Rad onc vs. Med onc salaries

[scarbrtj]

As mentioned there is an exemption for any services offered in office. For my field (urology) that means in office path, urorads, maybe pharmacy. The law is basically a farce these days, where most doctors work for some mega group/academic center/hospital, where your referrals are strongly suggested to be in house. Basically outside of the exemption it’s illegal to profit on your referral to ancillary service. However it’s perfectly legal for the giant medical center that employs you (likely in part supporting your salary through the ancillary revenue you generate) and suggests you refer in house to profit from your referrals.

"Kickbacks for me, but not for thee."

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Neuronix]

However it’s perfectly legal for the giant medical center that employs you (likely in part supporting your salary through the ancillary revenue you generate) and suggests you refer in house to profit from your referrals.

The ancillaries are supporting someone's salary, but not the assistant clinical professor who is probably taking home ~10% of their global collections.

 

[evilbooyaa]

Everyone's supporting hospital adminstration with some portion fo their salaries.

 

[CptCrunch]

That's

That's the standard. Most referrals to rad onc come from med onc.

However, in certain disease sites, patients are referred to rad onc from non med onc services. This makes the model of a med onc and rad onc multispecialty group more favorable if they treat the rad onc as an equal partner, not just as a subordinate. To motivate the rad onc to practice build beyond just the in-house med oncs to capture outside sources of referrals.

Agree with Neuronix that this is practice-dependent. The majority of my definitive/adjuvant patient referrals are from the surgeons or proceduralists including breast, prostate/GU, GI, Gyn, CNS, H&N, lung, skin, etc. I get mostly palliative cases from my med oncs.