Medical Dosimetry 40 (2015) 166–172
Medical Dosimetry journal homepage: www.meddos.org
Workforce and Salary Survey Trends: Opportunities and Challenges for the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists Michael D. Mills, Ph.D. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY
A R T I C L E I N F O
Keywords: Survey Clinical training Salary Accreditation
A B S T R A C T The American Association of Medical Dosimetrists (AAMD) designed and directed 2 surveys of the AAMD membership. The first was in 2011 and the second in 2014. There were a number of questions common to both surveys, and this article seeks to evaluate these common questions to determine trends among the professional membership of the AAMD. It is demonstrated that the observed trends are consistent with the goals and objectives established by the leadership of the AAMD and the Medical Dosimetry Certification Board (MDCB) for the medical dosimetry community. In addition, certain challenges and opportunities involving the scope of practice for the medical dosimetry profession are discussed. & 2015 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.
Introduction This report is intended to review some of the data respecting the medical dosimetry profession collected by the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists (AAMD) surveys in 2011 and 2014.1,2 Although the data are mostly very consistent between the 2 reports, an analysis of several data snapshots reveals some interesting trends. In the discussion, an evaluation of various new challenges and opportunities facing medical dosimetry, including the formal designation of “Physics Assistant” by some regulatory bodies, is examined. Medical dosimetrists receive their basic education in a technological or scientific discipline whereas their practical training deals with the clinical applications of dosimetric principles. Medical dosimetrists work in diverse health care organizations providing therapeutic clinical services to oncology patients. In radiation oncology, medical dosimetrists create and monitor patient treatment plans and provide oversight to high-level treatment procedures. The medical dosimetry profession is small and somewhat obscure. Medical dosimetrists' work is not well understood by the public or by health care clinicians with whom they work, especially by individuals outside of radiation oncology. Although health provider systems do not require large numbers of medical
Reprint requests to: Michael D. Mills, Ph.D., Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Louisville, Brown Cancer Center, 529 South Jackson Street, Louisville, KY 40202. E-mail: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2015.03.001 0958-3947/Copyright Ó 2015 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists
dosimetrists, the services of medical dosimetrists are essential and in demand. Medical dosimetry is a stand-alone profession, meaning medical dosimetrists alone are responsible for the academic requirements and training of their professionals. The guidelines for education and training of medical dosimetrists are changing to align with the new certification requirements recently proposed by the Medical Dosimetry Certification Board (MDCB). The new education and training requirements are slated to become effective in 2017.
Methods and Materials In 2011, a comprehensive workforce survey of medical dosimetrists was designed by the advisory committee appointed by the AAMD to oversee this project. The content of the questionnaire was determined after completion of a comprehensive literature review, after examining historical data on the medical dosimetry profession, and after conducting extensive interviews with currently practicing medical dosimetrists, directors of medical dosimetry education and training programs, industry representatives working with medical dosimetrists, government regulators, the professional association, the certification board, and other stakeholders with an interest in medical dosimetry. The advisory committee made adjustments to survey content and format and finalized the survey instrument in December 2010. Overall, 2246 members of AAMD were solicited to participate in the survey. The survey was closed on August 21, 2011, with 968 responses. These responses were evaluated for duplications, completeness of response including salary information, and appropriate identification. In 2014, a salary survey of medical dosimetrists was designed by the advisory committee appointed by the AAMD to oversee this project. The content of the questionnaire was again determined after completion of a comprehensive literature review, after examining historical data on the medical dosimetry profession, and after conducting extensive interviews with currently practicing medical dosimetrists, directors of medical dosimetry education and training programs, industry
M. D. Mills / Medical Dosimetry 40 (2015) 166–172
Fig. 1. (A) Academic degree for medical dosimetrists in 2011. (B) Academic degree for medical dosimetrists in 2014.
167
168
M. D. Mills / Medical Dosimetry 40 (2015) 166–172
Fig. 2. (A) Clinical training for medical dosimetrists in 2011. (B) Clinical training for medical dosimetrists in 2014.
M. D. Mills / Medical Dosimetry 40 (2015) 166–172
169
Table 1 Indicate your total net annual income in 2010 excluding benefits from all your medical dosimetry positions—all respondents, 2011 Salary by quartile, percentile, and mean for medical dosimetrists working 40 h/wk or more
Salary
First quartile (25th percentile) $88,636
Second quartile (50th percentile) $100,000
representatives working with medical dosimetrists, government regulators, the professional association, the certification board, and other stakeholders with an interest in medical dosimetry. There were a number of questions common to both the 2011 and 2014 surveys. The survey instrument was pilot tested by the members of the advisory committee who completed the survey. The advisory committee made adjustments to survey content and format and finalized the survey instrument in April 2014. The survey was closed on June 25, 2014, with 905 responses. These responses were evaluated for duplications, completeness of response including salary information, and appropriate identification. The online responses were downloaded into an electronic database. Standard data editing and cleaning procedures were performed to maximize the accuracy and consistency of the data elements at which time the data was placed into an SPSS database for analysis. Much of the analysis presented in this report is stratified by medical dosimetrists' years of experience and by place or type of employment. AAMD had a high-quality master list of professional medical dosimetrists that contained e-mail contact information for essentially all members. This database was provided to be used in the survey for selection of all full members with a U.S. or Canadian mailing addresses. The request for survey participation was sent to all medical dosimetrists who were members of the AAMD. Each medical dosimetrist was provided with an individualized link to the survey instrument to prevent duplication of responses.
Results The respondents were asked to report all degrees that apply; it is for that reason the percentages add up to greater than 100%. The percentage categories for medical dosimetrist academic degrees show a decline in the number of practicing medical dosimetrists with “no degree” and “associate degree” between 2011 and 2014. Perhaps the retirement of individuals who were in the field long before any degree was required coupled with a move toward minimum education and certification requirements by most institutions is responsible for this trend. Additionally, with the 2017 requirements to sit for the MDCB examination, the bachelor's degree will become the standard for medical dosimetrists entering professional practice. Most medical dosimetrists were trained in hospital-based certificate programs or on-the-job training. Bachelor's degree and master's degree programs are just starting to make an effect in the overall labor pool. It will likely be more than 10 years before most medical dosimetrists possess bachelor's degree or master's degree or both. It seems likely the marketplace will eventually support the bachelor's degree as the expected or standard qualification to compete successfully for a medical dosimetry position. However, that expectation is still a number of years in the future. The standard to sit for the MDCB examination after 2017 is for all medical dosimetrists to hold at least a bachelor's degree as well as to be graduates of a Joint Review Committee on Education in Radiologic Technology (JRCERT)-accredited academic and clinical training program. Graduates of JRCERT programs now comprise only approximately one quarter of the pool of working
Third quartile (75th percentile) $112,000
Mean (average) $102,040
# Responses 584
professional medical dosimetrists; however, that fraction is growing. The demographics suggest it will be approximately 10 years before most medical dosimetrists are graduates of JRCERTaccredited programs. Medical dosimetrists are on their way to realizing the goal of having the profession composed only of graduates from accredited programs. The most significant trend is the smaller percentage of medical dosimetrists working for Physician's Freestanding Radiation Oncology Facilities. This is not surprising, and there are several reasons for this change. There is a tendency for retiring physicians to sell these facilities, usually to community hospitals or medical centers. In the current economic climate, it is easier for existing institutions to finance and purchase the building and equipment than for a younger physician to acquire the financing. Another reason may be a combination of reimbursement and regulatory challenges that drive this trend. Physicians may find freestanding centers to be less profitable and more difficult to administrate with these recent challenges. The good news is this trend is unlikely to affect medical dosimetrist employment or salaries. Medical dosimetry salaries continue to rise at approximately 1.7% per year. Although this figure may be lower than was seen in previous years, it still indicates there is overall a healthy demand for the services of medical dosimetrists. It also indicates the market for medical dosimetrists is not saturated, although there may be local regions where few medical dosimetry positions are available. Discussion The trends observed in Figures 1-4 and Tables 1 and 2 are expected and do not seem to provide unreasonable challenges to the medical dosimetry profession. It is the expressed goal of AAMD and MDCB leadership to standardize the educational and training requirements to enter the medical dosimetry profession. Although the progress toward realizing these goals is not dramatic, it is present and does reflect the beginning of the achievement of these stated objectives. An issue on the horizon that could affect the medical dosimetry profession is the emergence of the medical physicist assistant (MPA). The MPA broadly is assigned routine tasks otherwise performed by a medical physicist. New Jersey has already defined the MPA in it code of regulations, and Texas is expected to be next. The current wave of MPA discussion appears to originate from the imaging physics world, but obviously has immediate application to radiation oncology as well. Imaging physicists work with a very small number of patientspecific tasks and a large number of individual pieces of equipment. This is in contrast to the mostly patient-specific work of therapy physicists. Imaging physics is largely provided by contractors who support very large numbers of equipment over a fairly
Table 2 Indicate your total net annual income in 2013 excluding benefits from all your medical dosimetry positions—all full time respondents, 2014 Salary by quartile, percentile, and mean for medical dosimetrists working 30 h/wk or more
Salary
First quartile (25th percentile) $92,900
Second quartile (50th percentile) $105,019
Third quartile (75th percentile) $119,000
Mean (average) $106,735
# Responses 627
170
M. D. Mills / Medical Dosimetry 40 (2015) 166–172
Fig. 3. (A) Is the medical dosimetry program associated with your training JRCERT accredited? 2011. (B) Is the medical dosimetry program associated with your training JRCERT accredited? 2014.
M. D. Mills / Medical Dosimetry 40 (2015) 166–172
171
Fig. 4. (A) Primary work setting where you spend most of your hours, 2011. (B) Primary work setting where you spend most of your hours, 2014.
large geographic range. In academic practice, they tend to support a large number of pieces of equipment more localized to 1 large organization. A great deal of the work consists of positioning a phantom or a detector or both and activating the equipment to elicit a certain technique. The intellectual component of the work is to analyze the resulting data and to make adjustments or recommendations of adjustments. It is quite common for imaging physicists in either the community or institutional practice to delegate the rote collection of data to individuals who will not be called on to perform any analysis. Those employees only need to know how to position the phantom or the detector or both and properly activate the equipment. These processes and practices are already deeply entrenched. Only certain states have already moved to incorporate some language into regulation that defines who these people are and how they are to be supervised. In these new and emerging regulations, an employee who gathers data periodically is a MPA. When we consider radiation oncology, the use of physicist extenders is almost as common but has a different flavor. In certain settings, especially large academic/institutional settings, it is now commonplace for the medical physicist rarely if ever to directly
perform routine quality assurance or intensity-modulated radiation therapy delivery measurements. Those tasks are usually delegated to “junior” people. Until now, no state has codified any specific credentials or supervision requirements, but there is a sense that it is now on the cusp of fruition. These people will be called MPAs. The body of work that involves using computers and working with radiation oncology physicians to develop treatment plans and machine instructions for particular patients is almost exclusively the domain of medical dosimetrists in 2015. With the emergence and maturity of the medical dosimetry profession, medical dosimetrists are not characterized as physics extenders. However, current AAMD official scope of practice3 documents still stipulate that the medical dosimetrist works under the supervision of both the radiation oncology physician and medical physicist. In addition, the current AAMD practice documents list a number of inclusive tasks that could be considered tasks performed by radiation oncology MPAs. The “supervision” of medical dosimetrists by medical physicists is steadily drifting away from an “extender” relationship, and MPAs are emerging to take over some of the tasks. Therefore, the trend may soon be for medical
172
M. D. Mills / Medical Dosimetry 40 (2015) 166–172
Fig. 4. (continued)
dosimetrists to lose certain tasks enumerated in the scope of practice to MPAs. Medical physics education programs are accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP). CAMPEP-accredited graduate programs are oversupplying the marketplace. In 2015, approximately 300 graduate medical physicists, M.S. and Ph.D., applied for fewer than 100 CAMPEP-accredited residency slots. Clearly many medical physicists that are unsuccessful landing a CAMPEP residency may apply for a physicist assistant slot at approximately $50K; this is well below the salary range for both medical dosimetrists and medical physicists. It is possible this could put pressure on both medical dosimetrist and medical physicist salaries and positions. Many CAMPEP academic graduates are bright, clinically adept, and ambitious. Both the AAMD and the MDCB leadership will need to think carefully about strategies to preserve the role they have earned in radiation oncology. Medical dosimetrists may wish to have a say in the crafting of new state regulations that specify the scope of work of the physicist assistant.
Even with the enumerated challenges, the future of medical dosimetry seems both bright and secure. Although not dramatic, the trends seen between 2011 and 2014 seem to support the overall goals of the AAMD and MDCB. Although medical dosimetry may face some political challenges with the oversupply of medical physics M.S. and Ph.D. graduates and the emergence of the MPA, they should prepare to meet this challenge by carefully crafting a revision of the scope of practice document and participating in the promulgation of new state radiation control regulations that define the MPA.
References 1. AAMD Report—Dosimetry workforce study. Available at. http://medicaldosime try.org/publications/2012_salary_survey.cfm. 2. AAMD Report—Dosimetry salary survey. Available at. http://www.medicaldosim etry.org/pub/6e032bfb-dd45-6c76-ca77-5a641f944f1a. 3. AAMD Scope of practice. Available at. http://www.medicaldosimetry.org/general information/AAMD_Practice_Standards.pdf?pass=69.
Medical Dosimetry journal homepage: www.meddos.org
Workforce and Salary Survey Trends: Opportunities and Challenges for the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists Michael D. Mills, Ph.D. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY
A R T I C L E I N F O
Keywords: Survey Clinical training Salary Accreditation
A B S T R A C T The American Association of Medical Dosimetrists (AAMD) designed and directed 2 surveys of the AAMD membership. The first was in 2011 and the second in 2014. There were a number of questions common to both surveys, and this article seeks to evaluate these common questions to determine trends among the professional membership of the AAMD. It is demonstrated that the observed trends are consistent with the goals and objectives established by the leadership of the AAMD and the Medical Dosimetry Certification Board (MDCB) for the medical dosimetry community. In addition, certain challenges and opportunities involving the scope of practice for the medical dosimetry profession are discussed. & 2015 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.
Introduction This report is intended to review some of the data respecting the medical dosimetry profession collected by the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists (AAMD) surveys in 2011 and 2014.1,2 Although the data are mostly very consistent between the 2 reports, an analysis of several data snapshots reveals some interesting trends. In the discussion, an evaluation of various new challenges and opportunities facing medical dosimetry, including the formal designation of “Physics Assistant” by some regulatory bodies, is examined. Medical dosimetrists receive their basic education in a technological or scientific discipline whereas their practical training deals with the clinical applications of dosimetric principles. Medical dosimetrists work in diverse health care organizations providing therapeutic clinical services to oncology patients. In radiation oncology, medical dosimetrists create and monitor patient treatment plans and provide oversight to high-level treatment procedures. The medical dosimetry profession is small and somewhat obscure. Medical dosimetrists' work is not well understood by the public or by health care clinicians with whom they work, especially by individuals outside of radiation oncology. Although health provider systems do not require large numbers of medical
Reprint requests to: Michael D. Mills, Ph.D., Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Louisville, Brown Cancer Center, 529 South Jackson Street, Louisville, KY 40202. E-mail: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2015.03.001 0958-3947/Copyright Ó 2015 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists
dosimetrists, the services of medical dosimetrists are essential and in demand. Medical dosimetry is a stand-alone profession, meaning medical dosimetrists alone are responsible for the academic requirements and training of their professionals. The guidelines for education and training of medical dosimetrists are changing to align with the new certification requirements recently proposed by the Medical Dosimetry Certification Board (MDCB). The new education and training requirements are slated to become effective in 2017.
Methods and Materials In 2011, a comprehensive workforce survey of medical dosimetrists was designed by the advisory committee appointed by the AAMD to oversee this project. The content of the questionnaire was determined after completion of a comprehensive literature review, after examining historical data on the medical dosimetry profession, and after conducting extensive interviews with currently practicing medical dosimetrists, directors of medical dosimetry education and training programs, industry representatives working with medical dosimetrists, government regulators, the professional association, the certification board, and other stakeholders with an interest in medical dosimetry. The advisory committee made adjustments to survey content and format and finalized the survey instrument in December 2010. Overall, 2246 members of AAMD were solicited to participate in the survey. The survey was closed on August 21, 2011, with 968 responses. These responses were evaluated for duplications, completeness of response including salary information, and appropriate identification. In 2014, a salary survey of medical dosimetrists was designed by the advisory committee appointed by the AAMD to oversee this project. The content of the questionnaire was again determined after completion of a comprehensive literature review, after examining historical data on the medical dosimetry profession, and after conducting extensive interviews with currently practicing medical dosimetrists, directors of medical dosimetry education and training programs, industry
M. D. Mills / Medical Dosimetry 40 (2015) 166–172
Fig. 1. (A) Academic degree for medical dosimetrists in 2011. (B) Academic degree for medical dosimetrists in 2014.
167
168
M. D. Mills / Medical Dosimetry 40 (2015) 166–172
Fig. 2. (A) Clinical training for medical dosimetrists in 2011. (B) Clinical training for medical dosimetrists in 2014.
M. D. Mills / Medical Dosimetry 40 (2015) 166–172
169
Table 1 Indicate your total net annual income in 2010 excluding benefits from all your medical dosimetry positions—all respondents, 2011 Salary by quartile, percentile, and mean for medical dosimetrists working 40 h/wk or more
Salary
First quartile (25th percentile) $88,636
Second quartile (50th percentile) $100,000
representatives working with medical dosimetrists, government regulators, the professional association, the certification board, and other stakeholders with an interest in medical dosimetry. There were a number of questions common to both the 2011 and 2014 surveys. The survey instrument was pilot tested by the members of the advisory committee who completed the survey. The advisory committee made adjustments to survey content and format and finalized the survey instrument in April 2014. The survey was closed on June 25, 2014, with 905 responses. These responses were evaluated for duplications, completeness of response including salary information, and appropriate identification. The online responses were downloaded into an electronic database. Standard data editing and cleaning procedures were performed to maximize the accuracy and consistency of the data elements at which time the data was placed into an SPSS database for analysis. Much of the analysis presented in this report is stratified by medical dosimetrists' years of experience and by place or type of employment. AAMD had a high-quality master list of professional medical dosimetrists that contained e-mail contact information for essentially all members. This database was provided to be used in the survey for selection of all full members with a U.S. or Canadian mailing addresses. The request for survey participation was sent to all medical dosimetrists who were members of the AAMD. Each medical dosimetrist was provided with an individualized link to the survey instrument to prevent duplication of responses.
Results The respondents were asked to report all degrees that apply; it is for that reason the percentages add up to greater than 100%. The percentage categories for medical dosimetrist academic degrees show a decline in the number of practicing medical dosimetrists with “no degree” and “associate degree” between 2011 and 2014. Perhaps the retirement of individuals who were in the field long before any degree was required coupled with a move toward minimum education and certification requirements by most institutions is responsible for this trend. Additionally, with the 2017 requirements to sit for the MDCB examination, the bachelor's degree will become the standard for medical dosimetrists entering professional practice. Most medical dosimetrists were trained in hospital-based certificate programs or on-the-job training. Bachelor's degree and master's degree programs are just starting to make an effect in the overall labor pool. It will likely be more than 10 years before most medical dosimetrists possess bachelor's degree or master's degree or both. It seems likely the marketplace will eventually support the bachelor's degree as the expected or standard qualification to compete successfully for a medical dosimetry position. However, that expectation is still a number of years in the future. The standard to sit for the MDCB examination after 2017 is for all medical dosimetrists to hold at least a bachelor's degree as well as to be graduates of a Joint Review Committee on Education in Radiologic Technology (JRCERT)-accredited academic and clinical training program. Graduates of JRCERT programs now comprise only approximately one quarter of the pool of working
Third quartile (75th percentile) $112,000
Mean (average) $102,040
# Responses 584
professional medical dosimetrists; however, that fraction is growing. The demographics suggest it will be approximately 10 years before most medical dosimetrists are graduates of JRCERTaccredited programs. Medical dosimetrists are on their way to realizing the goal of having the profession composed only of graduates from accredited programs. The most significant trend is the smaller percentage of medical dosimetrists working for Physician's Freestanding Radiation Oncology Facilities. This is not surprising, and there are several reasons for this change. There is a tendency for retiring physicians to sell these facilities, usually to community hospitals or medical centers. In the current economic climate, it is easier for existing institutions to finance and purchase the building and equipment than for a younger physician to acquire the financing. Another reason may be a combination of reimbursement and regulatory challenges that drive this trend. Physicians may find freestanding centers to be less profitable and more difficult to administrate with these recent challenges. The good news is this trend is unlikely to affect medical dosimetrist employment or salaries. Medical dosimetry salaries continue to rise at approximately 1.7% per year. Although this figure may be lower than was seen in previous years, it still indicates there is overall a healthy demand for the services of medical dosimetrists. It also indicates the market for medical dosimetrists is not saturated, although there may be local regions where few medical dosimetry positions are available. Discussion The trends observed in Figures 1-4 and Tables 1 and 2 are expected and do not seem to provide unreasonable challenges to the medical dosimetry profession. It is the expressed goal of AAMD and MDCB leadership to standardize the educational and training requirements to enter the medical dosimetry profession. Although the progress toward realizing these goals is not dramatic, it is present and does reflect the beginning of the achievement of these stated objectives. An issue on the horizon that could affect the medical dosimetry profession is the emergence of the medical physicist assistant (MPA). The MPA broadly is assigned routine tasks otherwise performed by a medical physicist. New Jersey has already defined the MPA in it code of regulations, and Texas is expected to be next. The current wave of MPA discussion appears to originate from the imaging physics world, but obviously has immediate application to radiation oncology as well. Imaging physicists work with a very small number of patientspecific tasks and a large number of individual pieces of equipment. This is in contrast to the mostly patient-specific work of therapy physicists. Imaging physics is largely provided by contractors who support very large numbers of equipment over a fairly
Table 2 Indicate your total net annual income in 2013 excluding benefits from all your medical dosimetry positions—all full time respondents, 2014 Salary by quartile, percentile, and mean for medical dosimetrists working 30 h/wk or more
Salary
First quartile (25th percentile) $92,900
Second quartile (50th percentile) $105,019
Third quartile (75th percentile) $119,000
Mean (average) $106,735
# Responses 627
170
M. D. Mills / Medical Dosimetry 40 (2015) 166–172
Fig. 3. (A) Is the medical dosimetry program associated with your training JRCERT accredited? 2011. (B) Is the medical dosimetry program associated with your training JRCERT accredited? 2014.
M. D. Mills / Medical Dosimetry 40 (2015) 166–172
171
Fig. 4. (A) Primary work setting where you spend most of your hours, 2011. (B) Primary work setting where you spend most of your hours, 2014.
large geographic range. In academic practice, they tend to support a large number of pieces of equipment more localized to 1 large organization. A great deal of the work consists of positioning a phantom or a detector or both and activating the equipment to elicit a certain technique. The intellectual component of the work is to analyze the resulting data and to make adjustments or recommendations of adjustments. It is quite common for imaging physicists in either the community or institutional practice to delegate the rote collection of data to individuals who will not be called on to perform any analysis. Those employees only need to know how to position the phantom or the detector or both and properly activate the equipment. These processes and practices are already deeply entrenched. Only certain states have already moved to incorporate some language into regulation that defines who these people are and how they are to be supervised. In these new and emerging regulations, an employee who gathers data periodically is a MPA. When we consider radiation oncology, the use of physicist extenders is almost as common but has a different flavor. In certain settings, especially large academic/institutional settings, it is now commonplace for the medical physicist rarely if ever to directly
perform routine quality assurance or intensity-modulated radiation therapy delivery measurements. Those tasks are usually delegated to “junior” people. Until now, no state has codified any specific credentials or supervision requirements, but there is a sense that it is now on the cusp of fruition. These people will be called MPAs. The body of work that involves using computers and working with radiation oncology physicians to develop treatment plans and machine instructions for particular patients is almost exclusively the domain of medical dosimetrists in 2015. With the emergence and maturity of the medical dosimetry profession, medical dosimetrists are not characterized as physics extenders. However, current AAMD official scope of practice3 documents still stipulate that the medical dosimetrist works under the supervision of both the radiation oncology physician and medical physicist. In addition, the current AAMD practice documents list a number of inclusive tasks that could be considered tasks performed by radiation oncology MPAs. The “supervision” of medical dosimetrists by medical physicists is steadily drifting away from an “extender” relationship, and MPAs are emerging to take over some of the tasks. Therefore, the trend may soon be for medical
172
M. D. Mills / Medical Dosimetry 40 (2015) 166–172
Fig. 4. (continued)
dosimetrists to lose certain tasks enumerated in the scope of practice to MPAs. Medical physics education programs are accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP). CAMPEP-accredited graduate programs are oversupplying the marketplace. In 2015, approximately 300 graduate medical physicists, M.S. and Ph.D., applied for fewer than 100 CAMPEP-accredited residency slots. Clearly many medical physicists that are unsuccessful landing a CAMPEP residency may apply for a physicist assistant slot at approximately $50K; this is well below the salary range for both medical dosimetrists and medical physicists. It is possible this could put pressure on both medical dosimetrist and medical physicist salaries and positions. Many CAMPEP academic graduates are bright, clinically adept, and ambitious. Both the AAMD and the MDCB leadership will need to think carefully about strategies to preserve the role they have earned in radiation oncology. Medical dosimetrists may wish to have a say in the crafting of new state regulations that specify the scope of work of the physicist assistant.
Even with the enumerated challenges, the future of medical dosimetry seems both bright and secure. Although not dramatic, the trends seen between 2011 and 2014 seem to support the overall goals of the AAMD and MDCB. Although medical dosimetry may face some political challenges with the oversupply of medical physics M.S. and Ph.D. graduates and the emergence of the MPA, they should prepare to meet this challenge by carefully crafting a revision of the scope of practice document and participating in the promulgation of new state radiation control regulations that define the MPA.
References 1. AAMD Report—Dosimetry workforce study. Available at. http://medicaldosime try.org/publications/2012_salary_survey.cfm. 2. AAMD Report—Dosimetry salary survey. Available at. http://www.medicaldosim etry.org/pub/6e032bfb-dd45-6c76-ca77-5a641f944f1a. 3. AAMD Scope of practice. Available at. http://www.medicaldosimetry.org/general information/AAMD_Practice_Standards.pdf?pass=69.
