More Physicians Choosing Hospital Employment over Private Practice

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
It's easy to jump on the anti-proton bandwagon and I do agree it may not be necessary for prostate but from my experience, protons offer more advantages then what we typically discuss. Where else are you going to be able to treat people who had 2-3 courses of radiation or reduce secondary cancers in children. I know these centers cost money and there have been places that opened up just for financial gain but overall protons do have an important role in our field.

I'm off my soapbox.
 
It's easy to jump on the anti-proton bandwagon and I do agree it may not be necessary for prostate but from my experience, protons offer more advantages then what we typically discuss. Where else are you going to be able to treat people who had 2-3 courses of radiation or reduce secondary cancers in children. I know these centers cost money and there have been places that opened up just for financial gain but overall protons do have an important role in our field.

I'm off my soapbox.

Protons cost $$$. If you mostly limit protons to appropriate cases (re-irradiation, skull base, peds) then you will not recoup your investment. Therefore you must treat a LOT of cT1c prostate cancer.

Theoretically, if we had a half-dozen proton machines in the country that would strike an ideal balance between convenience and utilization. That's not the way it works however.
 
In this thread private practice people have "scoffed" (for lack of a better word) at those still in academic/hospital-based institutions for still being in their little bubble and not being in the real world and seeing things for what they are.

With the recent tangent of anti-proton posts, I'm wondering if the same principle would apply? Meaning those who have not worked with protons are still in their little bubble and not seeing widespread adoption of protons for what they are.

(side note: i realize this is a controversial issue and I only have like 3 posts in this forum and probably look like a troll. I'm not trying to stir anything up, but rather offer a perspective to consider)
 
With the recent tangent of anti-proton posts, I'm wondering if the same principle would apply? Meaning those who have not worked with protons are still in their little bubble and not seeing widespread adoption of protons for what they are.

"what they are"?

Please clarify the benefits of "widespread proton adoption" so those of us in a "bubble" can be better informed.
 
"what they are"?

Please clarify the benefits of "widespread proton adoption" so those of us in a "bubble" can be better informed.
I don't know. My point was just to point out a potentially similar pattern

Only exposed to academic institution --> goes to bat for hospital employment, etc.
Exposed to academic and private practice --> goes to bat for partnership, independence, etc.; academic people haven't had real world experience

Only exposed to everything (standard training) --> anti-protons
Exposed to everything and protons --> ???

That's all i was trying to point out. Maybe someone who's trained with them could fill in the blank. But either way it's probably something for another thread
/deadhorsebeating
 
That makes sense, Sloane. Those without CyberKnife or heavy SRS training were quite against what the Stanfords and UPMCs of the world were doing, and then things changed, and became a standard of care for lung cancer and brain mets. Places that weren't doing IMRT for pelvic malignancies were completely against it (Patty Eiffel telling our clinical chairman - "You're committing malpractice!). So, that's a fair point.

But, with protons, it's a totally different animal. There has been no benefits in terms of toxicity or PSA outcome for prostate cancer. It's a total moneygrab, and not much has made me happier than the slashing of reimbursements for prostate protons.
 
Sloane, I think everyone here goes to bat for off-protocol application of proton therapy in appropriate cases: pediatrics, some reirradiation cases, etc. It is the widespread use of this technology to treat prostate cancer, knowing the existing data, that we are questioning.
 
CNN today.... focused more on the med onc side

http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/16/smallbusiness/doctors-selling-practices/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Experts say the number of physicians unloading their practices to hospitals is up 30% to 40% in the last five years. Doctors who sell typically become employees of the hospital, as do the people who work for them.

Said Cobb, the oncologist: "We have a joke that there are two kinds of private practices left in America. Those that sold to hospitals and those that are about to be sold."

The cycle of hospitals buying private practices has happened before. In the early 1990s, hospitals went on a buying spree as a way to get access to more patients, said Thomas Anthony, an attorney with Frost Brown Todd in Cincinnati. At the time, it was a sellers' market and the deals were financially rewarding for doctors.

This time, the market dynamics are different. Doctors are eager to sell and might not be able to make as much as they did in the first wave of acquisitions, said Anthony.
But, for sure, hospitals are buying.
 
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/05/should-doctors-work-for-hospitals/371638/

There are a number of reasons hospitals want to employ physicians. A major aim is to funnel patients to the hospital’s facilities. By law, it is illegal for hospitals to offer physicians inducements to refer patients to their facilities unless the physicians are hospital employees. A term that some hospitals use to describe the referral of patients to providers and facilities outside their system is “leakage.” Such leakage represents lost revenue, and by employing physicians hospitals hope to plug up the holes.

Of course, there are other factors. One is the ability to hospitals to charge more for a variety of procedures than independent physicians, by tacking on “facility fees.” By buying a physician practice, a hospital can charge more for the same test or procedure, even though it is performed in the same place by the same physician. In some cases, such facility fees can raise prices to Medicare by as much as 70 percent compared to what would be paid to an independent physician.

Another factor is negotiating clout with healthcare payers. When a hospital employs a greater proportion of physicians in a healthcare market, it can often negotiate more favorable payment rates with health insurers. The Federal Trade Commission has taken an interest in this trend, lodging complaints against hospitals for employing too high a percentage of local physicians. In some cases, the FTC has even filed lawsuits against such hospitals.

Hospitals also argue that by employing physicians, hospitals can achieve greater integration of care. For example, they say they can reduce needless variations in practice, including the use of different medical devices for the same procedure, such as knee joint replacement. They also argue that they can ensure better coordination of care between different medical specialties, as well as between physicians and other hospital-employed health professionals such as nurses.

This is not the first time that hospitals have gone on a medical practice buying spree. Something similar took place in the 1990s when the rise of managed care made it appear that hospitals needed to exert more control over patient referral patterns. But widespread public revolt against managed care quickly led to the opening up of such network restrictions. Moreover, as physicians became employees, their productivity fell. Before long, hospitals began divesting themselves of physician employees.

But there is another pitfall in physician employment. Compared to the independent physicians of 20 years ago, today’s employed physicians often exhibit poor morale. It is easy to see why. When physicians become employees, they forfeit a substantial degree of professional autonomy. They are subjected to more institutional rules and regulations, feel increasing pressure to practice according to prescribed patterns, and often labor under escalating productivity quotas.

A related danger is a loss of autonomy on the part of the entire profession of medicine. Increasingly, physicians find themselves working for non-physicians, individuals who never trained in the health professions or cared for the sick. As the trend toward physician employment continues, the people in charge of medical practices are less likely to sport white coats and stethoscopes and more likely to be in business suits. Many physicians feel they are losing control of their profession.
 
It's not surprising this trend is happening with rad onc, given the culture of reimbursement. If I remember correctly from the ARRO survey presented at the last ASTRO, new rad oncs starting out as hospital employees went up by >5%.
 
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1917439

From the perspective of the insurers and patients, between 2009 and 2012, hospital-owned physician organizations in California incurred higher expenditures for commercial HMO enrollees for professional, hospital, laboratory, pharmaceutical, and ancillary services than physician-owned organizations. Although organizational consolidation may increase some forms of care coordination, it may be associated with higher total expenditures.
 
Top