Rad Onc Twitter

  • Thread starter Thread starter deleted1002574
  • Start date Start date
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members don't see this ad.
RickyScott said:
I was told Ben falit contacted some schmo in the law school not an antitrust lawyer and they just said it could be contested.
Click to expand...
Mandelin Rain said:
Without any inside knowledge, I assume this is exactly what happened with 99.9% certainty.
Click to expand...
So ASTRO's stance and Ken Olivier's antitrust legal opinion could be based on the telephone* game instead of astute, vetted advice?

* never heard it called "Chinese whispers"... that doesn't seem right!
 
This antitrust thing is ridiculous on it's face IMO. My understanding is antitrust injury is incurred by the consumer (i.e. prospective patient). The fact that there is not a single very lucrative locums opportunity out there in radonc (please let me know if there is and I'll hook someone up) is indicative that there is no risk of injury due to lack of radoncs in today's environment.

Second, the producers of radoncs are residency programs that in fact benefit from oversupply not undersupply. Perhaps trainees should claim antitrust injury as their credentials are devalued in the setting of intentional oversupply.

That professional organizations of any sort cannot act to reduce membership in response to demographic and technological changes for fear of antitrust litigation is absurd. Imagine if 1/2 the population were wiped out by Covid and the AAMC functioned to help rationally contract medical schools with an emphasis on quality and regional need. Would this be an antitrust violation?

In essence, these antitrust people are arguing that radiation oncology programs are an industry that produces a product that only market forces can constrain and that antitrust laws mandate that they produce as many credentialed docs as they can. Laughable.
 
communitydoc13 said:
Second, the producers of radoncs are residency programs that in fact benefit from oversupply not undersupply. Perhaps trainees should claim antitrust injury as their credentials are devalued in the setting of intentional oversupply.
Click to expand...
you took the words right out of my mouth
 
RickyScott said:
If Astro was serious they would get a position opinion statement from big law.
Click to expand...
...or better yet, why doesn't ASTRO independently accredit residencies with stricter standards?

Even if the places who can't cut it don't shut down, the residents who match at the better places will have the inside track with the job market.
 
communitydoc13 said:
This antitrust thing is ridiculous on it's face IMO. My understanding is antitrust injury is incurred by the consumer (i.e. prospective patient). The fact that there is not a single very lucrative locums opportunity out there in radonc (please let me know if there is and I'll hook someone up) is indicative that there is no risk of injury due to lack of radoncs in today's environment.

Second, the producers of radoncs are residency programs that in fact benefit from oversupply not undersupply. Perhaps trainees should claim antitrust injury as their credentials are devalued in the setting of intentional oversupply.

That professional organizations of any sort cannot act to reduce membership in response to demographic and technological changes for fear of antitrust litigation is absurd. Imagine if 1/2 the population were wiped out by Covid and the AAMC functioned to help rationally contract medical schools with an emphasis on quality and regional need. Would this be an antitrust violation?

In essence, these antitrust people are arguing that radiation oncology programs are an industry that produces a product that only market forces can constrain and that antitrust laws mandate that they produce as many credentialed docs as they can. Laughable.
Click to expand...
Consumers/public are actually hurt because oversupply causes docs to overbill/overtreat. Quite a bit of literature on this. It is part of the basis for CON!
 
Last edited:
In-person conferencing is being restarted by some industries, but initially it will be very subdued, I bet
 
Personally, covid changed my opinion on meetings. After astro wanted to charge admission to my own office I came to the realization that the meeting was never all that great. Generally less than desirable locations and content that wasn't compelling at all. I'll likely never attend another astro again.

Too many other meetings in better locations to even bother.
 
randomname2018 said:
Personally, covid changed my opinion on meetings. After astro wanted to charge admission to my own office I came to the realization that the meeting was never all that great. Generally less than desirable locations and content that wasn't compelling at all. I'll likely never attend another astro again.

Too many other meetings in better locations to even bother.
Click to expand...
I’m seriously asking, what meetings do you recommend that are better than ASTRO? I think ASTRO is pretty good.
 
Radonc90 said:


Well,

SDN will make that determination for ASTRO, whether it is in-person vs virtual meeting...
Stay tuned for an announcement by "SDN the Mob" LOL...
Click to expand...

Perhaps we should organize an SDN Conference.

Let's just organize a big Zoom Call, call it a Meeting and publish proceedings online.

You know, with all the topics we discuss about every day and really matter.
 
I went to Astro as a med student and twice during residency. Being a few years out not sure it’s worth the time/effort/cost of attending in the future. Probably would only go if some folks I did residency with were also going. SA CME is really easy to obtain through other means these days so that’s hardly even a motivation either.

If I was a cog in the academic industrial complex trying to push my research/visibility, I'd be much more likely to attend though.
 
Last edited:
RadOncMegatron said:
I’m seriously asking, what meetings do you recommend that are better than ASTRO? I think ASTRO is pretty good.
Click to expand...
ESMO was surprisingly good. It certainly does not go into depth like a radiation oncology conference on radiation-specific topics, but there were tons of educational sessions with many radiation therapy aspects and you had the opportunity to catch up with what's going on in the world of oncology in general.
Unfortunately, this year it's going to be virtual (again).

I do not know when these monster 30k-visitor-conferences are going to be non-virtual again.
 
RadOncMegatron said:
I’m seriously asking, what meetings do you recommend that are better than ASTRO? I think ASTRO is pretty good.
Click to expand...
Depends on your area of interest or goal of attendance. If your goal is networking, catching up with old resident colleagues, or seeing new tech at the exhibits then ASTRO is still the best bet. Even for CME I'd generally look elsewhere as well simply for location.

However, disease specific meetings have been higher quality in terms of content in my opinion. Head and neck, thoracic, and CNS meetings have been good. NRG has also been pretty educational as well.
 
Not Twitter, but from the latest ASTROgram:

1617210976231.png


If your radiation treatment volume is falling due to omission of radiation or hypofractionation, no worries, you can now provide COVID-19 vaccine! Expanding the scope of radiation oncology, one indication at a time.

Joking aside, good for patients.
 
SubserviantToABR said:
Not Twitter, but from the latest ASTROgram:

View attachment 333848

If your radiation treatment volume is falling due to omission of radiation or hypofractionation, no worries, you can now provide COVID-19 vaccine! Expanding the scope of radiation oncology, one indication at a time.

Joking aside, good for patients.
Click to expand...
Just charge $3,000 per shot like Northwell:

www.nytimes.com

‘It Felt Like Deception’: An Elite N.Y.C. Hospital Charges Huge Virus Test Fees (Published 2021)

Insurers are stuck with the big bills from Lenox Hill, but the public ultimately pays through higher premiums.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
thecarbonionangle said:
Potters thinking about a Covid fellowship, I am hearing. Cheap labour? Why not!!??
Click to expand...
Would love to know how much mskcc recovers for the ekgs on all breast cancers pts. (And that don’t come with a parking voucher) should take bets on max price charged.
 
Last edited:
RickyScott said:
Would love to know how much mskcc recovers for the ekgs on all breast cancers pts. (And that don’t come with a parking voucher) should take bets on max price changed.
Click to expand...
If every time CC Wang would say “Hi I’m CC Wang... the CC stand for cure cancer” then I’m allowed to think MSKCC stands for Make Some Kash Curing Cancer. Cha ching
 
New evidence for palliative and ablative fellowships: reduce hospital stays by 1 day!

 
NCAA vs Alston maybe loosely applicable to the "anti-trust" argument ASTRO has thrown out. Spoiler alert: The NCAA is going to lose. Hard.
 
Mandelin Rain said:
NCAA vs Alston maybe loosely applicable to the "anti-trust" argument ASTRO has thrown out. Spoiler alert: The NCAA is going to lose. Hard.
Click to expand...
Let’s not forget how hospitals (american hospital association) argued vociferously that price transparency was totally unconstitutional and unamerican. Supreme Court told them to f— off in december. “things” like the “public interest” are considered by the court.
 
udrag14 said:
I do like this finding. "Consults placed to IROC were staffed earlier by attending physicians by 0.95 days (P value .0001)"

It may explain the 1 day difference in inpatient treatment LoS.
Click to expand...
Could be. And the results may actually reflect something. What, I don't know. My only concern is that this was a colossally bad time to do a year to year inpatient stay comparison given the urgency to discharge during a pandemic.
 
medgator said:
slate.com

The Supreme Court Might Be Ready to Smack Down the NCAA

Amy Coney Barrett accurately summed up the NCAA’s argument as an idea that “consumers love watching unpaid people play sports.”
slate.com slate.com

I still don't see the analogy but it is interesting to see the NCAA managing to piss off both sides of the political spectrum
Click to expand...
Let me reiterate the word "loosely" applicable.

Basically, I see ASTRO/Academic departments as the NCAA and residents as the price-fixed athletes. When push comes to shove, the court will likely side with the interest of the little guy in anti-trust litigation. The common good. Patients certainly don't benefit from too many rad oncs. Nor do taxpayers.

ASTROs stance on anti-trust would be akin to the NCAA saying it's unable to limit basketball roster sizes as long as each team has enough basketballs to shoot, lest some undergrad chucker bring suit against them for being cut.
 
Last edited:
SubserviantToABR said:
KO's argument is also an important argument to get rid of grandfathered rad oncs, who should retrain or retire, who can't even spell IMRT but are holding on to dear life because they still making a killing.
Click to expand...

This is my biggest gripe with the field currently, residency hyperexpansion be damned. These dinosaurs need to go.

It was a big Eureka moment in residency when I realized the beloved chair was a buffoon who couldn't do anything himself. Look around the country and it is everywhere.
 
1617289923887.png

Original thread:


Here's another example of why Drew Moghanaki is a punk. His initial tweet was about not asking lung cancer patients whether or not they smoked. Ryckman and Chowdhary diplomatically and respectfully rebutted with the importance to discuss smoking with patients and how one should properly and compassionately do so. While many lung cancer patients are never smokers, many are former/active smokers, and active smoking portends worse outcomes...we all know that.

But here comes drew, talking down to two other colleagues and @ Laura Dawson, the ASTRO president. What the actual eff, man? This is Drew's problem. All he does is brown nose his way through life (see his tweets) and tries to score internet points with lung cancer patients and advocates. I support the mission of cancer patients and realize the stigmatization of smoking especially in lung and H&N patients is problematic, and this fact is not lost on me. However, he is pretty damn self-righteous and should step away from the bottle, especially at this early time in the morning.
 
SubserviantToABR said:
View attachment 333951
Original thread:


Here's another example of why Drew Moghanaki is a punk. His initial tweet was about not asking lung cancer patients whether or not they smoked. Ryckman and Chowdhary diplomatically and respectfully rebutted with the importance to discuss smoking with patients and how one should properly and compassionately do so. While many lung cancer patients are never smokers, many are former/active smokers, and active smoking portends worse outcomes...we all know that.

But here comes drew, talking down to two other colleagues and @ Laura Dawson, the ASTRO president. What the actual eff, man? This is Drew's problem. All he does is brown nose his way through life (see his tweets) and tries to score internet points with lung cancer patients and advocates. I support the mission of cancer patients and realize the stigmatization of smoking especially in lung and H&N patients is problematic, and this fact is not lost on me. However, he is pretty damn self-righteous and should step away from the bottle, especially at this early time in the morning.
Click to expand...

You know...this is just classic.

All I have to say is that I think Jeff and Mudit are credits to our field and I'm glad their careers are just beginning. I think we could all benefit with more academicians like them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

uchihastan
Rad Onc vs. Heme/Onc
Replies
18
Views
2K
medgator
M
B
Rad Onc Procedures and RVUs
Replies
35
Views
5K
CurbYourExpectations
CurbYourExpectations
D
Saving Rad Onc
2
Replies
60
Views
7K
RickyScott
R
TheWallnerus
Rad Onc is in a dark place
Replies
13
Views
3K
RickyScott
R
M
Rad Onc Oral Boards: To quote or not quote studies?
Replies
3
Views
438
evilbooyaa
evilbooyaa
Top