Nationwide Trends in Tube-Related Genitourinary Interventions for Medicare Beneficiaries.

PURPOSE: To evaluate national trends in tube-related genitourinary interventions, with specific attention to primary operator specialty. METHODS: Using a 5% national sample of Medicare claims data from 2005 to 2015, all claims associated with nephrostomy tube, nephro-ureteral tube, and ureteral stent placement and exchange were identified. The annual volume of the nine billable procedures were analyzed to evaluate trends in the number of procedures performed and primary operator specialty over time. The Charleston Comorbidity Index (CCI) was used to evaluate patient comorbidities and to determine differences in patient populations treated by interventional radiologists and urologists. RESULTS: The total volume of tube-related genitourinary interventions has increased over the course of the study period, representing 455.0 services per 100,000 Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries in 2005 to 607.2 services in 2015, an increase of 33.4%. Interventional radiologists performed the majority of all procedures in all procedure types and for each year (>90%) with the exception of nephro-ureteral catheter placement or ureteral stent placement, for which urologists performed the overwhelming majority of procedures each year (>85%). Interventional radiologists performed 63% of their total number of procedures on patients with a CCI = 3 or higher, and urologists performed 42% of their total number of procedures on patients with a CCI = 3 or higher (P < .01). CONCLUSION: Tube-related genitourinary interventions have demonstrated persistent growth over the 2005 to 2015 decade. Interventional radiologists are the dominant providers for the majority of these interventions compared with urologists while delivering care to a patient population with a higher number of comorbidities.

Disparities in the Use of Emergency Department Advanced Imaging in Medicare Beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to assess potential disparities in the utilization of advanced imaging during emergency department (ED) visits. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This retrospective study was conducting using 5% Research Identifiable Files. All CT and MRI (together defined as "advanced imaging") examinations associated with ED visits in 2015 were identified for continuously enrolled Medicare beneficiaries. Individuals with medical claims 30 days before the index ED event were excluded, and encounters that occurred in hospitals without advanced imaging capabilities were also excluded. Patient characteristics were identified using Medicare files and hospital characteristics using the American Hospital Association Annual Survey of Hospitals. Multivariate logistic regression was used for the analysis. RESULTS. Of 86,976 qualifying ED encounters, 52,833 (60.74%) ED encounters were for female patients; 29.03% (n = 25,245) occurred at rural hospitals and 15.81% (n = 13,750) at critical access hospitals. Race distribution was 83.13% White, 11.05% Black, and 5.82% Other. Compared with ED patients at urban hospitals, those at rural and critical access hospitals were 6.9% less likely (odds ratio [OR] = 0.931, p = 0.015) and 18.0% less likely (OR = 0.820, p < 0.0001), respectively, to undergo advanced imaging. Compared with White patients, Black patients were 31.6% less likely (OR = 0.684, p < 0.0001) to undergo advanced imaging. Relative to their urban counterparts, both White (OR = 0.941, p = 0.05) and Black (OR = 0.808, p = 0.047) rural ED patients were less likely to undergo advanced imaging. CONCLUSION. Among Medicare beneficiaries receiving care in U.S. EDs, significant disparities exist in advanced imaging utilization. Although imaging appropriateness was not investigated, these findings suggest inequity. Further research is necessary to understand why consistent health benefits do not translate into consistent imaging access among risk-adjusted ED patients.

Diagnostic Imaging Examinations Interpreted by Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants: A National and State-Level Medicare Claims Analysis.

OBJECTIVE. Nonphysician providers (NPPs) increasingly perform imaging-guided procedures, but their roles interpreting imaging have received little attention. We characterize diagnostic imaging services rendered by NPPs (i.e., nurse practitioners and physician assistants) in the Medicare population. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Using 1994-2015 Medicare Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files, we identified all diagnostic imaging services, including those billed by NPPs, and categorized these by modality and body region. Using 2004-2015 Medicare Part B 5% Research Identifiable File Carrier Files, we separately assessed state-level variation in imaging services rendered by NPPs. Total and relative utilization rates were calculated annually. RESULTS. Between 1994 and 2015 nationally, diagnostic imaging services increased from 339,168 to 420,172 per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries (an increase of 24%). During this same period, diagnostic imaging services rendered by NPPs increased 14,711% (from 36 to 5332 per 100,000 beneficiaries) but still represented only 0.01% and 1.27% of all imaging in 1994 and 2015, respectively. Across all years, radiography and fluoroscopy constituted most of the NPP-billed imaging services and remained constant over time (e.g., 94% of all services billed in 1994 and 2015), representing only 0.01% and 2.1% of all Medicare radiography and fluoroscopy services. However, absolute annual service counts for NPP-billed radiography and fluoroscopy services increased from 10,899 to 1,665,929 services between 1994 and 2015. NPP-billed imaging was most common in South Dakota (7987 services per 100,000 beneficiaries) and Alaska (6842 services per 100,000 beneficiaries) and was least common in Hawaii (231 services per 100,000 beneficiaries) and Pennsylvania (478 services per 100,000 beneficiaries). CONCLUSION. Despite increasing roles of NPPs in health care across the United States, NPPs still rarely interpret diagnostic imaging studies. When they do, it is overwhelmingly radiography and fluoroscopy. Considerable state-to-state variation exists and may relate to local care patterns and scope-of-practice laws.