nytimes article 1/26- oncologists

[tulip]

did anyone read this article?

http://nytimes.com/2003/01/26/business/26CANC.html

what do you think? it sounds like the reimbursement issues are coming to the forefront in the eyes of the insurance co's and politicians... will they have to endure a big cut?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[bigfrank]

Ouch-----that makes Heme/Oncs look like CRAP.

If these slashes in reimbursement ever materialize, I will be willing to bet that Heme/Onc salaries will PLUNGE down to the level of Rheumatology or IM Primary Care.....

 

[jargon124]

Great article. Hate to say it, but it seems that in this case reimbursements SHOULD be cut...

 

[ckent]

I really hope that they don't cut it; I have no interest in being an oncologist, I am just tired of them seeing constantly cut reimbursement for the medical sub-specialties. Their surgical and radiation counterparts already pull in 2-3 times more their medical colleagues, even though the medical specialists frequently have to spend more years in training making the 5-10 dollars an hour as a resident or fellow. Who would want to spend 5 post-graduate yrs to become an oncologist when they could end their training after 3 and make the same amount. Does anybody know what it is about the cognitive specialties that makes everyone think that they should be reimbursed less and less for their extensive training?

 

[smackdaddy]

Originally posted by bigfrank
Ouch-----that makes Heme/Oncs look like CRAP.

If these slashes in reimbursement ever materialize, I will be willing to bet that Heme/Onc salaries will PLUNGE down to the level of Rheumatology or IM Primary Care.....

interesting the rheumatologists around here make as much as orthopods. now if they slash infusion reimbursements for rheum, then they may find themselves making what primary care make.

 

[smackdaddy]

Originally posted by ckent
I really hope that they don't cut it; I have no interest in being an oncologist, I am just tired of them seeing constantly cut reimbursement for the medical sub-specialties. Their surgical and radiation counterparts already pull in 2-3 times more their medical colleagues, even though the medical specialists frequently have to spend more years in training making the 5-10 dollars an hour as a resident or fellow. Who would want to spend 5 post-graduate yrs to become an oncologist when they could end their training after 3 and make the same amount. Does anybody know what it is about the cognitive specialties that makes everyone think that they should be reimbursed less and less for their extensive training?

yes no procedures.
how do you bill for cognitive training and care of patients?

people train for a variety of reasons, not just money. and oncologists are probably the third highest medicine subspecialty right now. they are not in danger of dropping to the levels of 'mere' general internists.

 

[abu barney]

I really doubt the numbers in the article were accurate. It said the average oncologist salary is 274,000. I've been to a lot of job data sites, and the figure is usually below 200,000. I think it was blown up just to make a story, y'know "those damn doctors stealing patients money"... Anyway, I'm looking towards heme/onc, and anything that makes it less competitive is good for me

 

[volvulus]

Their surgical and radiation counterparts already pull in 2-3 times more their medical colleagues, even though the medical specialists frequently have to spend more years in training making the 5-10 dollars an hour as a resident or fellow.

Well surgical oncologists go through 7-8 years of training so I don't know how you think medical oncologists have more training.