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.

Vascular imaging of the spine in the US Medicare population: Catheter and MR angiography volumes from 2004 to 2016.

AIMS: The purpose of our study was to analyze utilization trends and physician specialty distribution in spinal catheter angiography and magnetic resonance angiography in the Medicare fee-for-service population. METHODS: Data from the CMS Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files for 2004 to 2016 were used for this study. The Current Procedural Terminology version 4 codes for spinal magnetic resonance angiography (72159) and spinal catheter angiography (75705) were used to analyze the volumes of these procedures. Using Medicare's 108 specialty code, we compared procedure volumes among physician specialties. Data analysis was performed using SAS version 9.3 for Windows. RESULTS: The volume of spinal catheter angiography performed was 4758 in 2004, peaked at 6869 in 2012, and dropped to 6656 in 2016. Overall, the volume of spinal catheter angiography increased by 40% from 2004 to 2016. Radiologists performed the majority of these procedures (3736 or 56.1%) in 2016, followed by neurosurgeons (2456 or 36.9%), and neurologists (346 or 5.2%). The spinal magnetic resonance angiography volume fluctuated between 0 and 1 from 2004 to 2009, then precipitously increased to 40 in 2010, peaked at 133 in 2011, and declined to 81 in 2016. The volume of spinal magnetic resonance angiography procedures increased by 8000% from 2004 to 2016, with radiologists performing the majority of them. CONCLUSION: Our results show that spinal catheter angiography volumes continue to rise in the Medicare fee-for-service population, and are largely performed by radiologists, neurosurgeons, and neurologists. Although spinal magnetic resonance angiography volumes have started to increase, they comprise only a small fraction of studies performed for vascular evaluation of the spine.

Trends in Percutaneous Embolization Procedures by Radiologists and Other Specialists.

PURPOSE: To evaluate utilization trends in percutaneous embolization among radiologists and nonradiologist providers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The nationwide Medicare Part B fee-for-service databases for 2005-2016 were used to evaluate percutaneous embolization codes. Six codes describing embolization procedures were reviewed. Physician providers were grouped as radiologists, vascular surgeons, cardiologists, nephrologists, other surgeons, and all others. RESULTS: The total volume of Medicare percutaneous embolization procedures increased from 20,262 in 2005 to 45,478 in 2016 (+125%). Radiologists performed 13,872 procedures in 2005 (68% of total volume) and 33,254 in 2016 (73% of total volume), a 140% increase in volume. While other specialists also increased the number of cases performed from 2005 to 2016, radiologists strongly predominated, performing 87% of arterial and 30% of venous procedures in 2016, more than any other single specialty. In 2014 and 2015, a sharp increase in venous embolization cases performed by nonradiologists preceded a sharp decrease in 2016, likely the result of complicated billing codes for venous procedures. Radiologists maintained a steady upward trend in the number of cases they performed during those years. CONCLUSIONS: The volume of percutaneous embolization procedures performed in the Medicare population increased from 2005 to 2016, reflecting a trend toward minimally invasive intervention. In 2016, radiologists performed nearly 10 times more arterial embolization procedures than the second highest specialty and more venous embolization procedures than any other single specialty.

Utilization Trends in Abdominal Imaging, 2004-2016.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to analyze recent trends in abdominal imaging utilization in the Medicare population. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Medicare Part B databases for 2004-2016 were reviewed, and all Current Procedural Terminology codes pertaining to noninvasive imaging of the abdomen and pelvis were identified. Codes were grouped into six categories: CT and CT angiography (CTA), MRI and MR angiography (MRA), ultrasound, radionuclide imaging, radiography, and gastrointestinal fluoroscopy. Annual utilization rates per 1000 Medicare beneficiaries were calculated. Medicare physician specialty codes were used to identify studies performed by radiologists versus nonradiologist physicians. Reimbursements were determined. RESULTS. Total abdominal imaging utilization decreased from 558.0 examinations per 1000 Medicare beneficiaries in 2004 to 441.9 in 2016 (-20.8%). CT and CTA examinations increased by 22.5% from 2004 to 2010, followed by a sharp drop in 2011 caused by code bundling. From 2011 to 2016, CT and CTA use increased by only 7.2%. Radiography utilization decreased from 129.6 examinations per 1000 Medicare beneficiaries in 2004 to 91.5 in 2016 (-29.4%). Radionuclide studies decreased from 14.0 to 9.5 (-32.1%), and gastrointestinal fluoroscopy decreased from 37.8 examinations to 22.5 (-40.5%). Utilization of ultrasound increased slightly (1.5%), whereas MRI and MRA utilization sharply increased on a percentage basis (81.2%). Reimbursements peaked in 2009 at $1.704 billion, dropped substantially in 2011 because of code bundling, and remained relatively stable thereafter. The radiologists' market share of abdominal imaging was approximately 87% in both 2004 and 2016. CONCLUSION. Abdominal imaging utilization rates have declined in recent years, in part due to code bundling, but also largely because of a decrease in the use of abdominal radiography, gastrointestinal fluoroscopy, and nuclear imaging. Reimbursements have also declined. This study also showed that most of the abdominal imaging was performed by radiologists.

Trends in the Use of Percutaneous Versus Open Surgical Breast Biopsy: An Update.

PURPOSE: Despite the emergence of core-needle (percutaneous) biopsy as the standard of breast care, open surgical breast biopsies continue to be performed with variable frequency. The aim of this study was to compare trends in the use of percutaneous and open surgical breast biopsies and the relative roles of radiologists and surgeons in performing them. METHODS: The nationwide Medicare Part B Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files for 2004 to 2016 were reviewed, and trends were studied in the total volume of breast biopsies performed in the Medicare fee-for-service population and in volumes of imaging-guided percutaneous biopsies (IGPBs) and open surgical biopsies. Using Medicare's physician specialty codes, the numbers of procedures performed by different specialties were determined. Trends in the type of imaging used for IGPBs were analyzed using the relevant Current Procedural Terminology codes, introduced in 2014. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2016, utilization of IGPBs increased from 124,423 to 187,914 (+51%), whereas the use of open surgical breast biopsies declined from to 6,605 to 2,373 (-64%). IGPBs performed by radiologists increased from 89,493 to 160,485 (+79%), and IGPBs by surgeons declined from 30,264 to 24,703 (-18%). Among IGPBs from 2014 to 2016, ultrasound-guided and MRI-guided percutaneous biopsies increased, whereas stereotactic biopsies declined. CONCLUSIONS: There is a steady upward trend in the utilization of imaging-guided breast biopsies, and a majority are performed by radiologists. Ultrasound is the primary guidance technique used in percutaneous breast biopsies.

Recent Trends in Endovascular and Surgical Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Disease in the Medicare Population.

OBJECTIVE. Although radiologists developed endovascular treatment of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in the 1960s, vascular surgeons and cardiologists have become increasingly involved in its application. The purpose of this study was to examine utilization trends in endovascular and surgical treatment of PAD in recent years in the Medicare population. CONCLUSION. Surgical treatment of PAD has decreased each year from 2011 to 2016, whereas endovascular treatment has increased each year. By 2016, Medicare patients who needed revascularization for PAD were more than four times as likely to undergo endovascular as they were to undergo surgical treatment. Between 2011 and 2016, radiologists, vascular surgeons, and cardiologists all increased their endovascular volume, but by 2016, vascular surgeons and cardiologists performed three of every four endovascular procedures for the Medicare population. While only 12% of the total endovascular procedures for PAD were performed in 2016, radiology has grown its procedural volume each year from 2011 through 2016.

Recent Trends in Medicare Reimbursements to Nonradiologist Physicians for In-Office MRI and CT.

PURPOSE: Previous studies demonstrated rapid growth in payments to nonradiologist providers (NRPs) for MRI and CT in their private offices. In this study, we re-examine the trends in these payments. METHODS: The nationwide Medicare Part B master files from 2004 to 2016 were accessed. They provide payment data for all Current Procedural Terminology codes. Codes for MRI and CT were selected. Global and technical component claims were counted. Medicare specialty codes identified payments made to NRPs and radiologists, and place-of-service codes identified payments directed to their private offices. RESULTS: Medicare MRI payments to NRPs peaked in 2006 at $247.7 million. As a result of the Deficit Reduction Act, there was a sharp drop to $189.5 million in 2007, eventually declining to $101.6 million by 2016 (-59% from peak in 2006). The NRP specialty groups with the highest payments for MRI ownership include orthopedists, neurologists, primary care physicians, and hospital-based specialists (pathology, physiatry, and hospitalists). Medicare CT payments to NRPs peaked in 2008 at $284.1 million and declined to $94.7 million in 2016 (-67% from peak). Cardiologists, primary care physicians, internal medicine specialists, urologists, and medical oncologists accounted for the most payments made to NRPs. Dollars paid to radiologists for private office MRI and CT dropped substantially since they peaked in 2006. CONCLUSIONS: NRP private offices (and radiology offices also) experienced massive decreases in Medicare payments for MRI and CT since peaking in 2006 and 2008, respectively. These trends suggest the financial viability of private office practice may be in jeopardy. However, certain recent policy changes could promote a resurgence.

The Increasing Use of Emergency Department Imaging in the United States: Is It Appropriate?

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to study trends in utilization of imaging in emergency departments (ED) in relation to trends in ED visits and the specialties of the interpreting physicians. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This study was conducted with Medicare Part B Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files for 2004-2016 and Health Care Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) data from 2006 to 2014. Yearly utilization was calculated per 1000 Medicare beneficiaries for different noninvasive imaging modalities performed during ED visits, and the specialties of the physicians making the interpretations were recorded. The number of ED visits by Medicare patients was obtained from the HCUP. RESULTS. The number of ED visits by Medicare fee-for-service patients increased 8.0% (from 20.0 million in 2006 to 21.6 million in 2014), and the total number of associated ED imaging examinations increased 38.4% (14.6 million to 20.2 million). The number of imaging examinations per ED visit was 0.73 in 2006, increasing to 0.94 by 2014. Utilization trends per 1000 Medicare fee-for-service enrollees in the ED for the major modalities were as follows: CT +153.0% (77.8 in 2004 to 196.7 in 2016), noncardiac ultrasound +134% (11.2 in 2004 to 26.2 in 2016), and radiography +30% (259 in 2004 to 336 in 2016). Utilization of MRI and nuclear medicine was very low. In 2016, radiologists interpreted 99.5% (CT), 99.2% (MRI), 98.0% (radiography), 87.6% (ultrasound), and 94.5% (nuclear medicine) of imaging examinations. CONCLUSION. Utilization of imaging in EDs is increasing not only in the Medicare population but also per ED visit. Radiologists strongly predominate in interpreting examinations in all modalities.

Recent Trends Suggest Possible Inappropriate Utilization of Myocardial Perfusion Imaging.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze the utilization of elective stress nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) in the Medicare population. METHODS: Nationwide Medicare Part B fee-for-service databases for 2004 to 2016 were reviewed. Current Procedural Terminology codes for stress MPI were selected: standard planar and single-photon emission computed tomography (STD) and PET. Utilization rates per 1,000 Medicare beneficiaries were calculated. Elective examinations were identified using place-of-service codes for private offices and hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs). Medicare physician specialty codes identified the performing physician. Because Medicare Part B databases are complete population counts, sample statistics were not required. RESULTS: Elective STD MPI utilization peaked in 2006 at 74 studies/1,000 and had declined by 36% by 2016. Cardiologists' share of STD MPI grew from 79% to 87% between 2004 and 2016. Cardiologists perform STD MPI primarily in private offices, where utilization peaked in 2008 and then demonstrated an absolute decline of 28 studies/1,000 by 2016. During this same time period, cardiologists' use of STD MPI in HOPDs demonstrated an absolute increase of 8.1 studies/1,000. From 2004 to 2016, STD MPI use by radiologists declined by 58%. Elective PET MPI maintained an upward trend, reflecting increasing use by cardiologists in private offices. CONCLUSIONS: Elective STD MPI use is declining, but cardiologists are performing an increasing share in outpatient settings. The drop in private office STD MPI among cardiologists was far greater than the corresponding increase in its use in HOPDs, suggesting that many studies previously performed in private offices were unindicated. Self-referred PET MPI utilization has rapidly grown in cardiology private offices.

Neurointerventional Radiology for the Aspiring Radiology Resident: Current State of the Field and Future Directions.

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to document recent trends in stroke intervention at a tertiary-care facility with a comprehensive stroke center and to analyze current procedure volumes and the employment of specialty providers in neurointerventional radiology (NIR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional trends in the volume of mechanical thrombectomy were analyzed on the basis of the number of patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy from 2013 to 2017. To evaluate the current status of mechanical thrombectomy volumes in the United States, the number of patients in the Medicare fee-for-service database who underwent mechanical thrombectomy in 2016 was assessed. The specialty backgrounds of the various providers who performed mechanical thrombectomy were analyzed. Procedure volumes for intracranial stenting, embolization, and vertebral augmentation procedures were assessed. RESULTS: From 2013 to 2017, the total numbers of mechanical thrombectomy procedures for acute ischemic stroke were 19 in 2013 and 111 in 2017. The total volume of mechanical thrombectomy procedures in the Medicare fee-for-service population in 2016 was 7479. For intracranial endovascular procedures, 20,850 were performed in the U.S. Medicare population in 2015 and 22,511 in 2016. Radiologists performed 45% of procedures in 2016; neurosurgeons, 41%; and neurologists, 11%. When the total numbers of percutaneous brain and spine procedures were combined, radiologists performed 41%; neurosurgeons, 23%; and neurologists, 3%. In 2016, there were a total of 220 active NIR staff at the NIR programs with rotating residents or fellows. In these programs, 49% of staff members were neuroradiologists, 41% were neurosurgeons, and 10% were neurologists. Of the 72 NIR departments with confirmed rotating fellows or residents, 14 had only neuroradiologists on staff, six had only neurosurgeons, and one had only neurologists. CONCLUSION: Increasing radiology resident interest and participation in NIR should ensure a steady influx of radiologists into the field, continuing the strong tradition of radiology participation, leadership, and innovation in NIR.

Coronary CT Angiography: Reversal of Earlier Utilization Trends.

PURPOSE: To assess recent trends in utilization of coronary CT angiography (CCTA), based upon place of service and provider specialty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The nationwide Medicare Part B master files for 2006 through 2016 were the data source. Current Procedural Terminology, version 4 codes for CCTA were selected. The files provided procedure volume for each code. Utilization rates per 100,000 Medicare fee-for-service enrollees were then calculated. Medicare's place-of-service codes were used to identify CCTAs performed in private offices, hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs), emergency departments (EDs), and inpatient settings. Physician specialty codes were used to identify CCTAs interpreted by radiologists, cardiologists, and all other physicians as a group. Medicare practice share was defined as the percent of total Medicare utilization that was billed by each specialty. RESULTS: The total utilization rate of CCTA in the Medicare population rose sharply from 2006 to 2007, peaking at 210.3 per 100,000 enrollees in 2007. Radiologists' CCTA practice share in 2007 was 32%, compared with 60% for cardiologists. The overall utilization rate then declined to a nadir of 107.1 per 100,000 enrollees in 2013, but subsequently increased to 131.0 by 2016. By that year, radiologists' share of CCTA practice had risen to 58%, compared with 38% for cardiologists. HOPD utilization increased sharply since 2010, primarily among radiologists. In EDs and inpatient settings, greater utilization has also occurred recently, primarily among radiologists. By contrast, private office utilization has dropped sharply since 2007. CONCLUSION: After years of declining utilization, the utilization rate of CCTA is now increasing, predominantly among radiologists.

High-Deductible Health Plans and the Challenges They Pose to Radiologists.

Patients with high-deductible health plans will increasingly be motivated to contact their hospitals or various websites to try to obtain information about the costs of expensive services like advanced imaging. Unfortunately, they will not find price transparency but rather confusion and opaqueness. Hospital personnel and commercial websites often unwittingly provide erroneous pricing information. The reasons for this are explained. Detailed examples of the erroneous information are provided. State-mandated websites may be somewhat of an improvement, but their methodology seems to vary from state to state, and they too can be confusing. All this obviously creates problems for patients, who are left not knowing what their true costs will be. The situation also creates problems for radiologists and their hospitals. Because of misunderstandings that can occur during the information-gathering phase, the pricing information shown for many hospital facilities may be greatly inflated, placing them at a competitive disadvantage. Certain strategic solutions to the problems are available, and these are discussed.

Screening Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Utilization Updates.

OBJECTIVE: There have been many recent developments in breast imaging, including the 2009 revision of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's breast cancer screening guidelines and the approval of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for clinical use in 2011. The objective of this study is to evaluate screening mammography utilization trends among the Medicare population from 2005 to 2015 and examine the volume of DBT studies performed in 2015, the first year for which procedural billing codes for DBT are available. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed national Medicare Part B Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary master files from 2005 to 2015, to determine the annual utilization rate of screening mammography on the basis of procedure codes used for film-screen and digital screening mammography. We also used the Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary master files to determine the volume of screening and diagnostic DBT studies performed in 2015. RESULTS: The utilization rate of screening mammography per 1000 women in the Medicare fee-for-service population increased gradually every year, from 311.5 examinations in 2005 to a peak of 322.9 examinations in 2009, representing a compound annual growth rate of 0.9%. In 2010, the utilization rate abruptly decreased by 4.3% to 309.2 examinations, and it has not since recovered to pre-2010 levels. In 2015, 18.9% of screening and 16.2% of diagnostic digital mammography examinations included DBT as an add-on procedure. CONCLUSION: In contrast to the annual increase in screening mammography utilization from 2005 to 2009, an abrupt sustained decline in screening occurred beginning in 2010, coinciding with the release of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. DBT utilization was somewhat limited in 2015, occurring in conjunction with less than 20% of digital mammography examinations.

National Trends in the Utilization of Skeletal Radiography From 2003 to 2015.

PURPOSE: Examine recent trends in the use of skeletal radiography and assess the roles of various nonradiologic specialties in the interpretations. METHODS: Medicare Part B fee-for-service claims data files from 2003 to 2015 were analyzed for all Current Procedural Terminology, version 4 (CPT-4) procedure codes related to skeletal radiography. The files provide examination volume, and we calculated utilization rates per 1,000 Medicare beneficiaries. Medicare's physician specialty codes were used to determine the specialties of the providers. Total utilization rate trends were analyzed, as well as those for radiologists and nonradiologists. We determined which nonradiologist specialties were the highest users of skeletal radiography. Medicare place-of-service codes were used to identify the locations where the services were provided. RESULTS: The total utilization rate per 1,000 of skeletal radiography within the Medicare population increased 9.5% from 2003 to 2015. The utilization rate for radiologists increased 5.5% from 2003 to 2015 versus 11.1% for nonradiologists as a group. Among nonradiologist specialties in all health care settings over the study period, orthopedic surgeons increased 10.6%, chiropractors and podiatrists together increased 14.4%, nonphysician providers (primarily nurse practitioners and physician assistants) increased 441%, and primary care physicians' rate decreased 33.5%. Although radiologists do almost all skeletal radiography interpretation in hospital settings, nonradiologists do the majority in private offices. There has been strong growth in skeletal radiography in emergency departments, but a substantial drop in inpatient settings. CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of skeletal radiography has increased more rapidly among nonradiologists than among radiologists. This raises concerns about self-referral and quality.

Coronary CT Angiography: Use in Patients With Chest Pain Presenting to Emergency Departments.

OBJECTIVE: Previously published reports have shown that coronary CT angiography (CCTA) is a more efficient method of diagnosis than myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and stress echocardiography for patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs) with acute chest pain. In light of this evidence, the objective of this study was to examine recent trends in the use of these techniques in EDs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The nationwide Medicare Part B databases for 2006-2015 were the data source. The Current Procedural Terminology, version 4, codes for CCTA, MPI, and stress echocardiography were selected. Medicare place-of-service codes were used to determine procedure volumes in EDs. Medicare specialty codes were used to ascertain how many of these examinations were interpreted by radiologists, cardiologists, and other physicians as a group. RESULTS: From 2006 to 2015, there was essentially no change in the number of MPI examinations performed in EDs for patients using Medicare (22,342 in 2006, 22,338 in 2015) or in the number of stress echocardiograms (3544 in 2006, 3520 in 2015). By contrast, the number of CCTA examinations increased rapidly, from 126 in 2006 to 1919 in 2015 (compound annual growth rate, 35%). Despite this rapid growth, patients in EDs underwent 11.6 times as many MPI as CCTA examinations in 2015. In that last year of the study, radiologists interpreted 78% of ED MPI and 83% of ED CCTA examinations. CONCLUSION: Use of CCTA in EDs has increased rapidly, but far more MPI examinations are still being performed. This finding suggests that recently acquired evidence is not yet being fully acted upon.

The Percent Share of All Medicare Payments to Physicians That Is Attributable to Noninvasive Diagnostic Imaging.

PURPOSE: To ascertain the proportion of all Medicare payments to physicians under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) that is attributable to noninvasive diagnostic imaging (NDI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Medicare Part B Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files for 2003 to 2015 were the data source. Total approved payments to physicians for all medical services were determined each year. We then selected all procedure codes for NDI and determined aggregate approved payments to physicians for those codes. Also, Medicare's provider specialty codes were used to define payments to four provider categories: radiologists, cardiologists, all other physicians, and independent diagnostic testing facilities together with multispecialty groups (in this category, the specialty of the actual provider cannot be determined). RESULTS: Total Medicare-approved payments for all physician services under the PFS increased progressively from $92.73 billion in 2003 to $132.85 billion in 2015. In 2003, the share of those payments attributable to NDI was 9.5%, increasing to a peak of 10.8% in 2006, but then progressively declining to 6.0% in 2015. All four provider categories saw the same trend pattern-a peak in 2006 but then decline thereafter. By 2015, the shares of total PFS payments to physicians that were attributable to NDI were as follows: radiologists 3.2%, cardiologists 1.2%, all other physicians 1.2%, independent diagnostic testing facilities or multispecialty groups 0.4%. CONCLUSION: The proportion of Medicare PFS spending on physician services that is attributable to NDI has been declining in recent years and is now quite small.

Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement and Retrieval Rates among Radiologists and Nonradiologists.

PURPOSE: To evaluate inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement and retrieval rates among radiologists, vascular surgeons, cardiologists, other surgeons, and all other health care providers for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in the years 2012-2015. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The nationwide Medicare Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files were used to determine the volume and utilization rate of IVC filter placement, IVC filter repositioning, and IVC filter retrieval, which correspond to procedure codes 37191, 37192, and 37193, respectively. Procedural code 37193 was not available before 2012, so data were reviewed for the years 2012-2015. RESULTS: The total volume of Medicare IVC filter placement decreased from 57,785 in 2012 to 44,378 in 2015, with radiologists responsible for 60% of all filter placements. Volume of IVC filter placement declined across all specialties, including radiologists, who placed 33,744 in 2012 and 27,957 in 2015. In contrast, total retrieval of IVC filters increased from 4,060 removals in 2012 to 6,166 in 2015. Retrieval rate per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries increased from 11 in 2012 to 16 in 2015. Radiologists removed the bulk of the filters: 64% in both 2012 and 2015. Vascular surgeons, cardiologists, and other surgeons retrieved, respectively, 20%, 10%, and 5% of all IVC filters in 2012 and 22%, 9%, and 5% in 2015. CONCLUSIONS: From 2012 to 2015, IVC filter placement steadily decreased across all specialties. Retrieval rate of IVC filters continued to rise over the same period. Radiologists were responsible for the majority of IVC filter placements and retrievals.