How did the Rad Onc market get so saturated (looking at AAMC data)?

[ace_inhibitor111]

Seeing as several medical specialties are starting to be at risk for saturation, I’ve been trying to look at the data to see if there’s anything that could have predicted that outcome in Rad Onc. Looking at the amount of physicians from 2012-2017, the number of Rad Onc physicians did increase substantially but much less so than several other specialties that are still doing fine. In fact, the increase (9.7%) is about in line with the average for all physicians. This same trend is also true for data going back to 2000. So what caused the sudden decline in available jobs? Is it the nature of the work that predisposes it to being more saturated than others such as EM (which is increasing by 17% same time period) or Vascular Surgery (18% increase same time period)

Percentage Change in the Number of Active Physicians by Specialty, 2012-17

Percentage Change in the Number of Active Physicians by Specialty, 2012-17

www.aamc.org

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted941485]

Seeing as several medical specialties are starting to be at risk for saturation, I’ve been trying to look at the data to see if there’s anything that could have predicted that outcome in Rad Onc. Looking at the amount of physicians from 2012-2017, the number of Rad Onc physicians did increase substantially but much less so than several other specialties that are still doing fine. In fact, the increase (9.7%) is about in line with the average for all physicians. This same trend is also true for data going back to 2000. So what caused the sudden decline in available jobs? Is it the nature of the work that predisposes it to being more saturated than others such as EM (which is increasing by 17% same time period) or Vascular Surgery (18% increase same time period)

Percentage Change in the Number of Active Physicians by Specialty, 2012-17

Percentage Change in the Number of Active Physicians by Specialty, 2012-17

www.aamc.org

Nobody retires
The work isn’t all that physically taxing
Utilization is down
Productivity is up

Add in extra grads and you have a disaster

 

[deleted573262]

Seeing as several medical specialties are starting to be at risk for saturation, I’ve been trying to look at the data to see if there’s anything that could have predicted that outcome in Rad Onc. Looking at the amount of physicians from 2012-2017, the number of Rad Onc physicians did increase substantially but much less so than several other specialties that are still doing fine. In fact, the increase (9.7%) is about in line with the average for all physicians. This same trend is also true for data going back to 2000. So what caused the sudden decline in available jobs? Is it the nature of the work that predisposes it to being more saturated than others such as EM (which is increasing by 17% same time period) or Vascular Surgery (18% increase same time period)

Percentage Change in the Number of Active Physicians by Specialty, 2012-17

Percentage Change in the Number of Active Physicians by Specialty, 2012-17

www.aamc.org

you're also looking at the five year change. most of the significant numbers come from 5-15 years ago. huge shift from the year 2000 until now.

rads is a field that has well regulated their programs. 0.2% change in the last five years. they get it.

 

[scarbrtj]

You can easily call "fake news" on the AAMC data (where do they get their numbers?).

Here is scarbrtj data vs AAMC data. Hint: my data is the best.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .SCARBRTJ data . . . . AAMC data
Number of rad oncs in 2012:*** 3277 . . . . . . . . . . 4605
Number of rad oncs in 2018: . . . 5000*++ . . . . . . . 5039
National % change, all MDs . . . . 9.2%** . . . . . . . . . 9.2%
National % change, rad onc . . . . 53%++ . . . . . . . . 9.2%

In short, there's no way in effing hell we are making ~200 rad oncs a year and the number of rad oncs only grew by ~400 over a 6-7 year time frame.
I hereby, again, call "fake news" on the AAMC data. There's at least a 50%25%-50% growth in rad oncs in the time period they mention.

* ASTRO said there were ~5000 rad oncs in 2015.
** I did use AAMC data here 'cause I have no idea.
*** https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JOP.2013.001319

 

[DoctwoB]

The other thing to keep in mind is that other specialties can create their own demand to a certain extent. There is a lot of data that utilization of specialty services correlates directly with the number of specialists. Too many cardiologists? They start managing more routine things like htn and hld that the pcps are happy to unload on them, more of them get echos and stress tests, etc.

Specialties at the end of the referral chain (rads, path, rad onc, etc) are less able to do this and imo are more susceptible to workforce issues.

 

[RickyScott]

The other thing to keep in mind is that other specialties can create their own demand to a certain extent. There is a lot of data that utilization of specialty services correlates directly with the number of specialists. Too many cardiologists? They start managing more routine things like htn and hld that the pcps are happy to unload on them, more of them get echos and stress tests, etc.

Specialties at the end of the referral chain (rads, path, rad onc, etc) are less able to do this and imo are more susceptible to workforce issues.

very good pt. We have no "elasticity"