The Radiation Oncology Job Market: The Economics and Policy of Workforce Regulation.

Examinations of the US radiation oncology workforce offer inconsistent conclusions, but recent data raise significant concerns about an oversupply of physicians. Despite these concerns, residency slots continue to expand at an unprecedented pace. Employed radiation oncologists and professional corporations with weak contracts or loose ties to hospital administrators would be expected to suffer the greatest harm from an oversupply. The reduced cost of labor, however, would be expected to increase profitability for equipment owners, technology vendors, and entrenched professional groups. Policymakers must recognize that the number of practicing radiation oncologists is a poor surrogate for clinical capacity. There is likely to be significant opportunity to augment capacity without increasing the number of radiation oncologists by improving clinic efficiency and offering targeted incentives for geographic redistribution. Payment policy changes significantly threaten radiation oncologists' income, which may encourage physicians to care for greater patient loads, thereby obviating more personnel. Furthermore, the implementation of alternative payment models such as Medicare's Oncology Care Model threatens to decrease both the utilization and price of radiation therapy by turning referring providers into cost-conscious consumers. Medicare funds the vast majority of graduate medical education, but the extent to which the expansion in radiation oncology residency slots has been externally funded is unclear. Excess physician capacity carries a significant risk of harm to society by suboptimally allocating intellectual resources and creating comparative shortages in other, more needed disciplines. There are practical concerns associated with a market-based solution in which medical students self-regulate according to job availability, but antitrust law would likely forbid collaborative self-regulation that purports to restrict supply. Because Congress is unlikely to create one central body to govern residency controls for all specialties, we recommend better reporting of program-specific employment metrics and careful, intellectually honest re-evaluation of existing Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accreditation standards.

Supply and Demand for Radiation Oncology in the United States: Updated Projections for 2015 to 2025.

PURPOSE: Prior studies have forecasted demand for radiation therapy to grow 10 times faster than the supply between 2010 and 2020. We updated these projections for 2015 to 2025 to determine whether this imbalance persists and to assess the accuracy of prior projections. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The demand for radiation therapy between 2015 and 2025 was estimated by combining current radiation utilization rates determined by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data with population projections provided by the US Census Bureau. The supply of radiation oncologists was forecast by using workforce demographics and full-time equivalent (FTE) status provided by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), current resident class sizes, and expected survival per life tables from the US Centers for Disease Control. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2025, the annual total number of patients receiving radiation therapy during their initial treatment course is expected to increase by 19%, from 490,000 to 580,000. Assuming a graduating resident class size of 200, the number of FTE physicians is expected to increase by 27%, from 3903 to 4965. In comparison with prior projections, the new projected demand for radiation therapy in 2020 dropped by 24,000 cases (a 4% relative decline). This decrease is attributable to an overall reduction in the use of radiation to treat cancer, from 28% of all newly diagnosed cancers in the prior projections down to 26% for the new projections. By contrast, the new projected supply of radiation oncologists in 2020 increased by 275 FTEs in comparison with the prior projection for 2020 (a 7% relative increase), attributable to rising residency class sizes. CONCLUSION: The supply of radiation oncologists is expected to grow more quickly than the demand for radiation therapy from 2015 to 2025. Further research is needed to determine whether this is an appropriate correction or will result in excess capacity.

Biosimilar competition in the United States: statutory incentives, payers, and pharmacy benefit managers.

Widespread adoption of generic medications, made possible by the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984, has contained the cost of small-molecule drugs in the United States. Biologics, however, have yet to face competition from follow-on products and represent the fastest-growing sector of the US pharmaceutical market. We compare the legislative framework governing small-molecule generics to that which regulates follow-on biologics, and we examine management tools that are likely to be most successful in promoting biosimilars' adoption. The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act established an abbreviated pathway for follow-on biologics, but weak statutory incentives create barriers to entry. Many authors have raised concerns that competition under the biologics act may be weaker than that posed by small-molecule generics under Hatch-Waxman, in part because of legislative choices such as the absence of market exclusivity for the first biosimilar approved and a requirement that follow-on manufacturers disclose their manufacturing processes to the manufacturer of the reference product. Provider skepticism and limited competition from biosimilars will challenge payers and pharmacy benefit managers to reduce prices and maximize uptake of follow-on biologics. Successful payers and pharmacy benefit managers will employ various strategies, including tiered formularies and innovative fee schedules, that can control spending by promoting uptake of biosimilars across both the pharmacy and medical benefits.

Specialty medications: traditional and novel tools can address rising spending on these costly drugs.

Spending on specialty medications, which represented a small proportion of US pharmacy spending at the beginning of this decade, is growing by more than 15 percent annually. It is expected to account for approximately half ($235 billion) of total annual pharmacy spending by 2018. Among the numerous reasons for the high cost of this heterogeneous group of medications are the increasing size of target patient populations, the high cost of drug development, and a complex and uncoordinated delivery system. In this article we describe the evolution of the specialty market, characterize the current state of specialty medication use, and articulate key challenges and potential solutions. Fully realizing the potential value of the expanding universe of specialty medications will require collaborative efforts to reduce waste and promote value. Those who prescribe, dispense, deliver, and pay for specialty medications will need to employ a combination of traditional and novel management approaches, such as prior authorization, step therapy, tiered formularies, administration at lower-cost sites, and the unique tools being developed for cancer medications.

Green eggs and ham: Strategies to address the growing phenomenon of selling a medical school's name.

In 2008, the authors published a review that highlighted an emerging trend for medical schools to change their names to those of wealthy donors. Since 2008, the names of ten benefactors have been added to the medical schools receiving their gifts. Twenty-three of the 141 U.S. medical schools accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education are currently named after donors. Large donations have the potential to positively affect all stakeholders by improving the resources that are available for research, teaching, and clinical care, but the rapid increase in the naming of medical schools after wealthy benefactors raises important concerns for those same stakeholders. In this perspective, the authors explore such concerns and identify mitigating strategies that institutions facing these issues in the future can use to ensure that the benefit associated with a gift outweighs any adverse impact. The authors argue for a strong presumption of impropriety when a donor possesses a conflict of interest with the potential to affect clinicians' judgment. They go on to assess how donors' control of funds may have an impact on institutional mission and research agenda, and analyze the right of an organization to remove a benefactor's name for alleged wrongdoing. The perspective considers how renaming may negatively affect brand recognition and the associated impact on students, residents, faculty, and alumni. Finally, it concludes with an analysis of taxpayer-funded organizations and the concern that educational renaming will lead to a slippery slope in which other public goods are effectively purchased by wealthy donors.