DiYES International School – Cancer Care has become a growing concern for many women in the United States who face not only the challenges of their diagnosis but also the limited availability of innovative treatments. One of the most promising therapies, intraoperative radiation therapy known as IORT, offers a single targeted radiation dose during surgery. It reduces recovery time, minimizes side effects, and lowers overall costs. Patients in rural areas often travel long distances to reach specialized centers offering this treatment. Many doctors believe that access to IORT is shrinking because hospitals and providers profit more from traditional radiation that requires multiple sessions. While the Food and Drug Administration approved the treatment in 1999, its reach in the U.S. has steadily declined. Patients like those in Mississippi face difficult choices between traveling far for care or accepting more demanding treatment options that are both expensive and time consuming.
The debate surrounding Cancer Care in the U.S. has intensified as financial structures influence medical access. IORT pays radiation oncologists less per session compared to whole breast irradiation, making it less attractive for many providers. Medicare data from 2022 shows that IORT payments are less than half of what hospitals and doctors receive from multiple radiation treatments. These repeated sessions generate extra revenue from both medical fees and facility charges. Surgeons, on the other hand, earn the same amount regardless of the treatment method, creating an uneven incentive structure. Experts argue that this financial imbalance discourages hospitals from supporting IORT programs. Insurance companies add to the challenge by often refusing coverage, labeling the treatment as experimental despite strong evidence of effectiveness. Many patients are left to pay out of pocket, creating a divide between those who can afford the therapy and those forced into less convenient or more aggressive options.
For patients who choose IORT, financial pressure is immediate. Some women, like those from Louisiana, have been forced to cover the costs themselves when their insurance plans refuse to help. These women describe IORT as life changing because it allows them to recover faster and return to work sooner. The treatment lasts around 30 minutes during surgery, unlike traditional radiation that can stretch over two months with daily sessions. Those daily visits often lead to exhaustion, burns, and emotional distress. Internationally, IORT has been widely available in Europe, South America, and Asia for more than two decades. In the U.S., its use grew in the early 2010s but started declining after new guidelines were issued. For many patients, the denial of coverage feels like a setback at a time when medical science should be expanding options rather than restricting them. This situation creates deep frustration among both patients and supportive physicians.
“Read more: LeBron James Breaks the Internet! Lakers Ticket Prices Skyrocket After His Viral Post!”
Behind the decline of IORT lies a heated medical and political battle. Organizations like the American Society for Radiation Oncology have issued cautious guidelines regarding the use of IORT, citing concerns over recurrence rates. Although research shows survival rates similar to whole breast radiation, IORT remains labeled as a secondary option. Some surgeons believe these guidelines reflect not only clinical caution but also resistance from powerful groups of radiation oncologists who view IORT as a financial threat. These specialists generate large revenues for hospitals through multiple treatment sessions. Their influence shapes medical practice, insurance coverage, and patient choices. Advocates for IORT argue that clinical data supports the treatment for early stage breast cancer patients. Yet, without a shift in policy and mindset, this innovative technology may remain underutilized, leaving many patients unable to access the care they need at a critical time in their recovery journey.
As costs of medical care rise, supporters of IORT emphasize the urgent need for policy reform. Surgeons and patients argue that the U.S. should follow the example of other countries where this treatment is part of standard Cancer Care. IORT not only saves patients time and pain but could also save the health system billions of dollars over several years. Hospitals would have to adjust their financial structures to support a therapy that prioritizes patient well-being over profit margins. Advocates believe that patient advocacy can push insurers and policymakers to reconsider their stance. Without public pressure, the treatment may remain a luxury for those who can afford it rather than a standard option for those who need it. This debate reveals a larger issue within the U.S. healthcare system, where innovation and accessibility often clash with financial incentives and institutional power.
This article is sourced from nbcnews and for more details you can read at diyesinternational
Writer: Sarah Azhari
Editor: Anisa
