Updated Assessment of Practice Patterns of Perioperative Management of Antiplatelet and Anticoagulant Therapy in Interventional Pain Management.

BACKGROUND: The role of antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy is well known for its primary and secondary prevention of sequela from cardiovascular disease by decreasing the incidence of acute cerebral, cardiovascular, peripheral vascular, and other thrombo-embolicevents. The overwhelming data show that the risk of thrombotic events is significantly higher than that of bleeding during surgery after antiplatelet drug discontinuation. It has been assumed that discontinuing antiplatelet therapy prior to performing interventional pain management techniques is a common practice, even though doing so may potentially increase the risk of acute cerebral and cardiovascular events. A survey of practice patterns was conducted in 2012, since then the risks associated with thromboembolic events and bleeding, has not been systematically evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To conduct an updated assessment of the perioperative antiplatelet and anticoagulant practice patterns of U.S. interventional pain management physicians and compare this with data collected in 2012 with 2021 data regarding practice patterns of continuing or discontinuing anticoagulant therapy. STUDY DESIGNn: Postal survey of interventional pain management physicians. STUDY SETTING: Interventional pain management practices in the United States. METHODS: The survey was conducted based on online responses of the members of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) in 2021. The survey was designed similar to the 2012 survey to assess updated practice patterns. RESULTS: The questionnaire was sent out to 1,700 members in October 2021. Out of these, 185 members completed the survey, while 105 were returned due to invalid addresses. The results showed that 23% changed their practice patterns during the previous year. The results also showed that all physicians discontinued warfarin therapy with the majority of physicians accepting an INR of 1.5 as a safe level. Low dose aspirin (81 mg) was discontinued for 3 to 7 days for low-risk procedures by 8% of the physicians, 34% of the physicians for moderate or intermediate risk procedures, whereas they were discontinued by 76% of the physicians for high-risk procedures. High dose aspirin (325 mg) was discontinued at a higher rate. Antiplatelet agents, including dipyridamole, cilostazol, and Aggrenox (aspirin, extended-release dipyridamole) were discontinued from 3 to 5 days by 18%-23% of the physicians for low-risk procedures, approximately 60% of the physicians for moderate or intermediate-risk procedures, and over 90% of the physicians for high-risk procedures. Platelet aggregation inhibitors clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticlopidine, and ticagrelor were discontinued for 3 to 5 days by approximately 26% to 41% for low-risk procedures, almost 90% for moderate or intermediate-risk procedures, and over 97% for high-risk procedures. Thrombin inhibitor dabigatran was discontinued by 33% of the physicians for low-risk procedures, 92% for moderate or intermediate-risk procedures, and 99% for high-risk procedures. Anti-Xa agents, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and Edoxaban were discontinued in over 25% of the physicians for low-risk procedures, approximately 90% for moderate or intermediate-risk procedures, and 99% for high-risk procedures. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its being an online survey of the membership of one organization in one country, that there was only a 11.6% response rate, and the sample size is relatively small. Underreporting in surveys is common. Further, the incidence of thromboembolic events or epidural hematomas was not assessed. CONCLUSION: The results in the 2021 survey illustrate a continued pattern of discontinuing antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy in the perioperative period. The majority of discontinuation patterns appear to fall within guidelines.

Perioperative Management of Antiplatelet and Anticoagulant Therapy in Patients Undergoing Interventional Techniques: 2024 Updated Guidelines from the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP).

BACKGROUND: The frequency of performance of interventional techniques in chronic pain patients receiving anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy continues to increase. Understanding the importance of continuing chronic anticoagulant therapy, the need for interventional techniques, and determining the duration and discontinuation or temporary suspension of anticoagulation is crucial to avoiding devastating complications, primarily when neuraxial procedures are performed. Anticoagulants and antiplatelets target the clotting system, increasing the bleeding risk. However, discontinuation of anticoagulant or antiplatelet drugs exposes patients to thrombosis risk, which can lead to significant morbidity and mortality, especially in those with coronary artery or cerebrovascular disease. These guidelines summarize the current peer reviewed literature and develop consensus-based guidelines based on the best evidence synthesis for patients receiving anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy during interventional procedures. STUDY DESIGN: Review of the literature and development of guidelines based on best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVES: To provide a current and concise appraisal of the literature regarding the assessment of bleeding and thrombosis risk during interventional techniques for patients taking anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet medications. METHODS: Development of consensus guidelines based on best evidence synthesis included review of the literature on bleeding risks during interventional pain procedures, practice patterns, and perioperative management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy. A multidisciplinary panel of experts developed methodology, risk stratification based on best evidence synthesis, and management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy. It also included risk of cessation of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy based on a multitude of factors. Multiple data sources on bleeding risk, practice patterns, risk of thrombosis, and perioperative management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy were identified. The relevant literature was identified through searches of multiple databases from 1966 through 2023. In the development of consensus statements and guidelines, we used a modified Delphi technique, which has been described to minimize bias related to group interactions. Panelists without a primary conflict of interest voted on approving specific guideline statements. Each panelist could suggest edits to the guideline statement wording and could suggest additional qualifying remarks or comments as to the implementation of the guideline in clinical practice to achieve consensus and for inclusion in the final guidelines, each guideline statement required at least 80% agreement among eligible panel members without primary conflict of interest. RESULTS: A total of 34 authors participated in the development of these guidelines. Of these, 29 participated in the voting process. A total of 20 recommendations were developed. Overall, 100% acceptance was obtained for 16 of 20 items. Total items were reduced to 18 with second and third round voting. The final results were 100% acceptance for 16 items (89%). There was disagreement for 2 statements (statements 6 and 7) and recommendations by 3 authors. These remaining 2 items had an acceptance of 94% and 89%. The disagreement and dissent were by Byron J. Schneider, MD, with recommendation that all transforaminals be classified into low risk, whereas Sanjeeva Gupta, MD, desired all transforaminals to be in intermediate risk. The second disagreement was related to Vivekanand A. Manocha, MD, recommending that cervical and thoracic transforaminal to be high risk procedures.Thus, with appropriate literature review, consensus-based statements were developed for the perioperative management of patients receiving anticoagulants and antiplatelets These included the following: estimation of the thromboembolic risk, estimation of bleeding risk, and determination of the timing of restarting of anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy.Risk stratification was provided classifying the interventional techniques into three categories of low risk, moderate or intermediate risk, and high risk. Further, on multiple occasions in low risk and moderate or intermediate risk categories, recommendations were provided against cessation of anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy. LIMITATIONS: The continued paucity of literature with discordant recommendations. CONCLUSION: Based on the review of available literature, published clinical guidelines, and recommendations, a multidisciplinary panel of experts presented guidelines in managing interventional techniques in patients on anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy in the perioperative period. These guidelines provide a comprehensive assessment of classification of risk, appropriate recommendations, and recommendations based on the best available evidence.

Medical malpractice claims and state medical board complaints among United States neurointerventionalists.

BACKGROUND: Surgeons are at high risk for malpractice claims, which can significantly impact physician quality of life and risk of burnout. There are few published data reporting the incidence, outcomes, and repercussions of malpractice lawsuits on neurointerventionalists. METHODS: A survey of senior members of the United States Society of Neurointerventional Surgery (SNIS) was performed to study malpractice litigation and medical board complaints. RESULTS: In total, 173 responses were obtained. Of the total sample, 66 respondents (38.2%) reported being subject to a total of 84 malpractice claims during independent practice over the last 10 years, amounting to a malpractice claim annual incidence of 5.9% (84 cases per 1423 years of practice). The majority of claims involved either brain aneurysms (34.5%) or arteriovenous malformations (23.8%), with most alleging either intra-procedural (38.1%) or post-procedural (27.3%) complications. Only three of the 58 claims that had concluded ended in court settlements (5.2%). The majority (78.3%) of claims resulted in no consequences to physician practice. Fourteen respondents (8.1%) reported being subject to a total of 16 state medical board complaints over the previous decade, with most resulting in no significant repercussions. CONCLUSION: Malpractice claims are common among neurointerventionalists and often cause significant physician distress, yet most result in claims being dropped or no paid damages, and the majority conclude without practice repercussions for the named physicians.

Use of corticosteroids for adult chronic pain interventions: sympathetic and peripheral nerve blocks, trigger point injections - guidelines from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, the American Academy of Pain Medicine, the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, the International Pain and Spine Intervention Society, and the North American Spine Society.

BACKGROUND: There is potential for adverse events from corticosteroid injections, including increase in blood glucose, decrease in bone mineral density and suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary axis. Published studies note that doses lower than those commonly injected provide similar benefit. METHODS: Development of the practice guideline was approved by the Board of Directors of American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine with several other societies agreeing to participate. The scope of guidelines was agreed on to include safety of the injection technique (landmark-guided, ultrasound or radiology-aided injections); effect of the addition of the corticosteroid on the efficacy of the injectate (local anesthetic or saline); and adverse events related to the injection. Based on preliminary discussions, it was decided to structure the topics into three separate guidelines as follows: (1) sympathetic, peripheral nerve blocks and trigger point injections; (2) joints; and (3) neuraxial, facet, sacroiliac joints and related topics (vaccine and anticoagulants). Experts were assigned topics to perform a comprehensive review of the literature and to draft statements and recommendations, which were refined and voted for consensus (≥75% agreement) using a modified Delphi process. The United States Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence and strength of recommendation was followed. RESULTS: This guideline deals with the use and safety of corticosteroid injections for sympathetic, peripheral nerve blocks and trigger point injections for adult chronic pain conditions. All the statements and recommendations were approved by all participants after four rounds of discussion. The Practice Guidelines Committees and Board of Directors of the participating societies also approved all the statements and recommendations. The safety of some procedures, including stellate blocks, lower extremity peripheral nerve blocks and some sites of trigger point injections, is improved by imaging guidance. The addition of non-particulate corticosteroid to the local anesthetic is beneficial in cluster headaches but not in other types of headaches. Corticosteroid may provide additional benefit in transverse abdominal plane blocks and ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve blocks in postherniorrhaphy pain but there is no evidence for pudendal nerve blocks. There is minimal benefit for the use of corticosteroids in trigger point injections. CONCLUSIONS: In this practice guideline, we provided recommendations on the use of corticosteroids in sympathetic blocks, peripheral nerve blocks, and trigger point injections to assist clinicians in making informed decisions.

Impact and determinants of door in-door out time for stroke thrombectomy transfers in a large hub-and-spoke network.

INTRODUCTION: The mantra "time is brain" cannot be overstated for patients suffering from acute ischemic stroke. This is especially true for those with large vessel occlusions (LVOs) requiring transfer to an endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) capable center. We sought to evaluate the spoke hospital door in-door out (DIDO) times for patients transferred to our hub center for EVT. METHODS: Individuals who first presented with LVO to a spoke hospital and were then transferred to the hub for EVT were retrospectively identified from a prospectively maintained database from January 2019 to November 2022. DIDO was defined as the time between spoke hospital door in arrival and door out exit. Baseline characteristics, treatments, and outcomes were compared, dichotomizing DIDO at 90 minutes based in the American Heart Association goal for DIDO ≤90 minutes for 50% of transfers. Multivariable regression analyses were performed for determinants of the 90-day ordinal modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and DIDO. RESULTS: We identified 194 patients transferred for EVT with available DIDO. The median age was 67 years (IQR 57-80), and 46% were female. The median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) was 16 (10-20), 50% were treated with intravenous thrombolysis at a spoke, and TICI 2B-3 reperfusion was achieved in 87% at the hub. The median DIDO was 120 minutes (97-149), with DIDO ≤90 minutes achieved in 18%. DIDO was a significant determinant of 90-day ordinal mRS (B = 0.007, 95% CI = 0.001-0.012, p = 0.013), even when accounting for the last known well-to-spoke door in, spoke door out-to-hub arrival, hub arrival-to-puncture, puncture-to-first pass, age, NIHSS, intravenous thrombolysis, TICI 2B-3, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. Importantly, determinants of DIDO included Black race or Hispanic ethnicity (B = 0.918, 95% CI = 0.010-1.826, p = 0.048), atrial fibrillation or heart failure (B = 0.793, 95% CI = 0.257-1.329, p = 0.004), and basilar LVO location (B = 2.528, 95% CI = 1.154-3.901, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Spoke DIDO was the most important period of time for long-term outcomes of LVO stroke patients treated with EVT. Targets were identified to reduce DIDO and improve patient outcomes.

Implementation of a Survey Spine MR Imaging Protocol for Cord Compression in the Emergency Department: Experience at a Level 1 Trauma Center.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Imaging stewardship in the emergency department (ED) is vital in ensuring patients receive optimized care. While suspected cord compression (CC) is a frequent indication for total spine MR imaging in the ED, the incidence of CC is low. Recently, our level 1 trauma center introduced a survey spine MR imaging protocol to evaluate for suspected CC while reducing examination time to avoid imaging overutilization. This study aims to evaluate the time savings, frequency of ordering patterns of the survey, and the symptoms and outcomes of patients undergoing the survey. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study examined patients who received a survey spine MR imaging in the ED at our institution between 2018 and 2022. All examinations were performed on a 1.5T GE Healthcare scanner by using our institutional CC survey protocol, which includes sagittal T2WI and STIR sequences through the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine. Examinations were read by a blinded, board-certified neuroradiologist. RESULTS: A total of 2002 patients received a survey spine MR imaging protocol during the study period. Of these patients, 845 (42.2%, mean age 57 ± 19 years, 45% women) received survey spine MR imaging examinations for the suspicion of CC, and 120 patients (14.2% positivity rate) had radiographic CC. The survey spine MR imaging averaged 5 minutes and 50 seconds (79% faster than routine MR imaging). On multivariate analysis, trauma, back pain, lower extremity weakness, urinary or bowel incontinence, numbness, ataxia, and hyperreflexia were each independently associated with CC. Of the 120 patients with CC, 71 underwent emergent surgery, 20 underwent nonemergent surgery, and 29 were managed medically. CONCLUSIONS: The survey spine protocol was positive for CC in 14% of patients in our cohort and acquired at a 79% faster rate compared with routine total spine. Understanding the positivity rate of CC, the clinical symptoms that are most associated with CC, and the subsequent care management for patients presenting with suspected cord compression who received the survey spine MR imaging may better inform the broad adoption and subsequent utilization of survey imaging protocols in emergency settings to increase throughput, improve allocation of resources, and provide efficient care for patients with suspected CC.

Risk of adjacent level fracture after percutaneous vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty vs natural history for the management of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: Percutaneous vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty are common interventions for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. However, there is concern about an increased risk of adjacent-level fractures after treatment. This study aimed to compare the risk of adjacent-level fractures after vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty with the natural history after osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to evaluate the risk of adjacent-level fractures after vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty compared to the natural history after osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted using the "netmeta" package, and heterogeneity was assessed using Q statistics. The pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random effects. RESULTS: Twenty-three RCTs with a total of 2838 patients were included in the analysis. The network meta-analysis showed comparable risks of adjacent-level fractures between vertebroplasty, kyphoplasty, and natural history after osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures with a mean follow-up of 21.2 (range: 3-49.4 months). The pooled RR for adjacent-level fractures after kyphoplasty compared to natural history was 1.35 (95% CI, 0.78-2.34, p = 0.23) and for vertebroplasty compared to natural history was 1.16 (95% CI, 0.62-2.14) p = 0.51. The risk of bias assessment showed a low to moderate risk of bias among included RCTs. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in the risk of adjacent-level fractures after vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty compared to natural history after osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. The inclusion of a large patient number and network meta-analysis of RCTs serve evidence-based clinical practice. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The risk of adjacent-level fracture following percutaneous vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty is similar to that observed in the natural history after osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. KEY POINTS: RCTs have examined the risk of adjacent-level fracture after intervention for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. There was no difference between vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty patients compared to the natural disease history for adjacent compression fractures. This is strong evidence that interventional treatments for these fractures do not increase the risk of adjacent fractures.

Feasibility, safety, and efficacy of a new percutaneous interspinous device: a retrospective multicenter study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate safety and efficacy of the novel percutaneous interspinous device (PID) for the treatment of symptomatic degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) in 3 different centers. METHODS: From November 2016 to March 2020, 255 patients (male 125, mean age 71.2 years old range 49-91 years old) with neurogenic claudication, confirmed by electromyography, related to mono or bi-segmental lumbar central canal and/or foraminal stenosis were enrolled in the study. Magnetic resonance (MR) and/or computer tomography (CT), physical exam, and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) were performed before and 6 months after the procedure. All treatments were performed under fluoroscopic guidance with local anesthesia and mild sedation. Technical success was defined as correct placement of the Lobster® (Demetrios Medical, Firenze, Italy) PID as demonstrated by computer tomography (CT) performed immediately after treatment; spinoplasty was performed in selected patients. RESULTS: PID placement was accomplished with a 99.6% success rate (257/258). The one device that was not implanted was due to a spinous process fracture. In 28 patients, more than 1 device was implanted in the same session (max 3 PIDs); 6 patients required a second implant in different session. A total of 172 prophylactic spinoplasties were performed (59.3%). No major complications occurred; 3 device misplacements were successfully treated with percutaneous retrieval and new device deployment. 99.6% of patients experienced clinical improvement. CONCLUSION: Lobster PID is an effective and safe minimally invasive decompression method for central canal and neural foraminal stenosis when patients are correctly selected.

Trends in non-focal neurological chief complaints and CT angiography utilization among adults in the emergency department.

Prudent imaging use is essential for cost reduction and efficient patient triage. Recent efforts have focused on head and neck CTA in patients with emergent concerns for non-focal neurological complaints, but have failed to demonstrate whether increases in utilization have resulted in better care. The objective of this study was to examine trends in head and neck CTA ordering and determine whether a correlation exists between imaging utilization and positivity rates. This is a single-center retrospective observational study at a quaternary referral center. This study includes patients presenting with headache and/or dizziness to the emergency department between January 2017 and December 2021. Patients who received a head and neck CTA were compared to those who did not. The main outcomes included annual head and neck CTA utilization and positivity rates, defined as the percent of scans with attributable acute pathologies. Among 24,892 emergency department visits, 2264 (9.1%) underwent head and neck CTA imaging. The percentage of patients who received a scan over the study period increased from 7.89% (422/5351) in 2017 to 13.24% (662/5001) in 2021, representing a 67.4% increase from baseline (OR, 1.14; 95% CI 1.11-1.18; P < .001). The positivity rate, or the percentage of scans ordered that revealed attributable acute pathology, dropped from 16.8% (71/422) in 2017 to 10.4% (69/662) in 2021 (OR, 0.86; 95% CI 0.79-0.94; P = .001), a 38% reduction in positive examinations. Throughout the study period, there was a 67.4% increase in head and neck CTA ordering with a concomitant 38.1% decrease in positivity rate.

Effectiveness of Facet Joint Nerve Blocks in Managing Chronic Axial Spinal Pain of Facet Joint Origin: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic axial spinal pain is one of the major causes of disability. Literature shows that spending on low back and neck pain and musculoskeletal disorders continues to escalate, not only with disability, but also with increasing costs, accounting for the highest amount of various disease categories. Based on the current literature utilizing controlled diagnostic blocks, facet joints, nerve root dura, and sacroiliac joints have been shown as potential sources of spinal pain. Therapeutic facet joint interventional modalities of axial spinal pain include radiofrequency neurotomy, therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks, and therapeutic intraarticular injections. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of facet joint nerve blocks as a therapeutic modality in managing chronic axial spinal pain of facet joint origin. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. METHODS: The available literature on facet joint nerve blocks in axial spinal pain was reviewed. The quality assessment criteria utilized were the Cochrane review criteria to assess risk of bias, the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) for randomized therapeutic trials, and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR) for nonrandomized studies. The evidence was graded according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment criteria. The level of evidence was based on best evidence synthesis with modified grading of qualitative evidence from Level I to Level V. A comprehensive literature search of multiple databases from 1966 to July 2023, including manual searches of the bibliography of known review articles was performed. Quality assessment of the included studies and best evidence synthesis were incorporated into qualitative and quantitative evidence synthesis. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with significant relief and functional improvement of greater than 50% of at least 3 months. Duration of relief was categorized as short-term (less than 6 months) and long-term (greater than 6 months). RESULTS: This assessment identified 8 high-quality and one moderate quality RCTs and 8 high quality and 4 moderate quality non-randomized studies with application of spinal facet joint nerve blocks as therapeutic modalities. However, based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) assessment, only 3 of the 21 studies showed high levels of evidence and clinical applicability, with 11 studies showing moderate levels of GRADE evidence and clinical applicability. LIMITATIONS: Despite the availability of multiple studies, the paucity of literature is considered as the major drawback. Based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) assessment, only 3 of the 21 studies showed high levels of evidence and clinical applicability. CONCLUSION: Based on the present systematic review and meta-analysis with 9 RCTs and 12 non-randomized studies, the evidence is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks in managing spinal facet joint pain.

Financial Viability of the No Surprises Act Independent Dispute Resolution Process: Radiology and Other Hospital-Based Specialties.

BACKGROUND. The federal No Surprises Act (NSA), designed to eliminate surprise medical billing for out-of-network (OON) care for circumstances beyond patients' control, established the independent dispute resolution (IDR) process to settle clinician-payer payment disputes for OON care. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to assess the fraction of OON claims for which radiologists and other hospital-based specialists can expect to at least break even when challenging payer-determined payments through the NSA IDR process, as a measure of the process's financial viability. METHODS. This retrospective study extracted claims from a national commercial database (Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart) for hospital-based specialties occurring on the same day as in-network emergency department (ED) visits or inpatient stays from January 2017 to December 2021. OON claims were identified. OON claims batching was simulated using IDR rules. Maximum potential recovered payments from the IDR process were estimated as the difference between the charges and the allowed amount. The percentages of claims for which the maximum potential payment and one-quarter of this amount (a more realistic payment recovery estimate) would exceed IDR fees were determined, using US$150 and US$450 fee thresholds to approximate the range of final 2024 IDR fees. These values represented the percentage of OON claims that would be financially viable candidates for IDR submission. RESULTS. Among 76,221,264 claims for hospital-based specialties associated with in-network ED visits or inpatient stays, 1,482,973 (1.9%) were OON. The maximum potential payment exceeded fee thresholds of US$150 and US$450 for 55.0% and 32.1%, respectively, of batched OON claims for radiologists and 76.8% and 61.3% of batched OON claims for all other hospital-based specialties combined. At payment of one-quarter of that amount, these values were 26.9% and 10.6%, respectively, for radiologists and 56.6% and 38.4% for all other hospital-based specialties combined. CONCLUSION. The IDR process would be financially unviable for a substantial fraction of OON claims for hospital-based specialists (more so for radiology than for other such specialties). CLINICAL IMPACT. Although the NSA enacted important patient protections, IDR fees limit clinicians' opportunities to dispute payer-determined payments and potentially undermine their bargaining power in contract negotiations. Therefore, IDR rulemaking may negatively impact patient access to in-network care.

No Surprises Act: Legal Challenges and Implications for Radiology.

When the word "surprise" is used as a noun, it generally describes an unexpected event. When "surprise" is used in conjunction with "billing", it conjures up images with which even the most hardened backroom medical administrator can empathize. One's first reaction is likely patient based, that a person received medical services from a health care provider or facility that are larger than anticipated in-network charges. As a result, the bill for services incorporates that, no-doubt unpleasant, surprise. The whole truth is understandably more complex. Radiology groups contract with insurance companies who for their own reasons, might have historically preferred progressively narrower networks. Nonetheless, these contracts allow providers the opportunity to negotiate reasonable payments for services rendered. Events have changed the historic dynamic between providers and insurance companies.