The 'Sic Vos non Vobis' of Interventional Radiology - Rebranding and modernising the Interventional Specialities of Radiology in Australia and New Zealand

Reimbursement of interventional oncology in Australia: How it works and how it does not

The practice of interventional oncology (IO) embodies all the qualities that one would expect to find in a modern, value-based healthcare system. A dynamic, cutting-edge specialty like IO uses highly-targeted, minimally-invasive, image-guided techniques to deliver cost-effective, personalised medicine for cancer patients. Unfortunately, the technical and clinical sophistication of IO is not matched by the reimbursement models and funding arrangements in Australia to fully support this critical component of patient care. Differences between state and federal funding lead to inequity of access to 'standard of care' interventions for patients across public and private hospitals. IO procedures are poorly represented in the Medicare Benefits Schedule and often inadequately funded to cover the true costs of providing care. Complex private health fund reimbursements and inconsistent rebates for prostheses and essential equipment result in inconsistent access to important services and widely variable out-of-pocket costs for patients. IO techniques must be supported by fair, consistent and equitable funding arrangements at all levels to allow for integrated contemporary patient care; only then will the full clinical and economic benefits of IO  be realised.

A prospective cross-sectional study assessing teaching of interventional radiology across 20 Australian medical schools, endorsed by the Australian Medical Students Association

BACKGROUND

Existing literature from around the world has shown that teaching of Interventional Radiology (IR) to medical students remains suboptimal. Despite calls for improvement at a "grass-roots" level, most IRs find that junior doctors have limited or no knowledge of IR, and thus reduced awareness of potential IR treatments for their patients or contemplating IR as a future career. The aim of this study was to survey current medical students to assess perception of whether a wider variety of medical schools are integrating IR into their curriculum, from universities all across Australia. This was a prospective cross-sectional study of members of the Australian Medical Students Association (AMSA) from across Australia. Students were given a 14-question survey of current university teaching and students' knowledge of the discipline of IR. The primary outcome was perception of current teaching and knowledge of IR. Secondary outcomes include awareness of technical, clinical, and other duties of IRs.

RESULTS

Surveys were sent in a newsletter and posted on the AMSA Facebook page to their members. 82 responses were received via students from 20 out of 23 Australian medical schools. 61% of students described poor or no knowledge of IR. Teaching of IR was significantly worse than diagnostic radiology (p < 0.001), only 12% suggested that current IR teaching was adequate, and 99% suggested that IR teaching could be improved. Only 11% of students would consider a career in IR.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical student perception of exposure to IR is poor compared to diagnostic radiology. Better awareness may lead to improved referral patterns for patients and more career interest in IR.