Current Controversies in Radiology on Cost, Reimbursement, and Price Transparency: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Many believe that fundamental reform of the U.S. health care system is overdue and necessary given rising national health care expenditures, poor performance on key population health metrics, meaningful health disparities, concerns about potential financial toxicity of care, inadequate price transparency, pending insolvency of Medicare Part A, increasing commercial insurance premiums, and large uninsured and underinsured populations. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent congressional agency, believes that part of this reform includes redistribution of reimbursements away from specialties such as radiology. Thus, despite an increase in the Medicare population and spending, Medicare payments for medical imaging have been decreasing for years. Further, the No Surprises Act, a federal law intended to curb the problem of surprise medical billing, was repurposed in federal rulemaking to reduce reimbursement from commercial payers to certain specialties, including radiology. In this article, we examine challenges facing the U.S. health care system, focusing on cost, reimbursement, and price transparency and the role of radiology in addressing such challenges. Medical imaging is a minor contributor to national health care expenditures but has an outsized impact on patient care. The radiology community should work together to reinforce the value of medical imaging and reduce inappropriate utilization of low-value care.

Cardiac Imaging Trends from 2010 to 2019 in the Medicare Population.

PURPOSE: To evaluate changes in utilization of cardiac imaging-transthoracic, transesophageal, and stress echocardiography (TTE, TEE, and SE), coronary CT angiography (cCTA), cardiac MRI (cMRI), myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), and cardiac positron emission tomography (cPET). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 2010-2019 Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary files were used to find imaging utilization per 100 000 Medicare beneficiaries. Global and professional claims were aggregated, representing total interpretive services. Specialty codes identified provider specialty. Results were stratified by physician offices, hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs), inpatient setting, and the emergency department. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2019, there was a partial shift from cardiologist offices to the HOPD for TTE (office: -23%; HOPD: +107%) and SE (office: -44%; HOPD: +11%). Cardiologist cCTA also shifted from the office (-57%) to the HOPD (+211%). Radiologist-performed cCTA grew in all locations but most in the HOPD (+355%), with radiologists performing more cCTA than cardiologists in all settings. cMRI rates remain low but rose in the HOPD for both cardiologists (+209%) and radiologists (+207%). Cardiologist MPI rates dropped dramatically in the office (-52%), with a smaller absolute rate increase in the HOPD (+71%). cPET nearly tripled in the cardiology office (+193%), but rates remained steady for radiologists. CONCLUSION: While most cardiologist in-office imaging has shifted to the HOPD, there has been an increase in in-office cPET, likely due to a combination of technological advances, interpretation familiarity, and financial incentives. Radiologist cCTA rates continue to increase, representing a growing opportunity for radiologists to collaborate in cardiac imaging.Keywords: CT Angiography, Echocardiography, MR Imaging, PET, Radionuclide Studies, SPECT, Cardiac, Work Force Issues Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2021.

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 healthcare value contributions of radiology. Potential steps to objectify and quantify the value contributed by radiology to healthcare are outlined.

Association between Medicaid expansion status and lung cancer screening exam growth: findings from the ACR lung cancer registry.

PURPOSE: To determine if Medicaid expansion is associated with increased volumes of lung cancer screenings. METHODS: A quasi-experimental study was performed to compare the annual growth rates in lung cancer screenings between states that expanded Medicaid (n = 31) versus those that did not (n = 17). Using the American College of Radiology Lung Cancer Screening Registry, we calculated the average annual growth rate between 2016 and 2019 for both groups. Secondary analyses between these two groups also included calculations of the percentages of studies considered appropriate by USPSTF criteria. RESULTS: No significant difference was identified in the average annual growth in lung cancer screenings between Medicaid expanding and non-expanding states (57.6%, 50.3%, P = 0.51). No difference was observed in the percentage of studies considered appropriate (Medicaid expanding = 89.6%, non-expanding = 90.2%, P = 0.72). At baseline, there were socioeconomic differences between both groups of states. Medicaid expanding states had a more urban population (76.5% versus 67.9%, P = 0.05) and higher average incomes ($56,947, $49,876, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: No association is found between Medicaid expansion and increasing volumes of lung cancer screening exams. Although no data is available in the registry for screening exams before the implementation of Medicaid expansion (2014), most nationwide estimates of lung screening rates report a low baseline (<5%). Furthermore, despite being advantaged in other ways, such as with a more urban population or with higher incomes, the Medicaid expansion cohort does not demonstrate a higher growth rate. These findings suggest Medicaid expansion alone will not increase lung cancer screenings.

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.

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.

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 healthcare value contributions of radiology. Potential steps to objectify and quantify the value contributed by radiology to healthcare are outlined.

Impact of the Closure of a Large, Urban Safety-Net Hospital on a Neighboring Academic Center: A Philadelphia Case Study.

OBJECTIVES: We examined how the closure of 496-bed Hahnemann University Hospital (HUH), a level I trauma and stroke center and safety-net hospital in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, impacted the emergency department (ED) and radiology workflow in our neighboring hospital (Thomas Jefferson University Hospital) located <1 mile away. METHODS: On June 30, 2019, HUH announced its imminent closure and began diverting trauma patients, with its ED officially closing in mid-August. Trends of our ED and radiology workflow were analyzed using QlikView analytics software for 3 months before and after the closure. Data were compared to workflow from the same time period in 2018. RESULTS: The average monthly number of patients presenting to our ED after the closure increased 20.2% with a corresponding 16% increase in ED imaging studies, primarily in radiographs (+16%) and CT (+20%). Radiology orders by advanced practice providers increased 74%. Turnaround time from imaging order placed to final diagnostic radiology report did not change substantially after the closure. CONCLUSION: Workflow in our ED and radiology department was significantly impacted by the closure of HUH. This study provides insight into how our practice patterns changed and compensated after the closure of a neighboring, large, urban safety-net hospital; it is important for radiologists to be aware of citywide practice patterns to adapt to acute change.

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.

Trends in Diagnostic Imaging Utilization among Medicare and Commercially Insured Adults from 2003 through 2016.

Background Trends in noninvasive diagnostic imaging (NDI) utilization rates have predominantly been reported in Medicare enrollees. To the authors' knowledge, there has been no prior direct comparison of utilization rates between Medicare and commercially insured patients. Purpose To analyze trends in NDI utilization rates by modality, comparing Medicare fee-for-service and commercially insured enrollees. Materials and Methods This study was a retrospective trend analysis of NDI performed between 2003 and 2016 as reported in claims databases for all adults enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare and for roughly 9 million commercially insured patients per year. The commercially insured patients were divided into two populations: those aged 18-44 years and those aged 45-64 years. The same procedure code definitions for NDI were applied to both Medicare and commercial claims, rates were calculated per 1000 enrollees, and trends were reported over time in aggregate followed by modality (CT, MRI, nuclear imaging, echocardiography, US, radiography). Join-point regression was used to model annual rates and to identify statistically significant (P < .05) changes in trends. Results In almost all instances, Medicare enrollees had the highest utilization rate for each modality, followed by commercially insured patients aged 45-64 years, then aged 18-44 years. All three populations showed utilization growth through the mid to late 2000s (images per 1000 enrollees per year for Medicare: 91 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 34, 148]; commercially insured patients aged 45-64 years: 158 [95% CI: 130, 186]; aged 18-44 years: 83 [95% CI: 69, 97]), followed by significant declining trends from the late 2000s through early 2010s (images per 1000 enrollees per year for Medicare: -301 [95% CI: -510, -92]; commercially insured patients aged 45-64 years: -54 [95% CI: -69, -39]; aged 18-44 years: -26 [95% CI: -31, -21]) coinciding with code-bundling events instituted by Medicare (CT, nuclear imaging, echocardiography). There were significant trend changes in modalities without code bundling (MRI, radiography, US), although flat trends mostly were exhibited. After the early 2010s, there were significant trend changes largely showing flat utilization growth. The notable exception was a significant trend change to renewed growth of CT imaging among commercially insured patients aged 45-64 years and Medicare enrollees after 2012, although at half the prior rate (images per 1000 enrollees per year for Medicare: 17 [95% CI: 6, 28]; commercially insured patients aged 45-64 years: 11 [95% CI: 2, 20]). Conclusion Noninvasive diagnostic imaging utilization trends among commercially insured individuals are similar to those in Medicare enrollees, although at lower rates. Earlier rapid growth has ceased and, except for CT, utilization has stabilized since the early 2010s. © RSNA, 2019 See also the editorial by Hentel and Wolk in this issue.

Discordance in Clinical Recommendations Regarding the Use of Imaging.

As physicians strive to provide evidence-based care, challenges arise if different entities disseminate divergent Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) or clinical guidelines on the same topic. To characterize these challenges in one field, this study reviews the literature on comparisons of clinical recommendations regarding medical imaging. The PubMed database was searched for the years 2013-2018 for studies describing discordance among clinical recommendations regarding the performance of imaging. Of the 406 articles identified, 15 met the selection criteria: 8 qualitative and 7 quantitative. Reasons for discordance varied, with lack of evidence often cited. Quantitative studies often found that different decisions would be reached depending on the clinical recommendation followed. Nonetheless, quantitative studies also tended not to consider one set of recommendations superior to another. The findings of this review might help clinicians seek guidance more thoughtfully and could inform use of guidelines and AUC for quality improvement and clinical decision support.

Advanced Imaging Interpretation by Radiologists and Nonradiologist Physicians: A Training Issue.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to examine the degree to which nonradiologist physicians provide formal interpretations for advanced imaging and to consider whether adequate training can be achieved for those physicians. This investigation assumed that hospitals are the only places where formal imaging training occurs. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The CMS Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files (PSPSMFs) of the Medicare Part B datasets for 2015 were reviewed. We selected the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for four categories of noninvasive diagnostic imaging: CT, MRI, PET, and general nuclear imaging. Medicare place-of-service codes allowed us to determine the location of each study interpretation. We narrowed our analysis to data from the three major hospital places of service: inpatient facilities, hospital outpatient departments, and emergency departments. Provider specialties were determined using Medicare's 108 specialty codes. Procedure volumes among nonradiologist physicians were compared with those among radiologists. RESULTS. Of the 17,824,297 hospital-based CT examinations performed in the Medicare fee-for-service population, radiologists interpreted 17,698,360 (99.29%) and nonradiologists interpreted 125,937 (0.71%). Of the 4,512,627 MRI examinations performed, radiologists interpreted 4,469,275 (99.04%) and nonradiologist physicians interpreted 43,352 (0.96%). Of 391,688 PET studies performed, radiologists interpreted 368,913 (94.19%) and nonradiologist physicians interpreted 22,775 (5.81%). Of the 2,070,861 general nuclear medicine studies performed, radiologists interpreted 1,307,543 (63.14%) and nonradiologist physicians interpreted 763,318 (36.86%). Cardiologists had the largest involvement of nonradiologist physicians, contributing approximately 3% of all advanced imaging interpretations. All other nonradiologist physicians interpreted a tiny fraction of advanced imaging studies. CONCLUSION. Besides radiologists and cardiologists, no other medical specialty provides sufficient education for their trainees and practitioners in advanced imaging interpretation to justify allowing them to interpret these studies in practice, except under carefully controlled circumstances.

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.