The American Society for Radiation Oncology Workforce Taskforce Review of the United States Radiation Oncology Workforce Analysis.

Over the past decade, concerns have arisen in radiation oncology regarding potential workforce supply and demand imbalance. The American Society for Radiation Oncology commissioned an independent analysis in 2022, looking at supply and demand in the United States radiation oncology workforce and projecting future trends for 2025 and 2030. The final report, titled Projected Supply and Demand for Radiation Oncologists in the U.S. in 2025 and 2030, is now available. The analysis included evaluating radiation oncologist (RO) supply (new graduates, exits from the specialty), potential changes in demand (growth of Medicare beneficiaries, hypofractionation, loss of indications, new indications) as well as RO productivity (growth of work relative value units [wRVUs] produced), and demand per beneficiary. The results demonstrated a relative balance between radiation oncology supply and demand for radiation services; the growth in ROs was balanced by the rapid growth of Medicare beneficiaries over the same period. The primary factors driving the model were found to be growth of Medicare beneficiaries and change in wRVU productivity, with hypofractionation and loss of indication having only a moderate effect; although the most likely scenario was a balance of workforce supply and demand, scenarios did demonstrate the possibility of over- and undersupply. Oversupply may become a concern if RO wRVU productivity reaches the highest region; beyond 2030, this is also possible if growth in RO supply does not parallel Medicare beneficiary growth, which is projected to decline and will require corresponding supply adjustment. Limitations of the analysis included uncertainty regarding the true number of ROs, the lack of inclusion of most technical reimbursement and its effect as well as failing to account for stereotactic body radiation therapy. A modeling tool is available to allow individuals to evaluate different scenarios. Moving forward, continued study will be needed to evaluate trends (particularly wRVU productivity and Medicare beneficiary growth) to allow for continued assessment of workforce supply and demand in radiation oncology.

Disproportionate Negative Impact of the Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model on Rural Providers: A Cost Identification Analysis of Medicare Claims.

PURPOSE: The Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model (APM) is a Medicare demonstration project that will test whether prospective bundled payments to a randomly selected group of physician practices, hospital outpatient departments, and freestanding radiation therapy centers reduce overall expenditures while preserving or enhancing the quality of care for beneficiaries. The Model follows a complicated pricing methodology that blends historical reimbursements for a defined set of services made to professional and technical providers to create a weighted payment average for each of 16 cancer types. These averages are then adjusted by various factors to determine APM payments specific to each participating provider. METHODS: This impact study segregates APM participants into rural and urban groups and analyzes the effect of the Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model on their fee-for-service reimbursements. RESULTS: The main findings of this study are (1) the greater net-negative revenue impact on rural facilities versus urban facilities that would have participated in the Model this year and (2) the relative lack of high-value treatment services (ie, stereotactic radiotherapy and brachytherapy) delivered by rural facilities that exacerbates their negative impact. CONCLUSION: As such, rural providers participating in the Model in its current form may face greater risk to their economic viability and greater difficulty in funding technology improvements necessary for the achievement of high-quality care compared with their urban counterparts.