Strategies for managing imaging utilization.

Imaging represents a substantial and growing portion of the costs of American health care. When performed correctly and for the right reasons, medical imaging facilitates quality medical care that brings value to both patients and payers. When used incorrectly because of inappropriate economic incentives, unnecessary patient demands, or provider concerns for medical-legal risk, imaging costs can increase without increasing diagnostic yields. A number of methods have been tried to manage imaging utilization and achieve the best medical outcomes for patients without incurring unnecessary costs. The best method should combine a prospective approach; be transparent, evidence based, and unobtrusive to the doctor-patient relationship and provide for education and continuous quality improvement. Combining the proper utilization of imaging and its inherent cost reduction, with improved quality through credentialing and accreditation, achieves the highest value and simultaneous best outcomes for patients.

National trends in gastrointestinal access procedures: an analysis of Medicare services provided by radiologists and other specialists.

PURPOSE: To evaluate national trends in enteral access services by radiologists and other specialists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medicare data from 1997 to 2000 were analyzed for trends in gastrointestinal access services. Current Procedural Terminology codes for gastrostomy placement and maintenance services were selected. Utilization was analyzed by physician specialty. Targeted service analysis was performed for interventional radiologists. RESULTS: For sampled enteral access procedures, annual services to Medicare beneficiaries increased from 279,509 to 283,353 (+1.4%). These were most often performed by gastroenterologists (48.6%), surgeons (25.1%), radiologists (7.4%), and others (18.9%). Total procedures by radiologists increased 29.6% whereas procedures by gastroenterologists, surgeons, and other nonradiologists changed +6.9%, -4.9%, and -10.2%, respectively. For new gastrostomy accesses, radiologist volume increased 46.9% whereas gastroenterologist, surgeon, and other volumes changed +7.9%, -5.0%, and -21.5%, respectively. For maintenance services, radiologist volume increased 21.8% whereas gastroenterologist, surgeon, and other volumes changed +3.1%, -4.7%, and +7.9%, respectively. Analyzed for frequency, relative value, and physician time, enteral access services account for less than 1% of all services provided by interventional radiologists. CONCLUSIONS: Although the number of gastrointestinal access services provided to Medicare beneficiaries has remained static, radiologists have experienced a marked relative increase in volume, particularly for new gastrostomy procedures. This increase is largely at the expense of surgeons and other nongastroenterologists. However, radiologists still provide only a small portion of gastrointestinal access services nationwide, and these services account for only a small portion of all procedures performed by interventionalists. Therefore, the potential for enteral access service growth in interventional radiology is high.

Clinical services in interventional radiology: results from the national Medicare database and a Society of Interventional Radiology membership survey.

PURPOSE: To evaluate trends in evaluation and management (E & M) services performed by interventional radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Recent national Medicare physician utilization data (1997-2000) were analyzed for trends in E & M services provided by interventional radiologists. The results were evaluated in conjunction with a recent Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) membership survey in which 165 interventional radiology (IR) practices answered questions about clinical service issues. RESULTS: Despite the perception of frequent clinical services by interventional radiologists, paid Medicare claims for E & M services have increased only minimally, from 9,472 to 9,662 (+2.0%), and have lagged behind non-E & M procedural services, which have increased from 2,283,111 to 2,527,323 (+10.7%). The relative value unit (RVU) impact of E & M encounters has increased from 14,422 to 14,893 (+3.2%) while the RVU impact of procedural services has increased from 2,262,991 to 3,723,486 (+64.5%). E & M services account for only 0.39% of all Medicare claims, 0.49% of service RVUs, and 0.68% of all reimbursable time spent by interventionalists. However, when surveyed, interventional radiologists perceived that E & M services are much more frequent: 92% provide clinical services and indicate that 6.6% +/- 5.4 of physician time is spent providing E & M services. CONCLUSION: Despite perceptions by interventional radiologists that E & M services are common, Medicare claims for such services are infrequent and growth lags behind that of IR services overall. These discrepancies may be explained in part by practice and billing infrastructures that do not effectively translate actual clinical services into successful claims.