The Environmental, Social, Governance Movement and Radiology: Opportunities and Strategy.

The environmental, social, governance (ESG) movement has come to health care organizations, in part through the Biden administration's challenge to them to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050, in support of more robust environmental sustainability. Radiology practices should become knowledgeable about ESG concepts and look for opportunities that are meaningful and achievable to support their host organizations' ESG efforts. Examples of initiatives to support improved environmental sustainability include selecting the least energy intensive imaging method for a given diagnosis, shutting down equipment in standby mode, sourcing energy from renewable sources, and reducing waste through recycling. Optimizing imaging protocols can reduce radiation exposure to patients, energy used per examination, and the use of other resources such as iodinated contrast media, an environmental pollutant. Achieving socially equitable access to services for ethnic and racial minorities remains a challenge in the US health care system. Extending hours of operation for screening services to include nights and weekends can provide options for patients who otherwise must take time away from work with loss of income. With respect to governance, more transparency in leadership selection and greater opportunities for participation by women and racial/ethnic minorities in the leadership of professional organizations should be supported in radiology. To succeed in ESG initiatives, radiology practice leaders should consider appointing a lead person and a multifunctional team that includes broad representation from the radiology workplace. The team should work to identify opportunities that are realistic and achievable within their institutional contexts.

Practical Tips for Creating a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee: Experience From a Multicenter, Academic Radiology Department.

PURPOSE: Coronavirus disease 2019 and the publicly documented deaths of countless Black individuals have highlighted the need to confront systemic racism, address racial/ethnic disparities, and improve diversity and inclusion in radiology. Several radiology departments have begun to create diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) committees to systematically address DEI issues in radiology. However, there are few articles that provide departments with guidance on how to create DEI committees to comprehensively address DEI issues in radiology. The purpose of this review is to provide readers with a framework and practical tips for creating a comprehensive, institutionally aligned radiology DEI committee. METHODS: The authors describe key components of the strategic planning process and lessons learned in the creation of a radiology DEI committee, on the basis of the experience of an integrated, academic northeastern radiology department. RESULTS: A hospital-based strategic planning process defining the DEI vision, mission, goals, and strategies was used to inform the formation of the radiology department DEI committee. The radiology department performed gap analyses by conducting internal and external research. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analyses were performed on the basis of consultations with institutional and other departmental DEI leaders as well as DEI leaders from other academic medical centers. This framework served as the basis for the creation of the radiology departmental DEI committee, including a steering committee and four task forces (education, research, patient experience, and workforce development), each charged with addressing specific institutional goals and strategies. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides academic radiology departments with a blueprint to create a comprehensive, institutionally aligned radiology DEI committee.

Medical imaging and nuclear medicine: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

The diagnosis and treatment of patients with cancer requires access to imaging to ensure accurate management decisions and optimal outcomes. Our global assessment of imaging and nuclear medicine resources identified substantial shortages in equipment and workforce, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). A microsimulation model of 11 cancers showed that the scale-up of imaging would avert 3·2% (2·46 million) of all 76·0 million deaths caused by the modelled cancers worldwide between 2020 and 2030, saving 54·92 million life-years. A comprehensive scale-up of imaging, treatment, and care quality would avert 9·55 million (12·5%) of all cancer deaths caused by the modelled cancers worldwide, saving 232·30 million life-years. Scale-up of imaging would cost US$6·84 billion in 2020-30 but yield lifetime productivity gains of $1·23 trillion worldwide, a net return of $179·19 per $1 invested. Combining the scale-up of imaging, treatment, and quality of care would provide a net benefit of $2·66 trillion and a net return of $12·43 per $1 invested. With the use of a conservative approach regarding human capital, the scale-up of imaging alone would provide a net benefit of $209·46 billion and net return of $31·61 per $1 invested. With comprehensive scale-up, the worldwide net benefit using the human capital approach is $340·42 billion and the return per dollar invested is $2·46. These improved health and economic outcomes hold true across all geographical regions. We propose actions and investments that would enhance access to imaging equipment, workforce capacity, digital technology, radiopharmaceuticals, and research and training programmes in LMICs, to produce massive health and economic benefits and reduce the burden of cancer globally.

Analysis of the Effects of a Patient-Centered Rideshare Program on Missed Appointments and Timeliness for MRI Appointments at an Academic Medical Center.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the differences in timeliness to MRI appointments and missed MRI appointment rates before and after the implementation of a rideshare program. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a rideshare program was performed 9 months after implementation to compare the effects before and after implementation. Variables obtained included demographics, MRI appointment variables, and data related to rideshare use. Descriptive statistics and linear and logistic regression analyses were used to compare demographic characteristics among patients using the rideshare program with (1) those who did not use the rideshare program after implementation and (2) patients before rideshare implementation. Rates of missed appointments derived from patient-related, same-day appointment cancellations were analyzed using logistic regression analyses. Timeliness was analyzed using linear regression analyses. All analyses were adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS: Of 7,707 patients scheduled for MRI appointments during the postintervention period, 151 patients used the rideshare service (1.95%). There were no statistically significant differences in missed appointment rates after rideshare implementation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.27; P = .275). Patients using the rideshare service were more likely to be on time (adjusted coefficient = 13.0; 95% confidence interval, 5.4-20.5; P = .001). Older patients (P = .001), unemployed patients (P < .001), and patients without commercial insurance (P < .001) were more likely to use the rideshare service. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a rideshare program did not significantly decrease missed appointment rates, but it significantly improved timeliness to MRI appointments while assisting at-risk patient populations reporting transportation barriers.

Radiology in the Era of Value-Based Healthcare: A Multi-Society Expert Statement From the ACR, CAR, ESR, IS3R, RANZCR, and RSNA.

BACKGROUND: The Value-Based Healthcare (VBH) concept is designed to improve individual healthcare outcomes without increasing expenditure, and is increasingly being used to determine resourcing of and reimbursement for medical services. Radiology is a major contributor to patient and societal healthcare at many levels. Despite this, some VBH models do not acknowledge radiology's central role; this may have future negative consequences for resource allocation. METHODS, FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION: This multi-society paper, representing the views of Radiology Societies in Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, describes the place of radiology in VBH models and the health-care value contributions of radiology. Potential steps to objectify and quantify the value contributed by radiology to healthcare are outlined.

Radiology in the Era of Value-based Healthcare: A Multi-Society Expert Statement from the ACR, CAR, ESR, IS3R, RANZCR, and RSNA.

Background The Value-Based Healthcare (VBH) concept is designed to improve individual healthcare outcomes without increasing expenditure, and is increasingly being used to determine resourcing of and reimbursement for medical services. Radiology is a major contributor to patient and societal healthcare at many levels. Despite this, some VBH models do not acknowledge radiology's central role; this may have future negative consequences for resource allocation. Methods, findings and interpretation This multi-society paper, representing the views of Radiology Societies in Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, describes the place of radiology in VBH models and the health-care value contributions of radiology. Potential steps to objectify and quantify the value contributed by radiology to healthcare are outlined. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.

Predictors of MRI Leakage Among Patients Attributed to an Academic Medical Center Commercial Risk-Shared Insurance Contract.

PURPOSE: For health care organizations engaged in risk-shared insurance contracts, leakage of advanced diagnostic imaging to imaging sites not affiliated with the risk-sharing organization may undermine performance on financial and quality metrics. The goal of this study was to identify factors that are predictive of leakage of MRI examinations among patients attributed to an academic health care organization's risk-shared commercial insurance contract. METHODS: Administrative claims data from 2015 through 2016 for patients attributed to a single risk-shared commercial insurance contract at a large academic medical center (AMC) were analyzed. Primary outcome was MRI leakage: an outpatient MRI study performed at a site not affiliated with the AMC's integrated health care system. Ordering provider alignment with the AMC's risk-shared insurance contract was categorized as strong, weak, or none. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the relationship between provider alignment and MRI leakage, while adjusting for selected covariates. RESULTS: Among 8,215 patients meeting inclusion criteria, there were 13,272 MRI encounters. The overall proportion of leaked MRI studies was 12.7%. MRI studies ordered by providers with weak AMC alignment (odds ratio, 3.16; 95% confidence interval, 2.49-4.02) or no AMC alignment (odds ratio, 3.68; 95% confidence interval, 3.12-4.33) were more likely to leak than MRI studies ordered by providers with strong AMC alignment. CONCLUSIONS: An ordering provider with no alignment with an AMC's commercial risk-shared insurance contract was the strongest predictor of MRI leakage. Population health management initiatives aimed at reducing leakage should consider the impact of provider networks and clinical referral patterns that drive imaging utilization.

Socioeconomic and Demographic Predictors of Missed Opportunities to Provide Advanced Imaging Services.

PURPOSE: The extent to which racial and socioeconomic disparities exist in accessing clinically appropriate, advanced diagnostic imaging has not been well studied. This study assesses the relationship between demographic and socioeconomic factors and the incidence of imaging missed care opportunities (IMCOs). METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of outpatient CT and MRI appointments at a quaternary academic medical center and affiliated outpatient facilities during a 12-month period. Missed appointments not rescheduled in advance were classified as IMCOs. Appropriateness criteria scores and demographics were also obtained. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine if demographic and socioeconomic factors were predictive of IMCOs. RESULTS: Overall, 57,847 patients met inclusion criteria, representing 89,943 scheduled unique imaging appointments of which 5,840 (6.1%) were IMCOs; 0.8% of IMCO appointments had low appropriateness scores compared with 1.2% of completed appointments (P < .01). Appointments covered by commercial insurance (5.2%) had a significantly lower rate of IMCOs than other payers: Medicare = 6.3%, Medicaid = 14.5%, self-pay = 12.0% (P < .05). The following factors were independent predictors of a patient having ≥ 1 IMCO: noncommercial insurance [odds ratio (OR) = 1.7-2.6], African American (OR = 1.8), Hispanic (OR = 1.2), other race (OR = 1.1), language other than English or Spanish (OR = 1.2), male gender (OR = 1.2), age ≥ 65 (OR = 0.71), and median household income of patient home zip code <$50,000 (OR = 1.4). CONCLUSIONS: Race and socioeconomic status are independent predictors of IMCOs. In efforts to enhance patient engagement, radiologists should be aware of the impact of race and socioeconomic status on access to clinically appropriate advanced diagnostic imaging.

Non-Research-Related Physician-Industry Relationships of Radiologists in the United States.

PURPOSE: To evaluate non-research-related, physician-industry financial relationships in the United States, in 2013, as reported pursuant to the Physician Payments Sunshine Act (a provision of the Affordable Care Act). METHODS: In September 2014, CMS released the first five months (August 2013 to December 2013) of data disclosing physician-industry financial relationships. The frequency and value of non-research-related transfers in radiology were calculated and compared with those for 19 other specialties. Subanalyses of the frequency and value of such transfers in radiology were performed, based on state of licensure, radiologic subspecialty, nature of payment, manufacturer identity, and drug or device involved. RESULTS: A total of 7.4% (2,654 of 35,768) of radiologists from the United States had reportable non-research-related financial relationship(s) with industry during the 5-month period, the second-lowest level among the medical specialties evaluated. The average value of non-research-related transfers of value to radiologists, excluding royalties and licenses, was low ($438.71; SD: $2,912.15; median: $43.85), with <4% of radiologists receiving >$10 per month. Of all categories, that of food and beverage had the most transfers of value (86.0%; 5,655 of 6,577); royalties and licensure were associated with the greatest average value ($27,072.34; SD: $67,524.92). Although high-value relationships were rare, 57.8% (26 of 45) of radiologists who received a value >$1,000 per month held leadership positions in imaging enterprises. CONCLUSIONS: Less than 4% of radiologists have non-research-related financial relationships with industry that are valued at >$10 per month, suggesting that meaningful, deleterious effects of such relationships on radiology practice, if present, are infrequent.

An "a la carte" academic radiology compensation plan: something for everyone.

The mechanism used to compensate faculty members within academic radiology practice poses a complex challenge to radiology administrative leaders. In this article, the authors discuss a novel compensation plan model that addresses many of the demands faced by modern academic radiology practices.

Traditional clinical risk assessment tools do not accurately predict coronary atherosclerotic plaque burden: a CT angiography study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to determine the degree to which Framingham risk estimates and the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel III core risk categories correlate with total coronary atherosclerotic plaque burden (calcified and noncalcified) as estimated on coronary CT angiograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Coronary CT angiography was performed in 1,653 patients (1,089 men, 564 women) without a history of coronary heart disease (mean age+/-SD: men, 51.6+/-9.7 years; women, 56.9+/-10.5 years). The most common reasons for the examination were hypercholesterolemia, family history, hypertension, smoking, and atypical chest pain. The coronary tree was divided into 16 segments; four different methods were used to quantify the amount of atherosclerotic plaque or the degree of stenosis in each segment, and segment scores were combined to give total scores. Framingham risk estimates and NCEP risk categories were calculated for each patient. RESULTS: Correlation of plaque scores with the Framingham 10-year risk estimates were modest: Spearman's rho was 0.49-0.55. For all comparisons of NCEP risk categories to plaque score categories, the proportion of raw agreement, p(0), was less than 0.50. Cohen's kappa ranged from 0.18 to 0.20. Overall, 21% of the patients would have their perceived need for statins changed by using the coronary CTA plaque estimates in place of the NCEP core risk categories; 26% of the patients on statins had no detectable plaque. CONCLUSION: Coronary risk stratification using a risk factor only-based scheme is a weak discriminator of the overall atherosclerotic plaque burden in individual patients. Patients with little or no plaque might be subjected to lifelong drug therapy, whereas many others with substantial plaque might be undertreated or not treated at all.

Diagnostic CT scans: assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks.

PURPOSE: To determine the awareness level concerning radiation dose and possible risks associated with computed tomographic (CT) scans among patients, emergency department (ED) physicians, and radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients seen in the ED of a U.S. academic medical center during a 2-week period with mild to moderate abdominopelvic or flank pain and who underwent CT were surveyed after acquisition of the CT scan. Patients were asked whether or not they were informed about the risks, benefits, and radiation dose of the CT scan and if they believed that the scan increased their lifetime cancer risk. Patients were also asked to estimate the radiation dose for the CT scan compared with that for one chest radiograph. ED physicians who requested CT scans and radiologists who reviewed the CT scans were surveyed with similar questions and an additional question regarding the number of years in practice. The chi(2) test of independence was used to compare the three respondent groups regarding perceived increased cancer risk from one abdominopelvic CT scan. RESULTS: Seven percent (five of 76) of patients reported that they were told about risks and benefits of their CT scan, while 22% (10 of 45) of ED physicians reported that they had provided such information. Forty-seven percent (18 of 38) of radiologists believed that there was increased cancer risk, whereas only 9% (four of 45) of ED physicians and 3% (two of 76) of patients believed that there was increased risk (chi(2)(2) = 41.45, P <.001). All patients and most ED physicians and radiologists were unable to accurately estimate the dose for one CT scan compared with that for one chest radiograph. CONCLUSION: Patients are not given information about the risks, benefits, and radiation dose for a CT scan. Patients, ED physicians, and radiologists alike are unable to provide accurate estimates of CT doses regardless of their experience level.