@fumikochino @uabmedicine @ONealCancerUAB @GRocqueMD @QasimHussainiMD @cphilwil What....I need these updates....I am 3 hours away!!! Great team!!!

@seanmmcbride @blandro Well played

--------there is a persistent myth that NPs are being unfairly burdened by exorbitant collaboration fees, yet the real-world data doesn’t support that claim. The example of CollabDocs is a great illustration of how market-based solutions were readily available, yet the demand was negligible. If there were widespread predatory practices, we would have seen a much different outcome. Rather than removing physicians from the care team, the focus should be on strengthening collaboration to ensure patients receive the highest quality care. Physician oversight is not about control—it's about maintaining a standard of excellence in medical decision-making, ensuring patient safety, and preserving a comprehensive approach to care. The real question should be: How do we optimize care delivery while maintaining the integrity and quality of our healthcare system? Instead of dismantling physician-led teams, we should work toward practical solutions that address access to care in underserved areas. This means: Expanding rural physician recruitment and retention efforts to ensure communities have access to physicians and specialists, not just independent mid-level providers. Leveraging telemedicine and electronic collaboration to strengthen physician-NP partnerships rather than dismantle them. Addressing financial and regulatory barriers that prevent physicians from practicing in rural areas while still maintaining high standards of patient safety. Promoting team-based care models that optimize the roles of all healthcare providers while keeping the physician’s expertise at the center of complex decision-making. Kicking physicians off the medical team does not solve a problem—it creates new ones, including increased fragmentation of care, safety concerns, and potential financial exploitation of patients who may not realize they’re receiving care with lower oversight. The real solution lies in collaboration, not separation.

@MarilynHeineMD @CrozerHealth For Radiation Oncology, this was precisely why we created Bridge Oncology

@SprakerMDPhD I have a reply to this that will be in next week's newsletter:

@SprakerMDPhD Never a dull moment

🚨 Major Developments in Government Oversight 🚨 Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is making waves inside U.S. agencies—including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)—by conducting deep dives into federal spending, targeting what they consider fraud and waste. DOGE has accessed CMS payment and contracting systems and is working to cancel diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) contracts, including those with Deloitte. CMS, which oversees $1.5 trillion in Medicare and Medicaid spending (22% of the federal budget), has two veteran employees assisting DOGE in its review. Musk’s team is also shaking up the Treasury Department and USAID, reportedly leading to administrative leave for thousands of employees. However, their actions have triggered internal resistance, lawsuits from unions, and concerns over government transparency and oversight. With Musk confirmed as a special government employee (SGE) and President Trump’s recent firing of multiple inspectors general, including one responsible for policing Medicare fraud, this initiative raises questions about the future of government spending, accountability, and the role of private influence in federal oversight. 💬 What are your thoughts? Is this an overdue effort to eliminate waste or a dangerous shake-up with unintended consequences? @TedOkonCOA @CShahMD @fumikochino @SprakerMDPhD

A Bridge Oncology Update: 🔥 BREAKING: New York Takes on Big Pharma Middlemen! 🔥 New York is poised to become the first state to force pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to publicly disclose how much they profit from drug manufacturer rebates. If Governor Kathy Hochul’s budget proposal passes, PBMs will have to reveal their financial dealings directly on their websites—a level of transparency that no other state has mandated. 💰 Why does this matter? PBMs—the middlemen controlling nearly 80% of the U.S. prescription drug market—have been under fire for driving up drug costs and squeezing independent pharmacies out of business. They negotiate behind closed doors, pocketing billions in rebates, while patients and pharmacies struggle with skyrocketing prices and reimbursement cuts. 🚨 The Stakes: ✅ If passed, this proposal will expose PBM profits and bring transparency to an industry that has operated in the shadows for far too long. ✅ It could set a precedent for other states—and pressure Congress—to take action where federal legislation has stalled. ✅ However, major PBMs have overseas affiliates that might help them evade these new rules. 🛑 The PBMs are pushing back, claiming that increased transparency will actually raise drug prices. But independent pharmacists and lawmakers say it’s time for real accountability. What do you think? Will this new law help drive down costs, or will PBMs find new loopholes? @TedOkonCOA @MarilynHeineMD @B_Madden4 @SprakerMDPhD

@jbryan522 @MarilynHeineMD She is amazing for sure.

@RussLatino Time to step-down and asided. And on a side note....fix the escalators at the Jackson airport. They have been down for 7 months. Crazy

@j_luh @AetnaHelp light around the part clinical set up...hahaha. Make sure to use tape for immobilization

@DigiaimoRon Personality ......ouch Hate I missed you there in New Orleans

The Bridge Oncology Newsletter continues to grow, now reaching over 10,000 subscribers each week! Thank you to our incredible readers for making this possible. Your support fuels our mission to provide timely, insightful updates in the ever-evolving healthcare landscape. This week’s issue is packed with critical topics, including: ➡️ Private Equity (PE) in healthcare ➡️ Stark Law updates and Physician Compensation ➡️ The evolving role of Advanced Practice Providers (APPs) ➡️ Insights on Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) ➡️ And much more! 💡 Don’t miss out! Subscribe today to stay informed on the latest in healthcare, oncology, radiation oncology, health policy, and beyond.

This coming from you Ron is classic, coincidental, opportunistic etc.!!!!!!!!! ------------ For something of substance: Some observations regarding UnitedHealthcare CEO Andrew Witty's compensation and the controversy surrounding his defense of denial and authorization practices raise critical questions about the ethics of healthcare management and executive accountability. Firstly, the $23.5 million compensation package highlights the ongoing debate around executive pay in the healthcare sector, particularly in contrast to the cost-saving measures often employed by insurers. High salaries for healthcare executives, though common in the industry, tend to face scrutiny when juxtaposed against the denial of claims or restrictive authorization practices, especially in cases as tragic and public as Brian Thompson’s. The leaked video has amplified concerns about the balance between corporate profitability and patient care. Denial and prior authorization policies are intended to prevent unnecessary costs, but they can also delay or deny essential care, putting patient outcomes at risk. When such practices are defended in the wake of high-profile incidents, it may be perceived as prioritizing profits over patients, further eroding public trust in healthcare institutions. It’s worth examining how these policies align with broader organizational goals and regulatory expectations. The controversy also underscores the importance of transparency in healthcare decisions and the need for leaders to communicate the rationale behind policies that impact patient care. This situation reflects a larger conversation about the role of executive leadership in healthcare. Are their decisions fostering a system that balances financial sustainability with equitable and timely access to care? As public pressure mounts, it remains to be seen whether Witty and UnitedHealthcare will adapt their practices to address these concerns meaningfully.

📢 Big News for M&A and Antitrust Professionals! 📢 The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced updates to Section 7A of the Clayton Act, impacting Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) thresholds for mergers and acquisitions. Here’s what you need to know: 🔹 Revised Jurisdictional Thresholds The thresholds have been adjusted to reflect economic changes. For example: The original $50 million threshold is now $126.4 million. The original $200 million threshold is now $505.8 million. The $1 billion threshold is now $2.529 billion. 🔹 Updated Filing Fee Thresholds Filing fee structures also saw changes: Transactions below $179.4 million will require a $30,000 filing fee. Fees scale up to $2.39 million for transactions exceeding $5.555 billion. 💼 Effective Date: The new thresholds take effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. These updates are critical for compliance and strategic planning in M&A activities. Reach out to Bridge Oncology to learn more @MarilynHeineMD @j_luh @TedOkonCOA @DukeRadOnc @fumikochino @blally_md

@j_luh @KColvett @BlueShieldCA @DGlaucomflecken @toddscarbrough I am sure she can enlighten you on the homogeneity of the beam and the mitigation of a hot spot!!!!!!

@DrDiGiorgio This is also the discrepancy we have with EPIC buildouts and whether they are built out as hospital/inpatient or ambulatory for rad onc. Based on the build out very different paths are required and the information associated with them.

@SprakerMDPhD Happy to discuss!!!!!!

@DavidSherMD This is the case and is a great waste of time. Non productive clinical and physician time.

@fumikochino The Chino trifecta effect!!!