How Many is Too Many?
Early last month, the American College of Radiology sponsored the Intersociety Summer Meeting, the 25th time such a gathering has taken place. Officers and executive directors from most radiology organizations gathered in Pasadena, Calif., for a 3-day thinkfest that centered on physician extenders within radiology. It is not my purpose to provide a day-to-day assessment of the meeting as it will be covered in the not-too-distant future in the new Journal of the American College of Radiology.
What I do want to address is the number of radiology organizations currently serving our specialty. At last count, there are about 50 societies, associations and colleges focused on radiology.
I can understand why this proliferation has occurred. Our specialty spans and serves all others, resulting in a wide range of clinical and research arenas that appeal to our constituents. It follows that these subspecialty interests would lead folks with similar interests to gravitate to a common forum. I wonder, however, if this trend has gone too far.
Each organization has two requisites for success: there must be a quorum of physician or physicist volunteers and there must be money (typically from dues and profits from continuing medical education courses or other member services) to support the staffing and special programs. But let''s be honest here; with the workforce crunch, many of us have less time for volunteer work and we are more selective about the courses we attend and the groups to which we pledge our allegiance and dues. When the support fades, the organizations suffer. More importantly, the more uncoordinated our efforts are in support of radiology, the weaker our specialty will be.
Is there a solution? Maybe.
Four years ago, former ACR President Ron Evens noted that a typical radiologist is a member of the ACR plus two "general educational" societies and three subspecialty societies, spending about $2,500 each year on related dues. He then surprised the audience by suggesting the creation of a radiology "holding" corporation. Leaders from a number of the larger radiology organizations would hold frequent meetings to explore the possibility of coordinating radiology''s activities.
In Ron''s vision, the College (now ACRA) would be responsible for economic and political activities, the Radiological Society of North America would continue its primacy in showcasing new technology and the presentation of the latest imaging research, and the American Roentgen Ray Society would annually host a large education meeting. A major objective would be to avoid duplication of efforts and reduce the total amount each radiologist pays in annual dues.
The trade off? Each organization would have to "give something up." At the reception following Ron''s address, the room was abuzz—some people expressed agreement and support of the plan; others professed skepticism. To date, we have made little progress in this direction.
What about the other 40-odd organizations? On this smaller scale, at least two organizations have formed an alliance. The Societies of Uroradiology and Gastrointestinal Radiology have successfully collaborated on an annual abdominal imaging course for the past several years. In doing so, each one had to yield a bit of autonomy. Without meaning to offend any specific organizations, it seems to me that several of our subspecialties have given birth to two or more societies that might also benefit from a similar arrangement.
Such changes don''t occur easily or rapidly. Even thinking about such changes requires selfless leaders who prize the success of our specialty above more parochial goals. I challenge the officers of each radiology organization, the ACR included, to revisit Ron Evans'' vision for a more unified specialty.
E. Stephen Amis Jr., M.D.
Chairman, Board of Chancellors