- Joined
- Aug 13, 2021
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 9
91% of RadOnc attendings and residents agree that action be taken to limit residency oversupply.
What are our "leaders" doing about this new data?
What are our "leaders" doing about this new data?
New Evidence in the RED journal
- Thread starter TheFrankOncogene
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2005
- Messages
- 1,198
- Reaction score
- 3,447
Need more mature data. Remember, KO claims to have met a guy who had three job offers once.
Since when does any org care what 91% of people think if the other 9% hold all the cards.
Cue the “but we need more data”
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2014
- Messages
- 3,268
- Reaction score
- 6,625
You know exactly what the “leaders” and their big rad onc useful idiots who do their bidding are doing, NOTHING besides equivocating, saying all is “fine” and all programs are “fine”. No collusion! Beautiful field!
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2009
- Messages
- 537
- Reaction score
- 316
The 9% all agree that they have been "canceled" by this article
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 12,692
- Reaction score
- 2,311
Also remember to never change practice until mature data of AT LEAST 10-20 years
Send in the applicants!
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2004
- Messages
- 4,662
- Reaction score
- 5,084
Right on!
As you know, we all wear film badges to carefully audit the amount of radiation we receive. Obviously, this radiation can cause various deleterious effects like secondary malignancy with a latency of up to 30 years. Therefore, the right thing to do is keep on taking the same number of applicants and review the incidence of secondary malignancies for all the "new" Rad Oncs until 2052.
My hypothesis is that there will be too many Rad Oncs produced for the number of jobs available. But that is not a bad thing if you look at overall survival. If these newly minted Rad Oncs find safe alternative employment as CPAs, burrito artists at Chipotle or grocery stockers at Piggly Wiggly, that will spare an entire generation of professionals the untold horrors of radiation exposure.
Therefore in 2052, we should see a substantial and statistically significant improvement in overall survival of these former Radiation Oncologists! Of course, that doesn't tell the complete story and we will need a few more years to assess quality of life data. Once those results are in, we will have to weight the pros and cons of alternative employment vs overall survival.
TLDR; ASTRO and SCAROP should have sufficient data to make a decision on residency expansion by ~2057.
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2019
- Messages
- 3,499
- Reaction score
- 14,527
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2019
- Messages
- 4,269
- Reaction score
- 9,962
Ageist! I’m going to have to write you a vaguely legally threatening email.
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2019
- Messages
- 3,499
- Reaction score
- 14,527
If he ever penned an email like that, as "guy in charge of everything", it would be very on-brand for the specialty which gave birth to the PRO "the internet was mean to me and now I'm canceled" editorial from a Chair...
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2004
- Messages
- 11,751
- Reaction score
- 11,843
Probably old enough to be dual boarded in diagnostic rads and therapeutic rads like many septuagenarians of his day
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2014
- Messages
- 3,268
- Reaction score
- 6,625
PW is rumored to be in fantastic health, he will still be in charge in 2050s, even if half
Robot like Dick Chaney.
Robot like Dick Chaney.
D
deleted1111261
Man emails me from the ABR email accusing me of libel or slander or some **** for saying that a company he was associated with paid millions of dollars in fines for fraud.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2014
- Messages
- 3,268
- Reaction score
- 6,625
Cease and desist!
The below are facts and thus not libelous
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The below is a letter Dr. Wallner wrote:
Dear XXXXXX:
I have read with some concern your recent posting on XXXXXX. Although I can understand the frustration and concern many residents and candidates currently have regarding the initial certification assessment instruments of the ABR, especially in these difficult times, I find it especially troublesome when those views are expressed with little or no information of the actual processes involved or decision-making. I am especially distressed when the attacks become personal against me, and clearly from one who has no knowledge of any of the facts of which he writes.
With regard to the issue of accommodations for female candidates, the initial posting that started the torrent of subsequent postings was based on totally incorrect information. The ABR goes to great lengths to accommodate all candidates with special needs, including nursing or breast pumping females.
With regard to the performance of candidates in physics and biology on the 2018 exams, you suggest that the ABR "has blamed" the residents. In fact, the great majority of candidates who took those exams passed with high grades, and those who failed did so abysmally. They simply did not know the material. If that is "blaming," so be it! You also suggest that somehow those single year grades have had some impact on the specialty. Actually, if you took the time to investigate the facts, you would see that applications and quality of applicants had begun to drop well before the 2018 exams were ever administered.
I find your statement regarding separation of radiation oncology from the ABR even more misguided. ABR certification exams are developed ONLY by radiation oncologists and all decisions regarding those exams are made by radiation oncologists. The fees of the 10x number of diagnostic radiology candidates and diplomates actually support the radiation oncology endeavor, which, in fact, is a money losing proposition for the ABR. If the radiation oncology community, with a fervor driven by inappropriate posts such as yours, should ever intend to actually "control our own destiny," I would guess that the cost to residents and diplomates could be more than double the current levels, with a significantly diminished end-product.
Even more troublesome, and personally abhorrent to me, are the essentially libelous statement about me and my employer, 21st Century Oncology, Inc. that you have made on a public, professional website. You have absolutely no knowledge of me, my responsibilities with that entity, or the legal facts of the issues you raised, and the implication that I was somehow involved is not only factually incorrect, but apparently maliciously intended. If such statements continue, I will have little choice but to react as necessary.
Paul E. Wallner, DO
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the DOJ, published 12/12/2017:
www.justice.gov
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks as if Paul Wallner was the SVP of 21C at the time, in charge of legislative and regulatory affairs, organizational, vendor, medical school and medical staff relationships, compliance and quality assurance, at least based on Bloomberg data and 21C's own website. If he was not a SVP at the time, it's not possible to tell based on the website:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: It is possible the initial complaints against 21c were discharged in bankruptcy court, based on other articles I found but didn't have full access to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The below is a letter Dr. Wallner wrote:
Dear XXXXXX:
I have read with some concern your recent posting on XXXXXX. Although I can understand the frustration and concern many residents and candidates currently have regarding the initial certification assessment instruments of the ABR, especially in these difficult times, I find it especially troublesome when those views are expressed with little or no information of the actual processes involved or decision-making. I am especially distressed when the attacks become personal against me, and clearly from one who has no knowledge of any of the facts of which he writes.
With regard to the issue of accommodations for female candidates, the initial posting that started the torrent of subsequent postings was based on totally incorrect information. The ABR goes to great lengths to accommodate all candidates with special needs, including nursing or breast pumping females.
With regard to the performance of candidates in physics and biology on the 2018 exams, you suggest that the ABR "has blamed" the residents. In fact, the great majority of candidates who took those exams passed with high grades, and those who failed did so abysmally. They simply did not know the material. If that is "blaming," so be it! You also suggest that somehow those single year grades have had some impact on the specialty. Actually, if you took the time to investigate the facts, you would see that applications and quality of applicants had begun to drop well before the 2018 exams were ever administered.
I find your statement regarding separation of radiation oncology from the ABR even more misguided. ABR certification exams are developed ONLY by radiation oncologists and all decisions regarding those exams are made by radiation oncologists. The fees of the 10x number of diagnostic radiology candidates and diplomates actually support the radiation oncology endeavor, which, in fact, is a money losing proposition for the ABR. If the radiation oncology community, with a fervor driven by inappropriate posts such as yours, should ever intend to actually "control our own destiny," I would guess that the cost to residents and diplomates could be more than double the current levels, with a significantly diminished end-product.
Even more troublesome, and personally abhorrent to me, are the essentially libelous statement about me and my employer, 21st Century Oncology, Inc. that you have made on a public, professional website. You have absolutely no knowledge of me, my responsibilities with that entity, or the legal facts of the issues you raised, and the implication that I was somehow involved is not only factually incorrect, but apparently maliciously intended. If such statements continue, I will have little choice but to react as necessary.
Paul E. Wallner, DO
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the DOJ, published 12/12/2017:
21st Century Oncology to Pay $26 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations
21st Century Oncology Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries and affiliates have agreed to pay $26 million to the government to resolve a self-disclosure relating to the submission of false attestations regarding the company’s use of electronic health records software and separate allegations that...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks as if Paul Wallner was the SVP of 21C at the time, in charge of legislative and regulatory affairs, organizational, vendor, medical school and medical staff relationships, compliance and quality assurance, at least based on Bloomberg data and 21C's own website. If he was not a SVP at the time, it's not possible to tell based on the website:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: It is possible the initial complaints against 21c were discharged in bankruptcy court, based on other articles I found but didn't have full access to.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2011
- Messages
- 3,624
- Reaction score
- 9,273
What a dork
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 12,692
- Reaction score
- 2,311
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2014
- Messages
- 3,217
- Reaction score
- 5,938
You're one of the good ones.
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2017
- Messages
- 5,020
- Reaction score
- 9,795
Hibiscus Island Mansion sells for $8M
A Hibiscus Island waterfront mansion sold for $7.8 million.
therealdeal.com
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2020
- Messages
- 1,374
- Reaction score
- 4,158
I can only imagine what he adds to Miami's night life.Hibiscus Island Mansion sells for $8M
A Hibiscus Island waterfront mansion sold for $7.8 million.therealdeal.com
He doesn’t add anything…the night life gets delivered to him
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2014
- Messages
- 3,268
- Reaction score
- 6,625
The level of corruption in this “small field” is outstanding!
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2019
- Messages
- 4,269
- Reaction score
- 9,962
Takes a lot of inverse-planned whole breast IMRT to buy multi-million-dollar real estate in Florida.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2022
- Messages
- 944
- Reaction score
- 3,298
The below are facts and thus not libelous
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The below is a letter Dr. Wallner wrote:
Dear XXXXXX:
I have read with some concern your recent posting on XXXXXX. Although I can understand the frustration and concern many residents and candidates currently have regarding the initial certification assessment instruments of the ABR, especially in these difficult times, I find it especially troublesome when those views are expressed with little or no information of the actual processes involved or decision-making. I am especially distressed when the attacks become personal against me, and clearly from one who has no knowledge of any of the facts of which he writes.
With regard to the issue of accommodations for female candidates, the initial posting that started the torrent of subsequent postings was based on totally incorrect information. The ABR goes to great lengths to accommodate all candidates with special needs, including nursing or breast pumping females.
With regard to the performance of candidates in physics and biology on the 2018 exams, you suggest that the ABR "has blamed" the residents. In fact, the great majority of candidates who took those exams passed with high grades, and those who failed did so abysmally. They simply did not know the material. If that is "blaming," so be it! You also suggest that somehow those single year grades have had some impact on the specialty. Actually, if you took the time to investigate the facts, you would see that applications and quality of applicants had begun to drop well before the 2018 exams were ever administered.
I find your statement regarding separation of radiation oncology from the ABR even more misguided. ABR certification exams are developed ONLY by radiation oncologists and all decisions regarding those exams are made by radiation oncologists. The fees of the 10x number of diagnostic radiology candidates and diplomates actually support the radiation oncology endeavor, which, in fact, is a money losing proposition for the ABR. If the radiation oncology community, with a fervor driven by inappropriate posts such as yours, should ever intend to actually "control our own destiny," I would guess that the cost to residents and diplomates could be more than double the current levels, with a significantly diminished end-product.
Even more troublesome, and personally abhorrent to me, are the essentially libelous statement about me and my employer, 21st Century Oncology, Inc. that you have made on a public, professional website. You have absolutely no knowledge of me, my responsibilities with that entity, or the legal facts of the issues you raised, and the implication that I was somehow involved is not only factually incorrect, but apparently maliciously intended. If such statements continue, I will have little choice but to react as necessary.
Paul E. Wallner, DO
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the DOJ, published 12/12/2017:
21st Century Oncology to Pay $26 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations
21st Century Oncology Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries and affiliates have agreed to pay $26 million to the government to resolve a self-disclosure relating to the submission of false attestations regarding the company’s use of electronic health records software and separate allegations that...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks as if Paul Wallner was the SVP of 21C at the time, in charge of legislative and regulatory affairs, organizational, vendor, medical school and medical staff relationships, compliance and quality assurance, at least based on Bloomberg data and 21C's own website. If he was not a SVP at the time, it's not possible to tell based on the website:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: It is possible the initial complaints against 21c were discharged in bankruptcy court, based on other articles I found but didn't have full access to.
It's been a while since I read that letter. What a clown.
Id love to see detailed financials of the ABR to better understand how it could possibly be money losing at $600+ per member... maybe it's the salaries these people take for "leading" groups of volunteers to make ****ty tests. There was a radiologist a little while back posting some superficial financials of the ABR and it did not look good. Haven't seen that in a while, maybe they were lawyered in to silence.
The leadership of this field is complete trash. Not sure, but it doesn't seem like other specialties specialties have leadership who seem to actively work against members. Have to wonder how we got here.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2014
- Messages
- 3,268
- Reaction score
- 6,625
Choose wisely,mate!
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2014
- Messages
- 3,217
- Reaction score
- 5,938
Exactly. And we can't just say this on Twitter. We need a site like this where there's anonymity.
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2017
- Messages
- 5,020
- Reaction score
- 9,795
Would love to see Michael steinbergs house as he sold multiple centers to 21c. Beverly Hills, Malibu, Brentwood, palisades?
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2004
- Messages
- 11,751
- Reaction score
- 11,843
House(s)
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2019
- Messages
- 4,269
- Reaction score
- 9,962
Our rad onc leaders:
Rad onc riches for me, but none for thee!
Rad onc riches for me, but none for thee!
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2014
- Messages
- 3,217
- Reaction score
- 5,938
He's Dr oz. More houses than he's aware of by selling bull**** to dinguses.
