-
Brian Casey interview with Larry Murrof
Brian,
I saw your interview with Dr. Murrof and am wondering if you guys could ask him and others some of the questions posed by the other commentors – especially the multi point letter sent out on the other thread.
With respect to these decorated decision makers –
While I understand their point that cutting spots could reduce our ability to handle volume and could cause a loss of turf, I pose follow up questions for them.
1. Why do they presume radiology is not subjected to supply and demand like other specialties or businesses in general? By the statistics mentioned on the other thread, clearly this is an ongoing problem as we are exponentially increasing supply despite stagnat demand.
2. The competitive nature of radiology continues to diminish year after year. Statistics also show this. If we meet this proposed future need for tons of radiologists with poor quality candidates, will this not pose and equal if not worse risk of turf loss?
3. Perhaps “volume, volume, volume” is not the answer at all. Clinicians arguable can interpret their own imaging ( so many claim they can) and they have the added benefit of intimately knowing the history of the patient. Often, unfortunately, we read studies in a vacuum with little or no information. Not only is that dangerous in terms of patient care and assuming unnecessary additional liability, but what added benefits do our reports provide in such a scenario to specialists that already have some idea about the images?
4. Why are specialties like dermatology, orthopedics and plastics able to keep their supply down without losing turf?
Brian, could you please ask these decision makers to address some of these concerns specifically? While they keep saying they empathize with trainees, empathy is not enough. We are not asking to enjoy the fruits that they enjoyed when they were in our position, but this idea of “there is a job somewhere doing something” is just not acceptable. Who would want to put in all this time training and have loans continue to compile interest for a job in a city away from family doing something you don’t like? This is a recipe for disaster and will continue to divert good medical students away from radiology while filling the slots with people such as those who failed to match into the specialty of their choice. There are red flags everywhere.
-
4 Replies
-
I would lead with question 4, since it’s the most on point. But then again, sounds like he’s bought the notion that things are cyclical and that market improvements are right around the corner, so I doubt any further questions are going to be fruitful. If you buy the notion that with a glut of radiologists you won’t lose turf you are kind of destined to forever be mired in “haves” and “have nots”. Flooding the market may drive out competitors but it rarely makes things better for those you are exploiting within your field to accomplish this.
-
V-man,
A top ACR official told me that very thing last night. -
Quote from Vorhees
[i][b]If you buy the notion that with a glut of radiologists you won’t lose turf you are kind of destined to forever be mired in “haves” and “have nots”[/b][/i]. Flooding the market may drive out competitors but it rarely makes things better for those you are exploiting within your field to accomplish this.
This is why jobs are only there for the “lucky” currently. It is amazing that they actually think we’ll lose meaningful parts of our specialty, but yes, you nailed it once again. Out of the park.-
Telerad pays 25/RVU while some academic rads like Dergon make 95/RVU. Most of these academic rads were the dumbest laziest residents of their time. Life is all about luck.
-
-
