Diagnostic Radiologists' Participation in the American Board of Radiology Maintenance of Certification Program.

OBJECTIVE. Physicians across specialties have expressed concerns about Maintenance of Certification (MOC) programs of American Board of Medical Specialties member boards, calling for research about MOC acceptance, adoption, and value. The purpose of this study was to characterize diagnostic radiologists' participation in the American Board of Radiology (ABR) MOC program, the framework for its new Online Longitudinal Assessment program. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Practicing U.S. radiologists were identified from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File. Corresponding ABR diplomate certification information was obtained through the ABR public search engine. Focused on diagnostic radiologists (defined as those whose only ABR certificate is in diagnostic radiology), MOC participation rates were calculated across various physician characteristics for those whose participation was mandated by the ABR (time-limited certificates) and for those whose participation was not mandated (lifetime certificates). RESULTS. Among 20,354 included diagnostic radiologists, 11,479 (56.4%) participated in MOC. Participation rates were 99.6% (10,058/10,099) among those whose MOC was ABR mandated and 13.9% (1421/10,225) among those whose participation was not mandated (p < 0.001). The rates of nonmandated participation were higher (all p < 0.001) for academic than for non-academic radiologists (28.0% vs 11.3%), subspecialists than for generalists (17.0% vs 11.5%), and those in larger practice groups (< 10 members, 5.0%; 10-49 members, 12.6%; ≥ 50 members, 20.7%). State-level rates of nonmandated participation varied from 0.0% (South Dakota, Montana) to 32.6% (Virginia) and positively correlated with state population density (r = 0.315). CONCLUSION. Although diagnostic radiologists with time-limited certificates nearly universally participate in MOC, those with lifetime certificates (particularly general radiologists and those in smaller and nonacademic practices) participate infrequently. Low rates of nonmandated participation may reflect diplomate dissatisfaction or negative perceptions about MOC.

Generalist versus Subspecialist Workforce Characteristics of Invasive Procedures Performed by Radiologists.

Purpose To explore subspecialty workforce considerations surrounding invasive procedures performed by radiologists. Materials and Methods The 2015 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File was used to identify all invasive procedures (Current Procedural Terminology code range, 10000-69999) billed by radiologists for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Radiologists were categorized by subspecialty according to the majority of their billable work-relative value units (wRVUs). Those without a single subspecialty majority work effort were deemed generalists. Procedures were categorized into three tiers of complexity (high, ≥4.0 wRVUs; mid, 1.6-3.9 wRVUs; low, ≤1.5 wRVUs). Total and tiered generalist versus subspecialist workforce composition was assessed. Results Just 25 unique services comprised more than 75% of invasive procedures performed by radiologists. Of radiologists who performed procedures, 57.5% were generalists, 15.8% were interventionalists, and 26.8% were other subspecialists. Of the radiologists who performed low-, mid-, and high-complexity procedures, generalists accounted for 46.3%, 30.9%, and 23.1%, respectively; interventionalists accounted for 35.4%, 30.9%, and 75.2%, respectively; and other subspecialists accounted for 18.3%, 14.6%, and 1.7%, respectively. Generalists were the dominant providers of six of the top 10 low-complexity and seven of the top 10 midcomplexity procedures. Interventionalists were the dominant providers of all top 10 high-complexity procedures. Nationally, over twice as many U.S. counties had local access to generalists (869 counties) for invasive procedures versus interventionalists (347 counties) or other subspecialists (380 counties). Conclusion Among radiologists, generalists perform far more procedures in more geographic locations and are more likely to serve patients with less complex service needs than are interventionalists or other subspecialists. Practices and professional societies must remain vigilant to ensure that the subspecialty evolution in radiology does not exacerbate patient access disparities. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Who Refers Musculoskeletal Extremity Imaging Examinations to Radiologists?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to identify the specialty characteristics of providers referring musculoskeletal (MSK) extremity imaging examinations to radiologists, so as to better understand the drivers of MSK imaging utilization and potentially improve the appropriateness of such imaging examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on provider referral for MSK extremity imaging services were extracted from the 2014 Medicare Referring Provider Utilization for Procedures public use file, which aggregates data on diagnostic procedures according to referring provider identities and service codes. MSK extremity imaging services were identified using Neiman Institute Types of Service codes. The referring provider specialty was identified from cross-linked Medicare provider characteristics files. RESULTS: For 4,275,647 MSK extremity imaging examinations ordered, the most common specialties of the referring providers were orthopedic surgery (37.6% of ordered examinations), internal medicine (20.2%), family practice (14.8%), emergency medicine (7.9%), and rheumatology (5.7%). Orthopedic surgery was the referring specialty that most commonly ordered MSK extremity CT (33,465 ordered examinations; for all other specialties, < 2000 examinations), MRI (325,485 examinations; for all other specialities, < 20,000 examinations), and radiography (1,249,748 examinations; for all other specialities, < 850,000 examinations), whereas internal medicine was the referring specialty that most commonly ordered MSK extremity ultrasound examinations (8052 ordered examinations; for all other specialties, < 6000 examinations). Among the select specialties most relevant to MSK imaging, the most frequent referrers after orthopedic surgeons were rheumatologists, for radiography (236,057 ordered examinations) and ultrasound (2034 examinations), and podiatrists, for CT (1201 examinations) and MRI (19,159 examinations). The most commonly ordered individual MSK extremity imaging services were knee radiography, with 190,354 examinations ordered by orthopedic surgeons; hand radiography, with 66,167 examinations ordered by rheumatologists; foot radiography, with 137,042 examinations ordered by podiatrists; shoulder radiography, with 11,299 examinations ordered by sports medicine specialists; and hip radiography, with 9838 examinations ordered by physiatrists. CONCLUSION: Referral patterns for MSK imaging vary considerably by provider specialty. Referral pattern insights may guide targeted efforts by radiologists to ensure the appropriateness of such examinations.

Enteral Access Procedures: An 18-Year Analysis of Changing Patterns of Utilization in the Medicare Population.

PURPOSE: To evaluate national trends in enteral access and maintenance procedures for Medicare beneficiaries with regard to utilization rates, specialty group roles, and sites of service. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using Medicare Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files for the period 1994-2012, claims for gastrostomy and gastrojejunostomy access and maintenance procedures were identified. Longitudinal utilization rates were calculated using annual enrollment data. Procedure volumes by site of service and medical specialty were analyzed. RESULTS: Between 1994 and 2012, de novo enteral access procedure utilization decreased from 61.6 to 42.3 per 10,000 Medicare Part B beneficiaries (-31%). Gastroenterologists and surgeons performed > 80% of procedures (unchanged over study period) with 97% in the hospital setting. Over time, relative use of an endoscopic approach (62% in 1994; 82% in 2012) increased as percutaneous (21% to 12%) and open surgical (17% to 5%) procedures declined. Existing enteral access maintenance services increased 29% (from 20.1 to 25.9 per 10,000 beneficiaries). Radiologists (from 13% to 31%) surpassed gastroenterologists (from 36% to 21%) as dominant providers of maintenance procedures. Emergency physicians (from 8% to 23%) and nonphysician providers (from 0% to 6%) have seen rapid growth as maintenance services providers as these services have transitioned increasingly to the emergency department setting (from 18% to 32%). CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicare beneficiaries, de novo enteral access procedures have declined in the last 2 decades as existing access maintenance services have increased. The latter are increasingly performed by radiologists, emergency physicians, and nonphysician providers.

The Pursuit of Value in Musculoskeletal Imaging: Policy and Clinical Practice Intersect.

Rapidly rising health care costs coupled with variability in pricing and patient service have led to intense public scrutiny and pressure for health care providers to demonstrate value. Recent changes in legislation and payment models have intensified a shift from volume-based to value-based care, transferring risk from payers to providers. The American College of Radiology's Imaging 3.0 initiative encourages radiologists to become leaders in this changing health care landscape, helping to redefine value relative to health outcomes that matter to patients. Finding value and areas for improvement can prove difficult. However, through the imaging value chain, a plethora of opportunities are easily identifiable. It will be critical for musculoskeletal radiologists to leverage information technology and develop meaningful metrics to assess and demonstrate imaging's contribution to improved patient outcomes and reduction in costs, and to advocate for appropriate reimbursement.

State Variation in Medical Imaging: Despite Great Variation, the Medicare Spending Decline Continues.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess state-level trends in per beneficiary Medicare spending on medical imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medicare part B 5% research identifiable files from 2004 through 2012 were used to compute national and state-by-state annual average per beneficiary spending on imaging. State-to-state geographic variation and temporal trends were analyzed. RESULTS: National average per beneficiary Medicare part B spending on imaging increased 7.8% annually between 2004 ($350.54) and its peak in 2006 ($405.41) then decreased 4.4% annually between 2006 and 2012 ($298.63). In 2012, annual per beneficiary spending was highest in Florida ($367.25) and New York ($355.67) and lowest in Ohio ($67.08) and Vermont ($72.78). Maximum state-to-state geographic variation increased over time, with the ratio of highest-spending state to lowest-spending state increasing from 4.0 in 2004 to 5.5 in 2012. Spending in nearly all states decreased since peaks in 2005 (six states) or 2006 (43 states). The average annual decrease among states was 5.1% ± 1.8% (range, 1.2-12.2%) The largest decrease was in Ohio. In only two states did per beneficiary spending increase (Maryland, 12.5% average annual increase since 2005; Oregon, 4.8% average annual increase since 2008). CONCLUSION: Medicare part B average per beneficiary spending on medical imaging declined in nearly every state since 2005 and 2006 peaks, abruptly reversing previously reported trends. Spending continued to increase, however, in Maryland and Oregon. Identification of state-level variation may facilitate future investigation of the potential effect of specific and regional changes in spending on patient access and outcomes.

Regional variation in Medicare payments for medical imaging: radiologists versus nonradiologists.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article was to study regional variation in Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) payments for medical imaging to radiologists compared with nonradiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a 5% random sample of all Medicare enrollees, which covered approximately 2.5 million Part B beneficiaries in 2011, total professional-only, technical-only, and global MPFS spending was calculated on a state-by-state and United States Census Bureau regional basis for all Medicare Berenson-Eggers Type of Service-defined medical imaging services. Payments to radiologists versus nonradiologists were identified and variation was analyzed. RESULTS: Nationally, mean MPFS medical imaging spending per Medicare beneficiary was $207.17 ($95.71 [46.2%] to radiologists vs $111.46 [53.8%] to nonradiologists). Of professional-only (typically interpretation) payments, 20.6% went to nonradiologists. Of technical-only (typically owned equipment) payments, 84.9% went to nonradiologists. Of global (both professional and technical) payments, 70.1% went to nonradiologists. The percentage of MPFS medical imaging spending on nonradiologists ranged from 32% (Minnesota) to 69.5% (South Carolina). The percentage of MPFS payments for medical imaging to nonradiologists exceeded those to radiologists in 58.8% of states. The relative percentage of MPFS payments to nonradiologists was highest in the South (58.5%) and lowest in the Northeast (48.0%). CONCLUSION: Nationally, 53.8% of MPFS payments for medical imaging services are made to nonradiologists, who claim a majority of MPFS payments in most states dominated by noninterpretive payments. This majority spending on nonradiologists may have implications in bundled and capitated payment models for radiology services. Medical imaging payment policy initiatives must consider the roles of all provider groups and associated regional variation.

Decomposition of medical imaging spending growth between 2010 and 2021 in the US employer-insured population.

Medical imaging, identified as a potential driver of unsustainable US health care spending growth, was subject to policies to reduce prices and use in low-value settings. Meanwhile, the Affordable Care Act increased access to preventive services-many involving imaging-for employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) beneficiaries. We used a large insurance claims database to examine imaging spending trends in the ESI population between 2010 and 2021-a period of considerable policy and benefits changes. Nominal spending on imaging increased 35.9% between 2010 and 2021, but as a share of total health care spending fell from 10.5% to 8.9%. The 22.5% growth of nominal imaging prices was below inflation, 24.3%, as measured by the Consumer Price Index. Other key contributors to imaging spending growth were increased use (7.4 percentage points [pp]), shifts toward advanced modalities (4.0 pp), and demographic changes (3.5 pp). Shifts in care settings and provider network participation resulted in 2.5-pp and 0.3-pp imaging spending decreases, respectively. In sum, imaging spending decreased as a share of all health care spending and relative to inflation, as intended by concurrent cost-containment policies.

Contemporary Management of Blunt Splenic Trauma in Adults: An Analysis of the Trauma Quality Improvement Program Registry.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of management strategies for blunt splenic injuries in adult patients. METHODS: Patients 18 years and older with blunt splenic injuries registered via the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2013-2019) were identified. Management strategies initiated within 24 hours of hospital presentation were classified as watchful waiting, embolization, surgery, or combination therapy. Patients were stratified by injury grade. Linear models estimated each strategy's effect on hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, and mortality. RESULTS: Of 81,033 included patients, 86.3%, 10.9%, 2.5%, and 0.3% of patients received watchful waiting, surgery, embolization, and combination therapy, respectively. Among patients with low-grade injuries and compared with surgery, embolization was associated with shorter hospital LOS (9.4 days, Q < .001, Cohen's d = .30) and ICU LOS (5.0 days, Q < .001, Cohen's d = .44). Among patients with high-grade injuries and compared with surgery, embolization was associated with shorter hospital LOS (8.7 days, Q < .001, Cohen's d = .12) and ICU LOS (4.5 days, Q < .001, Cohen's d = .23). Among patients with low- and high-grade injuries, the odds ratios for in-hospital mortality associated with surgery compared with embolization were 4.02 (Q < .001) and 4.38 (Q < .001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients presenting with blunt splenic injuries and compared with surgery, embolization was associated with shorter hospital LOS, shorter ICU LOS, and lower risk for mortality.

Comparative analysis of Medicare spending for medical imaging: sustained dramatic slowdown compared with other services.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess trends in Medicare spending growth for medical imaging relative to other services and the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We calculated per-beneficiary Part B Medicare medical imaging expenditures for three-digit Berenson-Eggers Type of Service (BETOS) categories using Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files for 32 million beneficiaries from 2000 to 2011. We adjusted BETOS categories to address changes in coding and payment policy and excluded categories with 2011 aggregate spending less than $500 million. We computed and ranked compound annual growth rates over three periods: pre-DRA (2000-2005), DRA transition period (2005-2007), and post-DRA (2007-2011). RESULTS: Forty-four modified BETOS categories fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Between 2000 and 2006, Medicare outlays for nonimaging services grew by 6.8% versus 12.0% for imaging services. In the ensuing 5 years, annual growth in spending for nonimaging continued at 3.6% versus a decline of 3.5% for imaging. Spending growth for all services during the pre-DRA, DRA, and post-DRA periods were 7.8%, 3.8%, and 2.9 compared with 15.0%, -3.4%, and -2.2% for advanced imaging services. Advanced imaging was among the fastest growing categories of Medicare services in the early 2000s but was in the bottom 2% of spending categories in 2011. Between 2007 and 2011, the fastest growing service categories were evaluation and management services with other specialists (29.1%), nursing home visits (11.2%), anesthesia (9.1%), and other ambulatory procedures (9.0%). CONCLUSION: Slowing volume growth and massive Medicare payment cuts have left medical imaging near the bottom of all service categories contributing to growth in Medicare spending.

Use and Cost of Skin Biopsy Procedures in the Medicare Part B Fee-for-Service Population, 2017 to 2020.

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services noted skin biopsies have high expenditures and changed biopsy billing codes in 2018 to better align procedure type and associated billings. We examined associations between billing code updates and skin biopsy utilization and reimbursement across provider specialties. While dermatologists perform most skin biopsies, the proportion of skin biopsies performed by dermatologists has continuously decreased, but the proportion of skin biopsies performed by nonphysician clinicians has increased from 2017-2020. After the code update, the non-facility national payment amount decreased for first tangential biopsy but increased for first punch, first incisional, additional tangential, additional punch and additional incisional biopsy compared to the corresponding amount for first and additional biopsy before the code update. The allowable charges and Medicare payment per skin biopsy increased across provider specialties but has increased the most for primary care physicians from 2018-2020.

Are Academic Emergency Radiologists Systematically Disadvantaged Compared With Diagnostic Radiology Subspecialty Counterparts When It Comes to Promotion?

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess academic rank differences between academic emergency and other subspecialty diagnostic radiologists. METHODS: Academic radiology departments likely containing emergency radiology divisions were identified by inclusively merging three lists: Doximity's top 20 radiology programs, the top 20 National Institutes of Health-ranked radiology departments, and all departments offering emergency radiology fellowships. Within departments, emergency radiologists (ERs) were identified via website review. Each was then matched on career length and gender to a same-institutional nonemergency diagnostic radiologist. RESULTS: Eleven of 36 institutions had no ERs or insufficient information for analysis. Among 283 emergency radiology faculty members from 25 institutions, 112 career length- and gender-matched pairs were included. Average career length was 16 years, and 23% were women. The mean h indices for ERs and non-ERs were 3.96 ± 5.60 and 12.81 ± 13.55, respectively (P < .0001). Non-ERs were twice as likely as ERs (0.21 versus 0.1) to be associate professors at h index < 5. Men had nearly 3 times the odds of advanced rank compared with women (odds ratio, 2.91; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-8.26; P = .045). Radiologists with at least one additional degree had nearly 3 times the odds of advancing rank (odds ratio, 2.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-7.40; P = .045). Each additional year of practice increased the odds of advancing rank by 14% (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.21; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Academic ERs are less likely to achieve advanced rank compared with career length- and gender-matched non-ERs, and this persists even after adjusting for h index, suggesting that academic ERs are disadvantaged in current promotions systems. Longer term implications for staffing and pipeline development merit further attention as do parallels to other nonstandard subspecialties such as community radiology.

Osteopathic Versus Allopathic Radiologist Workforce Characteristics: A Medicare Administrative and Claims Data Analysis.

PURPOSE: Radiologist medical school pathways have received little attention in recent workforce investigations. With osteopathic enrollment increasing, we assessed the osteopathic versus allopathic composition of the radiologist workforce. METHODS: Linking separate Medicare Doctors and Clinicians Initiative databases and Physician and Other Supplier Files from 2014 through 2019, we assessed (descriptively and using multivariate panel logistic regression modeling) individual and practice characteristics of radiologists who self-reported medical degrees. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2019, as the number of osteopathic radiologists increased 46.0% (4.7% to 6.0% of total radiologist workforce), the number of allopathic radiologists increased 12.1% (representing a relative workforce decrease from 95.3% to 94.0%). For each year since completing training, practicing radiologists were 3.7% less likely to have osteopathic (versus allopathic) degrees (odds ratio [OR] = 0.96 per year, P < .01). Osteopathic radiologists were less likely to work in urban (versus rural) areas (OR = 0.95), and compared with the Midwest, less likely to work in the Northeast (OR = 0.96), South (OR = 0.95), and West (OR = 0.94) (all P < .01). Except for cardiothoracic imaging (OR = 0.78, P = .24), osteopathic radiologists were more likely than allopathic radiologists to practice as general (rather than subspecialty) radiologists (range OR = 0.37 for nuclear medicine to OR = 0.65 for neuroradiology, all P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Osteopathic physicians represent a fast-growing earlier-career component of the radiologist workforce. Compared with allopathic radiologists, they more frequently practice as generalist radiologists, in rural areas, and in the Midwest. Given recent calls for greater general and rural radiology coverage, increasing osteopathic representation in the national radiologist workforce could improve patient access.

Evolving Radiologist Participation in Medicare Shared Savings Program Accountable Care Organizations.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to temporally characterize radiologist participation in Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) accountable care organizations (ACOs). METHODS: Using CMS Physician and Other Supplier Public Use Files, ACO provider-level Research Identifiable Files, and Shared Savings Program ACO Public-Use Files for 2013 through 2018, characteristics of radiologist ACO participation were assessed over time. RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2018, the percentage of Medicare-participating radiologists affiliated with MSSP ACOs increased from 10.4% to 34.9%. During that time, the share of large ACOs (>20,000 beneficiaries) with participating radiologists averaged 87.0%, and the shares of medium ACOs (10,000-20,000) and small ACOs (<10,000) with participating radiologists rose from 62.5% to 66.0% and from 26.3% to 51.6%, respectively. The number of physicians in MSSP ACOs with radiologists was substantially larger than those without radiologists (mean range across years, 573-945 versus 107-179). Primary care physicians constituted a larger percentage of the physician population for ACOs without radiologists (average across years, 66.3% versus 38.5%), and ACOs with radiologists had a higher rate of specialist representation (56.0% versus 33.7%). Beneficiary age, race, and sex demographics were similar among radiologist-participating versus nonparticipating ACOs. CONCLUSIONS: In recent years, radiologist participation in MSSP ACOs has increased substantially. ACOs with radiologist participation are large and more diverse in their physician specialty composition. Nonparticipating radiologists should prepare accordingly.

Increasing Subspecialization of the National Radiologist Workforce.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess recent trends in the generalist versus subspecialist composition of the national radiologist workforce. METHODS: Practicing radiologists were identified using 2012 to 2017 CMS Physician and Other Supplier Public Use Files. Work relative value units associated with radiologists' billed claims were mapped to subspecialties using the Neiman Imaging Types of Service to classify radiologists as subspecialists when exceeding a 50% work effort in a given subspecialty and as generalists otherwise. Additional practice characteristics were obtained from CMS Physician Compare. Chi-square statistics were computed. RESULTS: The percentage of radiologists practicing as subspecialists increased from 37.1% in 2012 and 2013 to 38.8% in 2014, 41.0% in 2015, 43.9% in 2016, and 44.6% in 2017. By subspecialty, 2012 to 2017 workforce changes were as follows: breast, +3.7%; abdominal, +2.4%; neuroradiology, +1.8%; musculoskeletal, +0.8%; cardiothoracic, +0.2%; nuclear, -0.2%; and interventional, -1.2%. Increased subspecialization overall was consistently observed (P < .05) across cohorts defined by gender, years in practice, practice size, and academic status. The degree of increasing subspecialization was greatest for female (+12.1%) and earlier career (+10.2% for those in practice <10 years) radiologists and those in larger groups (+7.2% for ≥100 members). Subspecialization increased in 45 states, and state-level increased subspecialization correlated weakly with population density (r = +0.248). CONCLUSIONS: In recent years, the national radiologist workforce has become increasingly subspecialized, particularly related to shifts toward breast imaging, abdominal imaging, and neuroradiology. Although growing subspecialization may advance more sophisticated imaging care, a diminishing supply of generalists could affect patient access and potentially separate radiologists across workforce sectors.

Gender Differences in Modality Interpretation Among Radiologists: An Exploratory Study of Occupational Horizontal Segregation.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Occupational "horizontal segregation," defined as disparity in the distribution of responsibilities between genders, could discourage women from seeking careers in radiology, as well as impact women within radiology in terms of compensation, promotion, and career advancement. We aimed to explore the existence of horizontal workplace segregation in radiology, as potentially manifested as intergender differences in the distribution of clinical work effort among imaging modalities for radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medicare-participating general radiologists, neuroradiologists, abdominal, cardiothoracic, and musculoskeletal radiologists were identified from the 2016 Medicare Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File. Work effort in radiography, ultrasound, CT, and MRI was stratified by gender. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed. RESULTS: 22,445 radiologists were included (19.0% female; 19.6% in academic practices). At univariable analysis, female (vs. male) generalists had lower work effort in MRI (10.2% vs. 13.2%) (p < 0.001); abdominal radiologists had higher work effort in ultrasound (27.1% vs. 21.9%), with lower work effort in CT (53.7%. vs. 56.0%) and MRI (8.1%. vs. 9.4%) (p < 0.001); and musculoskeletal radiologists had higher work effort in radiography (41.6% vs. 34.8%) and less in MRI (44.8% vs. 49.6%) (p = 0.007). In multivariable analyses, female gender was independently associated with lower work effort in advanced imaging (CT and MRI) for generalists (coefficient, -0.020; p < 0.001), abdominal radiologists (coefficient, -0.042; p < 0.001), and neuroradiologists (coefficient -0.010; p = 0.035). CONCLUSION: Horizontal occupational segregation exists in radiology with female radiologists devoting lower work effort to advanced imaging modalities. Further investigation is warranted to better understand the sources and downstream implications of such variation.

Characteristics of Radiologists' Clinical Practice Patterns by Career Stage.

PURPOSE: To assess characteristics of radiologists' clinical practice patterns by career stage. METHODS: Radiologists' 2016 billed services were extracted from the Medicare Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File. Billed clinical work was weighted using work relative value units. Medical school graduation years were obtained from Medicare Physician Compare. Practice patterns were summarized by decades after residency. RESULTS: Among 28,463 included radiologists, 32.7% were ≤10 years postresidency, 29.3% 11-20 years, 25.0% 21-30 years, 10.5% 31-40 years, 2.4% 41-50 years, 0.1% ≥51 years. Billed clinical work (normalized to a mean of 1.00 among all radiologists) ranged 0.92-1.07 from 1 to 40 years, decreasing to 0.64 for 41-50 years and 0.43 for ≥51 years. Computed tomography represented 34.7%-38.6% of billed clinical work from 1 to 30 years, decreasing slightly to 31.5% for 31-40 years. Magnetic resonance imaging represented 13.9%-14.3% from 1 to 30 years, decreasing slightly to 11.2% for 31-40 years. Ultrasonography represented 6.2%-11.6% across career stages. Nuclear medicine increased steadily from 1.7% for ≤10 years to 7.0% for 41-50 years. Mammography represented 9.9%-12.9% from 1 to 50 years. Radiography/fluoroscopy represented 15.1%-29.8% from 1 to 50 years, but 65.9% for ≥51 years. CONCLUSION: The national radiologist workforce declines abruptly by more than half approximately 30 years after residency. Radiologists still working at 31-40 years, however, contribute similar billed clinical work, both overall and across modalities, as earlier career radiologists. Strategies to retain later-career radiologists in the workforce could help the specialty meet growing clinical demands, mitigate burnout in earlier career colleagues, and expand robust patient access to both basic and advanced imaging services.

The Quality Measure Crunch: How CMS Topped Out Scoring and Removal Policies Disproportionately Disadvantage Radiologists.

PURPOSE: CMS implemented Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) policies to cap points and remove "topped out" quality measures having extremely high national performance. We assess such policies' impact on quality measure reporting, focusing on diagnostic radiology. METHODS: Data regarding MIPS 2019 quality measures were extracted from the CMS Quality Benchmarks File and the Quality Payment Program Explore Measures search tool and summarized by collection type and specialty. RESULTS: Among 348 MIPS measure-and-collection-type combinations, 40.5% were topped out (56.6% of those with a benchmark) and 23.3% were capped. Among measures with a benchmark, the percent topped out varied (P < .001) by collection type: claims 82.7%, qualified registry 60.4%, electronic health record 11.6%. The percent capped was also greatest for claims measures (52.3%). Among 699 Qualified Clinical Data Registry (QCDR) measures, 63 had a benchmark, of which 44.4% were topped out. The percent of measures topped out also varied significantly (P < .001) by specialty, ranging from 0.0% (electrophysiology) to 95.0% (diagnostic radiology). Among 20 unique measure-and-collection-type combinations for diagnostic radiology, only one was not topped out, and 30.0% were capped. Among 20 radiology QCDR measures, 5 had a benchmark, of which 3 were topped out. CONCLUSION: CMS topped out measure scoring and removal policies disproportionately impact radiology, which has the highest topped out percentage among all specialties and only a single non-topped out measure. This asymmetry disproportionately impairs radiologists' MIPS flexibility and is anticipated to progress in ensuing years. Current CMS policies create a looming crisis for radiologists in MIPS. The high risk of an insufficient number of available quality measures creates an urgent need for new radiology measure development.

Advanced Imaging Utilization and Cost Savings Among Medicare Shared Savings Program Accountable Care Organizations: An Initial Exploratory Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to explore associations between CT and MRI utilization and cost savings achieved by Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP)-participating accountable care organizations (ACOs). METHODS: Summary data were obtained for all MSSP-participating ACOs (n = 214 in 2013; n = 333 in 2014). Multivariable regressions were performed to assess associations of CT and MRI utilization with ACOs' total savings and reaching minimum savings rates to share in Medicare savings. RESULTS: In 2014, 54.4% of ACOs achieved savings, meeting minimum rates to share in savings in 27.6%. Independent positive predictors of total savings included beneficiary risk scores (ß = +20,265,720, P = .003) and MRI events (ß = +19,964, P = .018) but not CT events (ß = +2,084, P = .635). Independent positive predictors of meeting minimum savings rates included beneficiary risk scores (odds ratio = 2108, P = .001) and MRI events (odds ratio = 1.008, P = .002), but not CT events (odds ratio = 1.002, P = .289). Measures not independently associated with savings were total beneficiaries; beneficiaries' gender, age, race or ethnicity; and Medicare enrollment type (P > .05). For ACOs with 2013 and 2014 data, neither increases nor decreases in CT and MRI events between years were associated with 2014 total savings or meeting savings thresholds (P ≥ .466). CONCLUSION: Higher MRI utilization rates were independently associated with small but significant MSSP ACO savings. The value of MRI might relate to the favorable impact of appropriate advanced imaging utilization on downstream outcomes and other resource utilization. Because MSSP ACOs represent a highly select group of sophisticated organizations subject to rigorous quality and care coordination standards, further research will be necessary to determine if these associations are generalizable to other health care settings.