Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Implementation: Considerations for Emerging Breast Cancer Screening Bundled Payment Models.

PURPOSE: Bundled payments have been touted as mechanisms to optimize quality and costs. A recent feasibility study evaluating bundled payments for screening mammography episodes predated widespread adoption of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). We explore a similar model reflecting emerging acceptance of DBT in breast cancer screening. METHODS: Using 4-year data for 59,094 screening episodes from two large facilities within a large academic health system, we utilized published methodology to calibrate Medicare national allowable reference prices for women undergoing screening mammography before and after practice-wide implementation of DBT. RESULTS: Excluding DBT, Medicare-normalized bundled prices for traditional breast imaging 364 days downstream to screening mammography are extremely similar pre- and post-DBT implementation ($182.86 in 2013; $182.68 in 2015). The addition of DBT increased a DBT-inclusive bundled price by $53.16 (an amount lower than the $56.13 Medicare allowable fee for screening DBT) but was associated with significantly reduced recall rates (13.0% versus 9.4%; P < .0001). Without or with DBT, screening episode bundled prices remained sensitive to bundle-included services and varied little by patient age, race, or insurance status. CONCLUSIONS: Prior non-DBT approaches to bundled payment models for breast cancer screening remain viable as DBT becomes the standard of care, with bundle prices varying little by patient age, race, or insurance status. Higher DBT-inclusive bundled prices, however, highlight the need to explore societal costs more broadly (eg, reduced time away from work from fewer recalls) as bundled payment models evolve.

Associations of County-level Radiologist and Mammography Facility Supply with Screening Mammography Rates in the United States.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The present study aims to assess associations of Medicare beneficiary screening mammography rates with local mammography facility and radiologist availability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mammography screening rates for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries were obtained for US counties using the County Health Rankings data set. County-level certified mammography facility counts were obtained from the United States Food and Drug Administration. County-level mammogram-interpreting radiologist and breast imaging subspecialist counts were determined using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services fee-for-service claims files. Spearman correlations and multivariable linear regressions were performed using counties' facility and radiologist counts, as well as counts normalized to counties' Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary volume and land area. RESULTS: Across 3035 included counties, average screening mammography rates were 60.5% ± 8.2% (range 26%-88%). Correlations between county-level screening rates and total mammography facilities, facilities per 100,000 square mile county area, total mammography-interpreting radiologists, and mammography-interpreting radiologists per 100,000 county-level Medicare beneficiaries were all weak (r = 0.22-0.26). Correlations between county-level screening rates and mammography rates per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries, total breast imaging subspecialist radiologists, and breast imaging subspecialist radiologists per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries were all minimal (r = 0.06-0.16). Multivariable analyses overall demonstrated radiologist supply to have a stronger independent effect than facility supply, although effect sizes remained weak for both. CONCLUSION: Mammography facility and radiologist supply-side factors are only weakly associated with county-level Medicare beneficiary screening mammography rates, and as such, screening mammography may differ from many other health-care services. Although efforts to enhance facility and radiologist supply may be helpful, initiatives to improve screening mammography rates should focus more on demand-side factors, such as patient education and primary care physician education and access.

Screening Mammography Utilization and Medicare Beneficiaries' Perceptions of Their Primary Care Physicians.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To assess associations between screening mammography utilization and Medicare beneficiaries' relationships with, and impressions of, their primary care physicians. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey Access to Care Public Use File, we retrospectively studied responses from a national random cross section of Medicare beneficiaries surveyed in 2013 regarding perceptions of their primary care physicians and their screening mammography utilization. Statistical analysis accounted for subject weighting factors to estimate national screening utilization. RESULTS: Among 7492 female Medicare beneficiaries, 62.0% (95% confidence interval 59.8%-64.2%) underwent screening mammography. Utilization was higher for beneficiaries having (vs. not) a regular medical practice or clinic (63.2% vs. 34.6%) and a usual physician (63.8% vs. 50.3%). Utilization was higher for beneficiaries very satisfied (vs. very dissatisfied) with the overall quality of care they received (66.0% vs. 35.8%), their ease of getting to a doctor (67.7% vs. 43.2%), and their physician's concerns for their health (65.7% vs. 53.4%), as well as for beneficiaries strongly agreeing (vs. strongly disagreeing) that their physician is competent (66.0% vs. 54.1%), understands what is wrong (66.3% vs. 47.1%), answers all questions (67.0% vs. 46.7%), and fosters confidence (66.0% vs. 50.6%). Independent predictors of screening mammography utilization (P < .05) were satisfaction with quality of care, having a regular practice or clinic, and satisfaction with ease of getting to their physician. CONCLUSIONS: Screening mammography utilization is higher among Medicare beneficiaries with established primary physician relationships, particularly when those relationships are favorable. To optimize screening mammography utilization, breast imagers are encouraged to support initiatives to enhance high-quality primary care relationships.

Code Conversion Impact Factor and Cash Flow Impact of International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, on a Large Multihospital Radiology Practice.

PURPOSE: The 2015 conversion of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) system from the ninth revision (ICD-9) to the 10th revision (ICD-10) was widely projected to adversely impact physician practices. We aimed to assess code conversion impact factor (CCIF) projections and revenue delay impact to help radiology groups better prepare for eventual conversion to ICD, 11th revision (ICD-11). METHODS: Studying 673,600 claims for 179 radiologists for the first year after ICD-10's implementation, we identified primary ICD-10 codes for the top 90th percentile of all examinations for the entire enterprise and each subspecialty division. Using established methodology, we calculated CCIFs (actual ICD-10 codes ÷ prior ICD-9 codes). To assess ICD-10's impact on cash flow, average monthly days in accounts receivable status was compared for the 12 months before and after conversion. RESULTS: Of all 69,823 ICD-10 codes, only 7,075 were used to report primary diagnoses across the entire practice, and just 562 were used to report 90% of all claims, compared with 348 under ICD-9. This translates to an overall CCIF of 1.6 for the department (far less than the literature-predicted 6). By subspecialty division, CCIFs ranged from 0.7 (breast) to 3.5 (musculoskeletal). Monthly average days in accounts receivable for the 12 months before and after ICD-10 conversion did not increase. CONCLUSION: The operational impact of the ICD-10 transition on radiology practices appears far less than anticipated with respect to both CCIF and delays in cash flow. Predictive models should be refined to help practices better prepare for ICD-11.

Variation in Screening Mammography Rates Among Medicare Advantage Plans.

PURPOSE: Prior studies have shown higher screening mammography rates for beneficiaries in capitated managed care Medicare Advantage (MA) plans compared with traditional fee-for-service Medicare. The aim of this study was to explore variation in screening mammography rates at the level of MA managed care plans. METHODS: Using the 2016 MA Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set Public Use File, screening mammography rates were identified for all 385 reporting MA plans. Associations were explored with a range of plan characteristics from this file, as well as from the CMS Part C and Part D Medicare Star Ratings Data File, Medicare Advantage Plan Directory, and Medicare Monthly Enrollment by Plan File. RESULTS: Overall MA plan screening rates were high (mean, 72.6 ± 9.4%) but varied substantially among plans (range, 14.3%-91.8%). Screening rates were higher in nonprofit versus for-profit plans (77.3% versus 71.8%, P < .001), as well as in health maintenance organization or local preferred provider organization plans versus private fee-for-service or regional preferred provider organization plans (71.9%-73.2% versus 65.5%-66.8%, P = .001). Among parent organizations with five or more plans, screening rates were highest for Kaiser Foundation (median, 88.4%) and lowest for Molina Healthcare (median, 65.3%). Screening rates showed small but significant associations with plans' contract lengths, enrolled populations, and counties served. Screening rates showed strong associations (r = 0.796-0.798) with colorectal cancer screening and annual flu vaccine rates and showed moderate associations (r = 0.283-0.365) with ambulatory and preventive care visits, osteoporosis screenings, body mass index assessments, and nonrecommended prostate-specific antigen screenings after age 70. CONCLUSIONS: Screening mammography rates vary considerably among MA plans. With increased federal interest in promoting the MA program, enhanced transparency will be necessary to ensure appropriate Medicare beneficiary participation decision making.

Magnitude of Impact, Overall and on Subspecialties, of Transitioning in Radiology from ICD-9 to ICD-10 Codes.

PURPOSE: Converting the nation's International Classification of Diseases (ICD) diagnosis coding system, from 14,025 ICD-9 to 69,823 ICD-10 codes, is projected to have enormous financial and operational implications. We aimed to assess the magnitude of impact that this code conversion will have on radiology claims. METHODS: The most frequently billed ICD-9 diagnosis codes for 588,523 radiology claims from five hospitals and affiliated outpatient sites during a 12-month period were mapped to matching ICD-10 codes using a Medicare-endorsed tool. The code-conversion impact factor was calculated for the entire radiology system, and each individual subspecialty division. RESULTS: Of all ICD-9 codes, only 3,407 (24.3%) were used to report any primary diagnosis. Of all claims, 50% were billed using just 37 (0.3%) primary codes; 75% with 131 (0.5%), and 90% with 348 (2.5%). Those 348 ICD-9 codes mapped onto 2,048 ICD-10 codes (5.9-fold impact), representing just 2.9% of all ICD-10 codes. By subspecialty, the conversion impact factor varied greatly, from 1.1 for breast (11 ICD-9 to 12 ICD-10 codes) to 28.8 for musculoskeletal imaging (146 to 4,199). The community division, reflecting a general practice mix, saw a conversion impact factor of 5.8 (254 to 1,471). CONCLUSIONS: Fewer than 3% of all ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes are used to report an overwhelming majority of all radiology claims. Although the number of commonly used codes will expand 5.9-fold overall, musculoskeletal imaging will experience a projected 28.8-fold explosion. Radiology practices should target their ICD educational and operational conversion efforts in an evidence-based manner.