Anyone else concerned of small hospitals opening up residency programs and all programs expanding?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

stems

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
73
Reaction score
3
Anyone else concerned of small hospitals opening up residency programs and all programs expanding? I think future radiation oncologists will find a harder time to gain employment and current radoncs will have a hard time maintaining their income. Of course those high up there in ASTRO appear to not care. We're gonna become like pathology if this trend continues.
 
I think the OP pretty much summed up my feelings in his post. As was made abundantly clear in recent "letters to the editor" in the Red Journal, the powers-that-be don't see it as their "mandate" to prevent over-saturation of the RO job market. Their only goal is to ensure that any new programs meet minimum standards for resident education.

This was discussed extensively here: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/bloodbath-in-red-journal.1014614/
 
Last edited:
I think it's going to depend on how many radoncs are close to retirement. I've seen numbers suggesting a severe shortage of "oncologists" in the future, but most of these surveys seem to be medonc-focused. I could see it going either way. We know the population is aging, which will lead to a higher number of cancer cases and a higher percentage of radoncs retiring. Will new/expanding programs just make up for this increased demand, or will they oversaturate the market? I think it's pretty tough to say at this point.

It's going to get increasingly difficult to increase residency positions, however. Congress is poised to cut GME funding from what I understand, despite a very real problem with a lack of residency positions for medical school graduates. For some reason radonc has been spared, but I can't imagine that will continue.

I also was sorely disappointed by the "letters to the editor" situation. Once again ASTRO/academic leadership demonstrated their lack of concern for the real-world issues facing practicing radiation oncologists today.
 
I think it's going to depend on how many radoncs are close to retirement. I've seen numbers suggesting a severe shortage of "oncologists" in the future, but most of these surveys seem to be medonc-focused. I could see it going either way. We know the population is aging, which will lead to a higher number of cancer cases and a higher percentage of radoncs retiring. Will new/expanding programs just make up for this increased demand, or will they oversaturate the market? I think it's pretty tough to say at this point.

We also need to understand that all of these new cancer cases may or may not translate into an additional need for radiation.

Prostate volume has definitely dropped in the last few years in many areas secondary to recent guidelines regarding PSA screening and media coverage regarding overtreatment. We also see data and NCCN recommendations coming out now regarding the option to not treat early-stage ER+ node-negative Breast CA in pts over 70. There has also a move towards hypofractionation in certain disease sites (Breast, palliation etc.)
 
Last edited:
I was thinking the exact same thing STEMS. While the elite keep thinking about their next clinical trial (that will close early due to poor accrual) the field is going to suffer. It is tough enough as it is now to get a [decent] job, what is going to happen after more residency spots open?
 
You see this kind of thing in pathology because it was the most easily commoditized of all medical fields; the CP stuff was just lab automation and benefited from economies of scale, making it an easy target. AP, which actually requires human eyes and a bit of thought, is a secondary venture that is profitable only if the market favours the corporation, not the provider.

Radiology is next, as is anesthesiology. Both are a bit less easily commoditized but would certainly be more profitable business ventures if the providers were plentiful, keeping costs down. You can see that telerads and AMCs have similar business models.

Radiation oncology may have a similar challenge ahead of it if programs keep expanding.

I have often wondered if professional organizations such as ASTRO, the CAP and the ACR are heavily influenced by corporate interests. That is the only reason I can think of as to why professional organizations would want to expand residency spots to the detriment of the current and future practitioners, and to the detriment of patients. I cannot imagine how pushing for a glut is in the best interests of anyone but the profiteers.
 
You see this kind of thing in pathology because it was the most easily commoditized of all medical fields; the CP stuff was just lab automation and benefited from economies of scale, making it an easy target. AP, which actually requires human eyes and a bit of thought, is a secondary venture that is profitable only if the market favours the corporation, not the provider.

Radiology is next, as is anesthesiology. Both are a bit less easily commoditized but would certainly be more profitable business ventures if the providers were plentiful, keeping costs down. You can see that telerads and AMCs have similar business models.

Radiation oncology may have a similar challenge ahead of it if programs keep expanding.

I have often wondered if professional organizations such as ASTRO, the CAP and the ACR are heavily influenced by corporate interests. That is the only reason I can think of as to why professional organizations would want to expand residency spots to the detriment of the current and future practitioners, and to the detriment of patients. I cannot imagine how pushing for a glut is in the best interests of anyone but the profiteers.

Instead of just corporate interests, it could be the desire for "cheap" labor in the academic setting
 
Instead of just corporate interests, it could be the desire for "cheap" labor in the academic setting

I agree, I'll bet you cheap labor is the main driving factor.
 
To be fair, in Northeast, looks like that's private practices (employment with vague/no partnership prospects) who are driving down RadOnc salaries.

I agree, I'll bet you cheap labor is the main driving factor.
 
There is "evidence" now?

You have "cancer is now the #1 killer" being promoted in the media and studies like this in the JCO: http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/early/2010/10/15/JCO.2010.31.2520

The evidence is being accepted at face value without considering the flaws of their methodology although some are pointing that out: http://www.redjournal.org/article/S...efuid=S0360-3016(13)00215-0&refissn=0360-3016

Indeed.

Gluts do nothing to help anyone except the corps, it appears by using pathology as an example.

With any talk of a coming shortage, what I have seen in fields that keep numbers fair is a tendency for practitioners to absorb the extra workload. Thus, a "boom" or "impending shortage" of any sort is just a windmill in the distance. Not to mention more work leads to more experience, which is better for patients as a whole.

With a glut comes a trending down in practitioner income, since many in the field will negotiate down in order to secure work rather than maintain a sense of worth for what they offer. This harms patients in a few ways: it lessens physician autonomy, since they have become replaceable cogs in a corporate machine; it lowers the quality of physician in the field, since no medical students of high repute want to sign up to be corporate employees; it lowers the quality of research output, for the same reason; and it changes the focus of the field from a patient-focus to a consumer-focus. Plus, smaller programs offer fewer learning opportunities than larger, more academic ones, which also hampers practitioner experience and quality.
 
Last edited:
is this actually occuring with new residency programs opening up? or is this a hypothetical situation? either way yeah need to keep rad onc supply limited, don't make it into rads/path/or anesthesiology with CRNAs
 
is this actually occuring with new residency programs opening up? or is this a hypothetical situation? either way yeah need to keep rad onc supply limited, don't make it into rads/path/or anesthesiology with CRNAs

As an example, see the post from yesterday re: new residency spots at "Georgia Regents University". Looks like a program just opened up in Augusta, GA
 
If you think as a resident you are anything more than labor you are mistaken. Yes making our field 4 years instead of 3 and expanding programs is absolutely the desire for cheap labor. We are making $35,000 less than we should be compared to average salary with our degree levels, and that is probably on the low end. It is highway robbery, no questions about it. Why would you not want more residents to do your work.

I said it before in a different thread, the baby boomers could care less about us. Why should they. They have gotten their due and everything is always about them. How can they get more more more. Well, get more cheap labor from residents. Who cares if they can't find jobs later. What happened in medicine with overtreatment at the hands of the baby boomers would be a scandal as large as the credit crisis if it were exposed. Of course they will drown our voices if we say stop expanding residencies. At some point we have to stand up for ourselves and say enough is enough
 
I said it before in a different thread, the baby boomers could care less about us. Why should they. They have gotten their due and everything is always about them. How can they get more more more. Well, get more cheap labor from residents. Who cares if they can't find jobs later. What happened in medicine with overtreatment at the hands of the baby boomers would be a scandal as large as the credit crisis if it were exposed. Of course they will drown our voices if we say stop expanding residencies. At some point we have to stand up for ourselves and say
enough is enough

We'd have probably done the same thing in their place. It's human nature. However, I agree that the rampant expansion of programs has gotten out of hand.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that radiation oncology suffers from the same problem as general medicine, in that there is a most definite "shortage and need" of Radiation Oncologists, however it is not an absolute shortage, but rather a problem of the more rural areas not having access to care.

Unfortunately, it seems that in both cases people feel the answer is just creating so much supply that some people are forced to work in the under served areas. Call me crazy, but it seems if you properly incentive rural practice with monetary rewards it would also solve the problem, but without making angry rad oncs.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that radiation oncology suffers from the same problem as general medicine, in that there is a most definite "shortage and need" of Radiation Oncologists, however it is not an absolute shortage, but rather a problem of the more rural areas not having access to care.

Unfortunately, it seems that in both cases people feel the answer is just creating so much supply that some people are forced to work in the under served areas. Call me crazy, but it seems if you properly incentive rural practice with monetary rewards it would also solve the problem, but without making angry rad oncs.

I disagree, I honestly don't think a "shortage and need" has anything to do with new residency programs popping up. I think it has more to do with attendings at these small hospitals wanting cheap labor, and ASTRO and the ABR not caring for the plight of the jobless radonc graduate. Look to Canada for an example, there are no jobs there yet they still graduate a lot more radonc graduates than there are jobs for, hence they have to leave their country for a job.
 
I disagree, I honestly don't think a "shortage and need" has anything to do with new residency programs popping up. I think it has more to do with attendings at these small hospitals wanting cheap labor, and ASTRO and the ABR not caring for the plight of the jobless radonc graduate. Look to Canada for an example, there are no jobs there yet they still graduate a lot more radonc graduates than there are jobs for, hence they have to leave their country for a job.

the question is what should we do about this: Radonc over 10 years: 93 --> 171 trainees. 6% expansion per year. 93 to 171! I read through that whole thread on the rad onc blood bath but it does not address what we should do. Maybe the thing to do is to make a massive front to actively advertise not going into rad onc so we cut the number of applicants by half so we're at ~150 or less. Do we lose talent in the field, possibly. Everyone will be up in arms at this suggestion Im sure. But what choice are we left with when the baby boomers only care about the bottom line and actively come out against our suggestion of protecting jobs. I mean 93 to 171, that is absurd.
 
the question is what should we do about this: Radonc over 10 years: 93 --> 171 trainees. 6% expansion per year. 93 to 171! I read through that whole thread on the rad onc blood bath but it does not address what we should do. Maybe the thing to do is to make a massive front to actively advertise not going into rad onc so we cut the number of applicants by half so we're at ~150 or less. Do we lose talent in the field, possibly. Everyone will be up in arms at this suggestion Im sure. But what choice are we left with when the baby boomers only care about the bottom line and actively come out against our suggestion of protecting jobs. I mean 93 to 171, that is absurd.

I don't have time to look now, but weren't the number of residency spots drastically cut in the mid-90's? Then too was there a terrible job market and outlook...
 
I don't have time to look now, but weren't the number of residency spots drastically cut in the mid-90's? Then too was there a terrible job market and outlook...

This is correct. See Anthony Zeitman's correspondence in the Red Journal from 2013 below:

To the Editor: The Brief Report “Expanding the number of trainees
in radiation oncology: Has the pendulum swung too far” by Shah
(1) has provoked considerable reaction from senior members of the
radiation oncology community, and three such letters are published
above (2-4). In addition, others have voiced concern that whereas
the number of residency places has indeed increased from 93 to 171
between 2001 and 2012, a further look back shows that the number
had actually been in decline before 2001, with that year
representing a nadir. The number of places in 1995 was 137, and
that had represented a steady state in the early 1990s. Thus,
although the increase in residency places was indeed 84% from
2001, it is only 25% from 1995da considerably less dramatic rise
and one perhaps more consistent with an expanding specialty.
Anthony Zietman, MD
Editor-in-Chief
Massachusetts General Hospital
Boston, Massachusetts
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.05.035
References
1. Shah C. Expanding the number of trainees in radiation oncology: Has the
pendulumswung too far? IntJRadiatOncolBiolPhys 2013;85:1157-1158.
2. Lee WR. In regard to Shah. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013;86:596.
3. Wallner P, Shrieve DC. In regard to Shah. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
2013;86:596-597.
4. Hallahan DE, Perkins SM. In regard to Shah. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
Phys 2013;86:597.
In Reply to Lee, Wallner, and Hallahan
To the Editor: I would like to thank those who have responded for
their interest and have attempted to address the issues raised (1-5).
One letter noted that medical students should be able to understand
job market dynamics as part of their specialty choices. However, as
the authors also note, applicants are of increasing quality and often
start their radiation oncology experiences as first- or second-year
medical students, 8 to 9 years before residency graduation. It is
nearly impossibledand unrealistic in my opiniondto accurately
assess trends in residency positions and their impact on workforce
needs nearly a decade in advance. Therefore, I do not see my
position as that of paternalistic elder; on the contrary, my position
comes from the standpoint of a recent graduate who went through
the job search along with many of his colleagues and also someone
who currently mentors residents searching for jobs.
With regard to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical

The money quote is
In addition, others have voiced concern that whereas
the number of residency places has indeed increased from 93 to 171
between 2001 and 2012, a further look back shows that the number
had actually been in decline before 2001, with that year
representing a nadir. The number of places in 1995 was 137, and
that had represented a steady state in the early 1990s. Thus,
although the increase in residency places was indeed 84% from
2001, it is only 25% from 1995da considerably less dramatic rise
and one perhaps more consistent with an expanding specialty.
 
Top