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.

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.

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.