybe we don't think increasing supervision back to that level is 1) practical, 2) would increase patient safety, or 3) would increase our value.

Tying supervision to value is not the wisest; when followed to its logical conclusion, it actually makes practicing radiation oncology impracticable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
What is now preventing a locums radonc who has multiple state licenses from "remotely supervising" 2-3 centers from home like in Kearney? They can approve images at home, see "OTVs" follow ups even new consults with telemedicine, contour and approve plans from home.
Admin may get a medonc NP/PA to physically be there 1-2 days a week or get the closest academic/satellite schmuck to show up one day a week for optics.

Is this the future of low to medium volume rural center coverage?
 
What is now preventing a locums radonc who has multiple state licenses from "remotely supervising" 2-3 centers from home like in Kearney? They can approve images at home, see "OTVs" follow ups even new consults with telemedicine, contour and approve plans from home.
Admin may get a medonc NP/PA to physically be there 1-2 days a week or get the closest academic/satellite schmuck to show up one day a week for optics.

Is this the future of low to medium volume rural center coverage?
There is absolutely nothing preventing an enterprising individual or group from doing this, now, other than there are a lot of conservative/risk averse people in medicine and especially Radiation Oncology.

We just need the cyberpunk version of Danny Dosoretz to arrive on the scene and change the landscape yet again. Will it be you? Will it be me? Will it be Ralph? Who knows.
 
What is now preventing a locums radonc who has multiple state licenses from "remotely supervising" 2-3 centers from home like in Kearney? They can approve images at home, see "OTVs" follow ups even new consults with telemedicine, contour and approve plans from home.
Admin may get a medonc NP/PA to physically be there 1-2 days a week or get the closest academic/satellite schmuck to show up one day a week for optics.

Is this the future of low to medium volume rural center coverage?

Sounds like a great opportunity to save on cost if one entity owns 2 to 3 low volume centers.
 
If you think that “value” = standing by a machine, that a retired doc that knows nothing and treats 2D provides more value standing by the machine than a highly skilled doc who is able to do it remotely, than we have very different ideas of value…

dude .

it is supply and demand, of course. there is the supply part which is well-understood by us all. but there is also the DEMAND.

re-read my post and re-read the post I was quoting from DieABRDie.

if 5 years ago there were 50 people on any given day wanting a locum job, and 60 centers needing it, that is one thing.

now, a lot of centers legally do NOT need to bring someone in. the DEMAND has gone down, as a result of supervision rules. so all of a sudden maybe only 30 centers are looking for locums on that same day. ta-da.

and yes I know that these rules were forced upon us, but unlike some of you I don't see it as a good thing or a wind-fall. I care about the field and the health of the field, not just my bottom line.

It seems dumb AF to post threads about this. 'Lol awesome we don't need to hire as many locums. ......OMG look how locums are getting less now!!!!!'
 
Last edited:
  • Okay...
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
dude you post a lot of low hanging fruit on twitter to get likes, but I don't think you quite get stuff.

it is supply and demand, of course. there is the supply part which is well-understood by us all. but there is also the DEMAND.

re-read my post and re-read the post I was quoting from DieABRDie.

if 5 years ago there were 50 people on any given day wanting a locum job, and 60 centers needing it, that is one thing.

now, a lot of centers legally do NOT need to bring someone in. the DEMAND has gone down, as a result of supervision rules. so all of a sudden maybe only 30 centers are looking for locums on that same day. ta-da.

and yes I know that these rules were forced upon us, but unlike some of you I don't see it as a good thing or a wind-fall. I care about the field and the health of the field, not just my bottom line.

It seems dumb AF to post threads about this. 'Lol awesome we don't need to hire as many locums. ......OMG look how locums are getting less now!!!!!'
It doesn't matter how we see it. It happened without ASTROs input, considering they never cared about "safety" at all those exempt rural centers to begin with.

No need to be a douche and insinuate how others may or may not feel about it. The biggest issue is we have way more residents now graduating than a decade ago and some feel that it was CMSs job to support jobs for all those extra residents via supervision rules which is just absurd
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
It doesn't matter how we see it. It happened without ASTROs input, considering they never cared about "safety" at all those exempt rural centers to begin with.

No need to be a douche and insinuate how others may or may not feel about it. The biggest issue is we have way more residents now graduating than a decade ago and some feel that it was CMSs job to support jobs for all those extra residents via supervision rules which is just absurd

i don't know why people keep focusing on the 'safety' part. That is ASTRO's job to advocate and safety in health care is an easy thing to point to to make sure other desires are being met. I assume you understand how lobbying works, in any avenue.

it's the same thing now with RO-APM. the rallying cry is about 'patient access'. 'If the government pays doctors less, patients will suffer'

it is kind of about patients, but not exactly really, as we all know. let's be real. but that is the correct approach to take rather than 'not fair'
 
i don't know why people keep focusing on the 'safety' part. That is ASTRO's job to advocate and safety in health care is an easy thing to point to to make sure other desires are being met. I assume you understand how lobbying works, in any avenue.

it's the same thing now with RO-APM. the rallying cry is about 'patient access'. 'If the government pays doctors less, patients will suffer'

it is kind of about patients, but not exactly really, as we all know. let's be real. but that is the correct approach to take rather than 'not fair'
ASTRO hasn't lately.. lots of swings and misses
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
dude .

it is supply and demand, of course. there is the supply part which is well-understood by us all. but there is also the DEMAND.

re-read my post and re-read the post I was quoting from DieABRDie.

if 5 years ago there were 50 people on any given day wanting a locum job, and 60 centers needing it, that is one thing.

now, a lot of centers legally do NOT need to bring someone in. the DEMAND has gone down, as a result of supervision rules. so all of a sudden maybe only 30 centers are looking for locums on that same day. ta-da.

and yes I know that these rules were forced upon us, but unlike some of you I don't see it as a good thing or a wind-fall. I care about the field and the health of the field, not just my bottom line.

It seems dumb AF to post threadsabout this. 'Lol awesome we don't need to hire as many locums. ......OMG look how locums are getting less now!!!!!'
Vast majority of us are employed and don’t benefit from supervision changes financially. Sentiment of these postings is more along the lines of “look at these locums rates, field truly has gone over the cliff.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Vast majority of us are employed and don’t benefit from supervision changes financially. Sentiment of these postings is more along the lines of “look at these locums rates, field truly has gone over the cliff.”
oh absolutely. and i get that

but there are some posters here who feel that the CMS supervision changes were great.
 
oh absolutely. and i get that

but there are some posters here who feel that the CMS supervision changes were great.
I think they were reasonable and inevitable. I think most feel the same way. "Great" may be editorializing a bit. Having some 80 year old dinosaur "babysit" the linac was among the lowest value propositions in all of medicine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think they were reasonable and inevitable. Having some 80 year old dinosaur "babysit" the linac was among the lowest value propositions in all of medicine.
slippery slope. many things we do can be called into question in terms of the amount of money per unit work.
 
slippery slope. many things we do can be called into question in terms of the amount of money per unit work.
Many things have been. Hence the discussion here trying to inform Student Doctors on this Network of the future pitfalls of this specialty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
oh absolutely. and i get that

but there are some posters here who feel that the CMS supervision changes were great.
Every rad onc in the US thought the supervision changes were great. In 2009.

They’re supercalifragilisticexpialidocious in 2021…if you’re a solo rad onc in a freestanding center. Most US rad oncs don’t work at freestanding centers however and thus are under general supervision. Virtual supervision would be an increased level of supervision for them. But, as you know, it won’t apply at hospital/academic sites. There, doctors don’t need to be present, ever. There can be no one present, or just NPs for the IGRT.
 
Yes it's great i can finally go see an inpatient at a reasonable hour or not delay treating because I'm at tumor board. Amazing changes
First time being able to see the dentist in a decade, IMO.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 4 users
Called out the low rate to the recruiter and they agreed and said it was unusual
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20210922-093125_Outlook.jpg
    Screenshot_20210922-093125_Outlook.jpg
    102.7 KB · Views: 101
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
dude .

it is supply and demand, of course. there is the supply part which is well-understood by us all. but there is also the DEMAND.

re-read my post and re-read the post I was quoting from DieABRDie.

if 5 years ago there were 50 people on any given day wanting a locum job, and 60 centers needing it, that is one thing.

now, a lot of centers legally do NOT need to bring someone in. the DEMAND has gone down, as a result of supervision rules. so all of a sudden maybe only 30 centers are looking for locums on that same day. ta-da.

and yes I know that these rules were forced upon us, but unlike some of you I don't see it as a good thing or a wind-fall. I care about the field and the health of the field, not just my bottom line.

It seems dumb AF to post threads about this. 'Lol awesome we don't need to hire as many locums. ......OMG look how locums are getting less now!!!!!'
Curious, @jondunn, what don’t I get? I’ve always been open to learning and my positions change if I get more information. I know it’s fashionable to pop your cherry, come on here and drop bombs … and that’s cool. But, I’d love to know what I’m not understanding? I think a lot is wrong with this field. If you think it’s about chasing likes, maybe turn the mirror onto yourself for a moment?

What is it that me (or other people) don’t get? Or is it that this is a controversial subject that we happen to disagree about?

You remind of another new bomb thrower on twitter. Very similar style. Kudos. It’s a fun account.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Yes it's great i can finally go see an inpatient at a reasonable hour or not delay treating because I'm at tumor board. Amazing changes
Exactly! I don't think anyone is advocating for completely virtual clinics; it's these day-to-day nuisances we're all tired of. It's getting reported to admin for grabbing lunch off campus; T1 breast cancer patients having to wait to start their treatment because you got stuck in traffic; therapists scheduling a Medicare patient at 645 AM...that's the stuff we're all sick of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 users
Yes it's great i can finally go see an inpatient at a reasonable hour or not delay treating because I'm at tumor board. Amazing changes
I had a patient get mad at me because I wasn’t the one “delivering the radiation.” I spent a good hour explaining to her my role as the radiation oncologist but in her mind, the most important person was the therapist. Maybe this is how the bean counters feel about what we do. All the other stuff is for fun.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Top