Feature

ASTRO Pushes Return to Direct Supervision in RT: Needed or ‘Babysitting’?


 

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently sent a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) opposing the extension of virtual supervision for radiation oncology services.

Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only.

Changes to Direct Supervision

Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control.

During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed.

CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule.

“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”

CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth.

What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?

Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care.

Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.

“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”

What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?

According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients.

But that might not be the case.

Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter.

Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.”

“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”

Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.

“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”

Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”

Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”

ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.

CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

Recommended Reading

FDA Removes Harmful Chemicals From Food Packaging
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Outside the Guidelines: Denosumab Overuse in Prostate Cancer
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Hospital Mergers in 2024: Five Things to Know
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
How These MDs Conquered Imposter Syndrome
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Medicare Pay Bump Provision in Federal Bill Falls Short, Doc Groups Say
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
How the Change Healthcare Cyberattack Affects Oncology Care
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Residents Unionizing: What Are the Benefits, the Downsides?
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
TIL for Melanoma: What Are the Costs and Other Challenges to Getting It to Patients?
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Nivolumab Wins First-Line Indication in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
New Cancer Surgical Tech Gets Positive Vote, But Some Cite Safety Concerns
MDedge Hematology and Oncology