Comparison of Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility and Use between Commercial, Medicare, and Medicare Advantage Enrollees.

OBJECTIVE: Lung cancer screening does not require patient cost-sharing for insured people in the U.S. Little is known about whether other factors associated with patient selection into different insurance plans affect screening rates. We examined screening rates for enrollees in commercial, Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS), and Medicare Advantage plans. METHODS: County-level smoking rates from the 2017 County Health Rankings were used to estimate the number of enrollees eligible for lung cancer screening in two large retrospective claims databases covering: a 5% national sample of Medicare FFS enrollees; and 100% sample of enrollees associated with large commercial and Medicare Advantage carriers. Screening rates were estimated using observed claims, stratified by payer, before aggregation into national estimates by payer and demographics. Chi-square tests were used to examine differences in screening rates between payers. RESULTS: There were 1,077,142 enrollees estimated to be eligible for screening. The overall estimated screening rate for enrollees by payer was 1.75% for commercial plans, 3.37% for Medicare FFS, and 4.56% for Medicare Advantage plans. Screening rates were estimated to be lowest among females (1.55%-4.02%), those aged 75-77 years (0.63%-2.87%), those residing in rural areas (1.88%-3.56%), and those in the West (1.16%-3.65%). Among Medicare FFS enrollees, screening rates by race/ethnicity were non-Hispanic White (3.71%), non-Hispanic Black (2.17%) and Other (1.68%). CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variation exists in lung cancer screening between different payers and across patient characteristics. Efforts targeting historically vulnerable populations could present opportunities to increase screening.

Recent trends in high-volume Medicare stroke thrombectomy provider characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Intracranial mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is increasingly indicated for use in acute ischemic stroke patients. We analyzed recent trends in the characteristics and geographic distributions of physicians providing this service with frequency to Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: We linked public data sources to elucidate and visualize trends in high-volume MT providers between 2016 and 2019. RESULTS: High-volume MT providers increased by 184% between 2016 and 2019. The number of neurosurgeons, neurologists, and radiologists in this physician population increased by 251%, 205%, and 139%, respectively. Male practitioners accounted for 96% of providers in the most recent year of analysis. International medical graduates accounted for roughly one-third of these physicians across all 4 years of analysis. As of 2019, the three states with the most high-volume MT providers were Florida, California, and Texas, accounting for 7%, 7%, and 6% of providers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: High-volume providers of MT services for Medicare beneficiaries represent a dynamic and rapidly expanding subset of physicians with diverse specialty backgrounds.

Utilization of Chest and Abdominopelvic CT for Traumatic Injury From 2011 to 2018: Evaluation Using a National Commercial Database.

BACKGROUND. Increases in the use of CT to evaluate patients presenting with trauma have raised concern about inappropriate imaging. The evolving utilization of CT for trauma evaluation may be impacted by injury severity. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to explore patterns in utilization of chest and abdominopelvic CT among trauma-related emergency department (ED) visits across the United States. METHODS. This retrospective study was conducted with national commercial claims information extracted from the MarketScan Commercial Database. Trauma-related ED encounters were identified from the 2011-2018 MarketScan database files and classified by injury severity score (minor, intermediate, and major injuries) on the basis of International Classification of Diseases codes. ED encounters were also assessed for chest CT, abdominopelvic CT, and single-encounter chest and abdominopelvic CT examinations. Utilization per 1000 trauma-related ED encounters was determined. Multivariable Poisson regression models were used to determine incidence rate ratios (IRRs) as a measure of temporal changes in utilization. RESULTS. From 2011 to 2018, 8,369,092 trauma-related ED encounters were identified (5,685,295 for minor, 2,624,944 for intermediate, and 58,853 for major injuries). Utilization of chest CT per 1000 trauma-related ED encounters increased from 4.9 to 13.5 examinations (adjusted IRR, 1.15 per year; minor injuries, from 2.2 to 7.7 [adjusted IRR, 1.17]; intermediate injuries, from 8.5 to 21.5 [adjusted IRR, 1.16]; major injuries, from 117.8 to 200.1 [adjusted IRR, 1.08]). Utilization of abdominopelvic CT per 1000 trauma-related ED encounters increased from 7.5 to 16.4 (adjusted IRR, 1.12; minor injuries, 4.8 to 12.2 [adjusted IRR, 1.13]; intermediate injuries, 10.6 to 21.7 [adjusted IRR, 1.13]; major injuries, 134.8 to 192.6 [adjusted IRR, 1.07]). Utilization of single-encounter chest and abdominopelvic CT per 1000 trauma-related ED encounters increased from 3.4 to 8.9 [adjusted IRR, 1.16; minor injuries, 1.1 to 4.6 [adjusted IRR, 1.18]; intermediate injuries, 6.4 to 16.4 [adjusted IRR, 1.16]; major injuries, 99.6 to 179.9 [adjusted IRR, 1.08]). CONCLUSION. National utilization of chest and abdominopelvic CT for trauma-related ED encounters increased among commercially insured patients from 2011 to 2018, particularly for single-encounter chest and abdominopelvic CT examinations and for minor injuries. CLINICAL IMPACT. Given concerns about increased cost and detection of incidental findings, further investigation is warranted to explore the potential benefit of single-encounter chest and abdominopelvic CT examinations of patients with minor injuries and to develop strategies for optimizing appropriateness of imaging orders.

Professional Services Rendered by Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants Employed by Radiology Practices: Characteristics and Trends From 2017 Through 2019.

PURPOSE: With radiology practices increasingly employing nonphysician practitioners (NPPs), we aimed to characterize specific NPP clinical roles. METHODS: Linking 2017 to 2019 Medicare data sets, we identified all claims-submitting nurse practitioners and physician assistants (together NPPs) employed by radiologists. NPP-billed services were identified, weighted by work relative value units, and categorized as (1) clinical evaluation and management (E&M), (2) invasive procedures, and (3) noninvasive imaging interpretation. NPP practice patterns were assessed temporally and using frequency analysis. RESULTS: As the number of radiologist-employed NPPs submitting claims increased 16.3% (from 523 in 2017 to 608 in 2019), their aggregate Medicare fee-for-service work relative value units increased 17.3% (+40.0% for E&M [from 79,540 to 111,337]; +5.6% for procedures [from 179,044 to 189,003]; and +74.0% for imaging [from 5,087 to 8,850]). The number performing E&M, invasive procedures, and imaging interpretation increased 7.6% (from 329 to 354), 18.3% (from 387 to 458), and 31.8% (from 85 to 112), with 58.2%, 75.3%, and 18.4% billing those services in 2019. Paracentesis and thoracentesis were the most frequently billed invasive procedures. Fluoroscopic swallowing and bone densitometry examinations were the most frequently billed imaging services. By region, NPPs practicing as majority clinical E&M providers were most common in the Midwest (33.5%) and South (33.0%), majority proceduralists in the South (53.1%), and majority image interpreters in the Midwest (50.0%). CONCLUSIONS: As radiology practices employ more NPPs, radiologist-employed NPPs' aggregate services have increased for E&M, invasive procedures, and imaging interpretation. Most radiologist-employed NPPs perform invasive procedures and E&M. Although performed by a small minority, imaging interpretation has shown the largest relative service growth.

Osteopathic Versus Allopathic Radiologist Workforce Characteristics: A Medicare Administrative and Claims Data Analysis.

PURPOSE: Radiologist medical school pathways have received little attention in recent workforce investigations. With osteopathic enrollment increasing, we assessed the osteopathic versus allopathic composition of the radiologist workforce. METHODS: Linking separate Medicare Doctors and Clinicians Initiative databases and Physician and Other Supplier Files from 2014 through 2019, we assessed (descriptively and using multivariate panel logistic regression modeling) individual and practice characteristics of radiologists who self-reported medical degrees. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2019, as the number of osteopathic radiologists increased 46.0% (4.7% to 6.0% of total radiologist workforce), the number of allopathic radiologists increased 12.1% (representing a relative workforce decrease from 95.3% to 94.0%). For each year since completing training, practicing radiologists were 3.7% less likely to have osteopathic (versus allopathic) degrees (odds ratio [OR] = 0.96 per year, P < .01). Osteopathic radiologists were less likely to work in urban (versus rural) areas (OR = 0.95), and compared with the Midwest, less likely to work in the Northeast (OR = 0.96), South (OR = 0.95), and West (OR = 0.94) (all P < .01). Except for cardiothoracic imaging (OR = 0.78, P = .24), osteopathic radiologists were more likely than allopathic radiologists to practice as general (rather than subspecialty) radiologists (range OR = 0.37 for nuclear medicine to OR = 0.65 for neuroradiology, all P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Osteopathic physicians represent a fast-growing earlier-career component of the radiologist workforce. Compared with allopathic radiologists, they more frequently practice as generalist radiologists, in rural areas, and in the Midwest. Given recent calls for greater general and rural radiology coverage, increasing osteopathic representation in the national radiologist workforce could improve patient access.

Characteristics of Radiologists Serving as Medical Malpractice Expert Witnesses for Defense Versus Plaintiff.

PURPOSE: Previous studies have reported higher qualification characteristics for anesthesiologists, neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and otolaryngologists serving as defense (versus plaintiff) medical malpractice expert witnesses. We assessed such characteristics for radiologist expert witnesses. METHODS: Using the Westlaw legal research database, we identified radiologists serving as experts in all indexed medical malpractice cases between 2010 and 2019. Online databases were used to identify years of practice experience and scholarly bibliometrics. Using Medicare claims, individual radiologist practice types and mixes were ascertained. Radiologists testifying at least once each for defense and plaintiff were excluded from our defense-only versus plaintiff-only comparative analysis. RESULTS: Initial Boolean searches yielded 1,042 potential cases; subsequent manual review identified 179 radiologists testifying in 231 lawsuits: 143 testified in one case (58 defense, 85 plaintiff) and 36 testified in multiple cases (10 defense-only, 14 plaintiff-only, 12 both). The 68 defense-only experts had fewer years of practice experience than the 99 plaintiff-only experts (28.3 versus 31.8 years, P = .02), but the two groups were otherwise similar in both practice type (44.6% versus 54.9% academic, P = .62) and mix (63.8% versus 65.8% practiced as subspecialists, P = .37) and as well as numbers of publications (60.5 versus 62.8, P = .86), citations (1,994.1 versus 2,309.2, P = .56), and h-indices (17.2 versus 16.8, P = .89). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to other specialists, radiologists serving as medical malpractice expert witnesses for defense and plaintiff display similar qualifications across various characteristics. Published practice parameter guidelines and experts' ability to blindly review archived original images might together explain this interspecialty discordance.

Radiology Practices Employing Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants: Characteristics and Trends From 2017 Through 2019.

PURPOSE: The number and roles of US nonphysician practitioners (NPPs) have expanded considerably, but little is known about their use by radiology practices. The authors assessed characteristics and trends of radiology practices employing Medicare-recognized NPPs. METHODS: Using Medicare databases from 2017 through 2019, the authors mapped all nurse practitioners and physician assistants (together "NPPs") to employer groups for which all physicians were radiologists ("radiology practices"). Practices were characterized by size, geography, and radiologist characteristics. Temporal changes were assessed, and NPP employment likelihood was estimated using multivariate logistic regression modeling. RESULTS: As the number of US radiology practices declined by 36.5% (from 2,643 to 1,679) between 2017 and 2019, the number employing NPPs increased by 10.5% (from 228 [8.6%] to 252 [15.0%]). The number of radiologists in NPP-employing practices increased by 10.4% (from 6,596 [35.1%] to 7,282 [40.0%]) as the number of radiology-employed NPPs increased by 17.5% (from 588 to 691). Practices were more likely to employ NPPs when medium (odds ratio [OR], 1.31) or large (OR, 1.25) in size, when urban located (OR, 1.35), and as their percentages of interventional radiologists increased (OR, 5.53 per percentage point) (P < .01 for all). Practices were less likely to employ NPPs as mean radiologist years since completing training increased (OR, 0.99 per year; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Employment of NPPs by radiology practices has grown considerably in recent years, particularly in larger and urban practices and in those that employ more interventional and early-career radiologists. More work is necessary to better understand how this expanding use of NPPs affects the specialty.

Evolving Radiologist Participation in Medicare Shared Savings Program Accountable Care Organizations.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to temporally characterize radiologist participation in Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) accountable care organizations (ACOs). METHODS: Using CMS Physician and Other Supplier Public Use Files, ACO provider-level Research Identifiable Files, and Shared Savings Program ACO Public-Use Files for 2013 through 2018, characteristics of radiologist ACO participation were assessed over time. RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2018, the percentage of Medicare-participating radiologists affiliated with MSSP ACOs increased from 10.4% to 34.9%. During that time, the share of large ACOs (>20,000 beneficiaries) with participating radiologists averaged 87.0%, and the shares of medium ACOs (10,000-20,000) and small ACOs (<10,000) with participating radiologists rose from 62.5% to 66.0% and from 26.3% to 51.6%, respectively. The number of physicians in MSSP ACOs with radiologists was substantially larger than those without radiologists (mean range across years, 573-945 versus 107-179). Primary care physicians constituted a larger percentage of the physician population for ACOs without radiologists (average across years, 66.3% versus 38.5%), and ACOs with radiologists had a higher rate of specialist representation (56.0% versus 33.7%). Beneficiary age, race, and sex demographics were similar among radiologist-participating versus nonparticipating ACOs. CONCLUSIONS: In recent years, radiologist participation in MSSP ACOs has increased substantially. ACOs with radiologist participation are large and more diverse in their physician specialty composition. Nonparticipating radiologists should prepare accordingly.

Radiologist-Practice Separation: Recent Trends and Characteristics.

PURPOSE: To assess recent trends and characteristics in radiologist-practice separation across the United States. METHODS: Using the Medicare Physician Compare and Medicare Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File data sets, we linked all radiologists to associated group practices annually between 2014 and 2018 and assessed radiologist-practice separation over a variety of physician and group characteristics. Multivariate logistic regression modeling was used to estimate the likelihood of radiologist-practice separation. RESULTS: Of 25,228 unique radiologists associated with 4,381 unique group practices, 41.1% separated from at least one group practice between 2014 and 2018, and annual separation rates increased 38.4% over time (13.8% from 2014 to 2015 to 19.2% from 2017 to 2018). Radiologist-practice separation rates ranged from 57.4% in Utah to 26.3% in Virginia. Separation rates were 42.8% for general radiologists versus 38.2% for subspecialty radiologists. Among subspecialists, separation rates ranged from 43.0% for breast imagers to 33.5% for cardiothoracic radiologists. Early career status (odds ratio [OR] = 1.286) and late (OR = 1.554) career status were both independent positive predictors of radiologist-practice separation (both P < .001). Larger practice size (OR = 0.795), radiology-only (versus multispecialty) group (OR = 0.468), academic (versus nonacademic) practice (OR = 0.709), and abdominal (OR = 0.820), musculoskeletal (OR = 0.659), and neuroradiology (OR = 0.895) subspecialization were independent negative predictors (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: With over 40% of radiologists separating from at least one practice in recent years, the US radiologist workforce is highly and increasingly mobile. Because reasons for separation (eg, resignation, practice acquisition) cannot be assessed using administrative data, further attention is warranted given the manifold financial, operational, and patient care implications.