Analysis of the Effects of a Patient-Centered Rideshare Program on Missed Appointments and Timeliness for MRI Appointments at an Academic Medical Center.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the differences in timeliness to MRI appointments and missed MRI appointment rates before and after the implementation of a rideshare program. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a rideshare program was performed 9 months after implementation to compare the effects before and after implementation. Variables obtained included demographics, MRI appointment variables, and data related to rideshare use. Descriptive statistics and linear and logistic regression analyses were used to compare demographic characteristics among patients using the rideshare program with (1) those who did not use the rideshare program after implementation and (2) patients before rideshare implementation. Rates of missed appointments derived from patient-related, same-day appointment cancellations were analyzed using logistic regression analyses. Timeliness was analyzed using linear regression analyses. All analyses were adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS: Of 7,707 patients scheduled for MRI appointments during the postintervention period, 151 patients used the rideshare service (1.95%). There were no statistically significant differences in missed appointment rates after rideshare implementation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.27; P = .275). Patients using the rideshare service were more likely to be on time (adjusted coefficient = 13.0; 95% confidence interval, 5.4-20.5; P = .001). Older patients (P = .001), unemployed patients (P < .001), and patients without commercial insurance (P < .001) were more likely to use the rideshare service. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a rideshare program did not significantly decrease missed appointment rates, but it significantly improved timeliness to MRI appointments while assisting at-risk patient populations reporting transportation barriers.

A Radiology-focused Analysis of Transparency and Usability of Top U.S. Hospitals' Chargemasters.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: In 2019, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services enforced regulation from the Affordable Care Act, requiring all U.S. hospitals to publish standard hospital charges annually. This study assesses top U.S academic hospitals' chargemasters for selected advanced diagnostic imaging services and the usability of publicly available information to allow consumers to determine out-of-pocket costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Publicly available chargemasters and associated websites for the top 20 ranked hospitals in U.S. News and World Report were assessed for several features including: file format, inclusion of CPT codes, disclaimers on charges versus costs and professional fees, and tools allowing determination of actual out-of-pocket costs for selected advanced diagnostic imaging examinations. RESULTS: All hospitals had publicly available chargemasters, 90% of which were in Microsoft Excel format. Ten percent of chargemasters included CPT codes. All chargemaster websites had disclaimers regarding differences between charges versus patient costs; 20% had disclaimers regarding professional fees. 20% of hospitals provided out-of-pocket costs for uninsured patients or tools allowing out-of-pocket cost determination. Median (range) MR exam charges were: brain with and without contrast: $5375 ($834-$13,857), noncontrast knee: $3402 (4530-$6924); noncontrast lumbar spine: $ 3449 ($473-$7367). Median (range) CT exam charges were: noncontrast head: $1923 ($165-$4974), noncontrast chest: $1947 ($282-$2991); contrast abdomen/pelvis: $4307 ($486-$11,726). CONCLUSION: While all top-ranked hospitals had publicly available chargemasters, they rarely provided transparent information to allow patients to determine out-of-pocket costs for advanced diagnostic imaging services.

Clinical Impact of Second Opinion Radiology Consultation for Patients With Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: To assess the incidence and clinical significance of discrepancy in subspecialty interpretation of outside breast imaging examinations for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients presenting to a tertiary cancer center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective study included patients presenting from July 2016 to March 2017 to a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center for second opinion after breast cancer diagnosis. Outside and second opinion radiology reports of 252 randomly selected patients were compared by two subspecialty breast radiologists to consensus. A peer review score was assigned, modeled after ACR's RADPEERTM peer review metric: 1-agree; 2-minor discrepancy (unlikely clinically significant); 3-moderate discrepancy (may be clinically significant); 4-major discrepancy (likely clinically significant). Among cases with clinically significant discrepancies, rates of clinical management change (management alterations including change in follow-up, neoadjuvant therapy use, and surgical management as a direct result of image review), and detection of additional malignancy were assessed through electronic medical record review. RESULTS: A significant difference in interpretation (scores = 3 or 4) was seen in 41 of 252 cases (16%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 11.7%-20.8%). The difference led to additional workup in 38 of 252 cases (15%, 95% CI 10.6%-19.5%) and change in clinical management in 18 of 252 cases (7.1%, 95% CI 4.0%-10.2%), including 15 of 252 with change in surgical management (6.0%, 95% CI, 3.0%-8.9%). An additional malignancy or larger area of disease was identified in 11 of 252 cases (4.4%, 95% CI, 1.8%-6.9%). CONCLUSION: Discrepancy between outside and second-opinion breast imaging subspecialists frequently results in additional workup for breast cancer patients, changes in treatment plan, and identification of new malignancies.

Mesenchymal Lesions of the Breast: What Radiologists Need to Know.

OBJECTIVE: Mesenchymal breast tumors originate from the various components of mammary stroma. The aim of this review is to discuss the clinical presentation, imaging appearance, and management of mesenchymal breast lesions. CONCLUSION: Although many mesenchymal tumors exhibit characteristic findings on imaging, others show nonspecific characteristics and require tissue biopsy for diagnosis. An awareness of the clinical and imaging presentation is essential in guiding the differential diagnosis and patient management.

Adherence to Mammography Screening Guidelines Among Transgender Persons and Sexual Minority Women.

We used retrospective (2012-2013) chart review to examine breast cancer screening among transgender persons and sexual minority women (n = 1263) attending an urban community health center in Massachusetts. Transgender were less likely than cisgender patients and bisexuals were less likely than heterosexuals and lesbians to adhere to mammography screening guidelines (respectively, adjusted odds ratios = 0.53 and 0.56; 95% confidence intervals = 0.31, 0.91 and 0.34, 0.92) after adjustment for sociodemographics. Enhanced cancer prevention outreach is needed among gender and sexual minorities.