The 2021 ACR/RBMA Workforce Survey: Practice Types, Employment Trends, and Hiring Needs.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze current radiology practice types, specific subspecialty needs, employment trends, and retirement trends. METHODS: ACR members, nonmembers, and Radiology Business Management Association members were surveyed using predominantly structured closed-ended questions about a variety of current and recent radiology practice characteristics. Responses were group practice deduplicated and weighted. RESULTS: Of 1,702 survey respondents, 64% were men, with a median age of 51 years. In 2021, 62% of responding practices hired radiologists, with the average practice hiring 2 radiologists and academic practices on average hiring the most (3.5). Most radiologists (87%) were hired for full-time positions, with independent practices hiring the largest proportion of part-time positions. Body and breast imagers represented the largest numbers of hired radiologists (17% each). Practices anticipated similar hiring patterns in 2022, prioritizing breast (37%) and body (35%) imaging. Of all practice types, academic groups were least likely to prioritize general radiologist hiring. A large majority (82%) of radiology practices permit remote work (teleradiology), more common at academic than other practices. Of currently employed radiologists, 16% plan to seek new employment in the next year; early-career radiologists indicated the highest likelihood (92%) and academic radiologists the lowest (66%) of remaining in the same practice for at least 5 years. A large majority of practices (80%) reported no radiologist retirements in 2021. Of those retiring, the average age was 75 years, and 66% worked full-time until retirement. CONCLUSIONS: Radiologist recruiting remains robust. Current information on practice characteristics may help inform radiology practice leaders seeking to right-size their groups.

The Pre-Radiology Internship: Room for Improvement?

BACKGROUND: A clinical internship is currently required by the American Board of Radiology prior to Radiology residency. The purpose of this investigation is to evaluate practicing radiologists' perspectives on the value of the internship and their recommendations for optimization. METHODS: A five-minute online survey was distributed via email to practicing radiologist members of the American College of Radiology. RESULTS: A total of 566 completed responses (11.3% response rate) were received. Most respondents agreed that their internship was essential for improving non-radiology clinical knowledge (84%) and affirming their decision to become a radiologist (74%). Most respondents (59%) disagree that the one-year internship before residency should be eliminated. Most (53%) of the radiologists in an academic practice agreed that internship should be integrated into Radiology residency. If radiologists were to redesign the internship ("PreRad Internship"), a majority of the respondents would include training in other medical specialties (71%), working along technologists (55%) and informatics/AI/computer science (54%). While the greatest proportion (50%) of interventional radiologists reported a Surgery internship would be the most beneficial for their primary subspecialty (50%), diagnostic radiologists most commonly (27%) reported the PreRad Internship would be the most beneficial. The greatest proportions of Abdominal-, Breast-, and Neuroradiology-trained respondents reported a PreRad Internship would be the most beneficial internship for their primary field of subspecialty Radiology practice (32%, 36%, and 33%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The internship before Radiology residency offers some benefits but could be further optimized. There is support from practicing radiologists for a redesigned, more Radiology-specific PreRad Internship.

Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) Participation in Radiation Oncology Practices - A Simple Survey.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to survey nationwide radiation oncology practices on their participation in, burden of, and satisfaction with the Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) payment programs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All radiation oncology practices accredited by a national specialty organization were invited to participate in a voluntary online survey from December 2018 to January 2019. Questions focused on participation in the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) in 2017 and 2018, as by the time of this survey, radiation oncology did not yet have a specialty-specific advanced Alternative Payment Model. RESULTS: Of n = 705 solicited practices, n = 199 completed the survey for an overall response rate of 28.2%. Practices varied significantly in their duration of participation in MACRA programs, means of data submission, and reported improvement activities under MIPS. Forty-nine percent of respondents described being either somewhat or extremely dissatisfied with the ease of submitting measures and data in 2018. The estimated cost to the practices of compliance with MACRA was queried in bins; of users able to estimate the cost of compliance for 2018, the median reported bin was $10,001 to $20,000 (range, less than $1000-100,000 or more). CONCLUSIONS: The participation style in MACRA among radiation oncology practices varied substantially in the years 2017 and 2018. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services gave no precise estimates on the cost of compliance for MIPS, but estimated a $3019.47 cost of compliance with the mandated Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model in the 2020 Final Rule for selected practices. In this survey, respondents commonly reported the cost of compliance with MACRA significantly exceeded this estimate.

The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) Made Simple for Medical and Radiation Oncologists: A Narrative Review.

IMPORTANCE: The Medicare Access and CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program) Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) instituted significant changes in payment methods for many Medicare Part B billing providers (eg, clinicians and health care facilities). Fulfilling its measures satisfactorily and adhering to its reporting requirements will significantly affect reimbursement, yet previous surveys suggest that clinicians' understanding of MACRA is poor. This review provides fundamental background on MACRA for medical and radiation oncologists. OBSERVATIONS: The Congress.gov database, PubMed, and the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services website were searched for legislature and publications relevant to the history, structure, and predicted future for MACRA. MACRA originated from concerns of poor-quality care and from the failure of the traditional fee-for-service model and the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate method to control rising health care costs. The Quality Payment Program of MACRA started the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and the Alternative Payment Model (APM) system to move from the traditional fee-for-service model to value-based payment. The most recent legislation extended the transitional period for MIPS and removed drugs and biologics covered by Medicare Part B. Currently, the primary APM for medical oncology is the Oncology Care Model, and an APM for radiation oncology is awaiting approval. Despite recent calls from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission to end MIPS, there is no indication that either MIPS or APMs will be repealed in the near future. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: MACRA affects the methods of payment for many Medicare Part B billing providers; the included summary equips medical and radiation oncologists with an understanding of its structure and requirements.