3709 - Radiation Oncology Physician Workforce Populations: A Snapshot from the 2025 ASTRO Annual Member Survey
Presenter(s)
J. K. Salama1, J. E. Bates2, E. Chen3, I. J. Choi4, M. Chowdhary5, R. Chaudhari6, I. J. Das7, J. R. Liu8, L. B. Reshko9, A. J. Sim10, M. Weisman11, and C. S. Shah12; 1Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, 2Department of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 3Cheshire Medical Center, Keene, NH, 4New York Proton Center, New York, NY, 5Northside Hospital, Atlanta, GA, 6SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, 7Department of Radiation Oncology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, 8Department of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, 9University of Louisville, Department of Radiation Oncology, Louisville, KY, 10H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Department of Radiation Oncology, Tampa, FL, 11Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, 12Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, Department of Radiation Oncology, Pittsburgh, PA
Purpose/Objective(s): The US radiation oncology workforce comprises diverse physician populations working in varied geographic and clinical settings. Data related to specific non-mutually exclusive groups, including physician-scientists (PS), academically affiliated community providers (AACP), private practitioners (PP), and rural providers (RP) are sparse. The ASTRO Workforce Committee utilized the 2025 Member Survey to characterize these cohorts and identify their unique professional challenges.
Materials/Methods: The 2025 ASTRO Member Survey included targeted questions for specific physician populations regarding practice roles, effort distribution (clinical, administrative, academic), funding, and their “top three” profession concerns. Responses were cross-referenced with demographic data from the survey for further context. Descriptive analysis was employed to summarize the qualitative and quantitative trends across subgroups.
Results: From 875 total responses, 433 members answered some workforce questions, including 92 PS, 100 AACP, 68 RP, and162 PP. PS reported median clinical effort of 60%; 20% for basic/translational. Consistent PS concerns focused on the unstable research funding climate (85%), decreased protected time (48%), followed by challenges recruiting staff/trainees (12%). AACPs reported a median clinical effort of 80%. AACP concerns included: time/funding for academics (41%), increasing administrative burdens (37%), decreasing reimbursement/increasing expenses (27%), staffing challenges (21%), and AMC support for research/clinic (14%). PP and RR reported a median clinical effort of 80% with 20% effort on administration/non-clinical work. PP concerns included: administrative and regulatory burdens (56%), decreased relative reimbursement (47%), challenges recruiting/maintaining staffing (21%), and maintaining/replacing equipment (14%). Representing subsets of the other 3 groups, RP concerns included barriers to timely specialty care, declining reimbursement and poor payor mix, along with administrative/clinical burdens.
Conclusion: While administrative burden, staffing challenges, and reimbursement volatility were universal concerns across the US radiation oncology workforce, each physician subgroup faced specific pressures. PS are primarily threatened by funding and time constraints, while AACP and PP struggle with the friction between clinical volume and non-clinical work. RP are additionally challenged by barriers to timely and optimal care. These findings provide a roadmap for ASTRO and practice leaders to develop targeted advocacy and support strategies to sustain a diverse and healthy workforce.