True Costs of Uterine Artery Embolization: Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing in Interventional Radiology Over a 3-Year Period.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to uncover potential areas for cost savings in uterine artery embolization (UAE) using time-driven activity-based costing, the most accurate costing methodology for direct health care system costs. METHODS: One hundred twenty-three patients who underwent outpatient UAE for fibroids or adenomyosis between January 2020 and December 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Utilization times were captured from electronic health record time stamps and staff interviews using validated techniques. Capacity cost rates were estimated using institutional data and manufacturer proxy prices. Costs were calculated using time-driven activity-based costing for personnel, equipment, and consumables. Differences in time utilization and costs between procedures by an interventional radiology attending physician only versus an interventional radiology attending physician and trainee were additionally performed. RESULTS: The mean total cost of UAE was $4,267 ± $1,770, the greatest contributor being consumables (51%; $2,162 ± $811), followed by personnel (33%; $1,388 ± $340) and equipment (7%; $309 ± $96). Embolic agents accounted for the greatest proportion of consumable costs, accounting for 51% ($1,273 ± $789), followed by vascular devices (15%; $630 ± $143). The cost of embolic agents was highly variable, driven mainly by the number of vials (range 1-19) of tris-acryl gelatin particles used. Interventional radiology attending physician only cases had significantly lower personnel costs ($1,091 versus $1,425, P = .007) and equipment costs ($268 versus $317, P = .007) compared with interventional radiology attending physician and trainee cases, although there was no significant difference in mean overall costs ($3,640 versus $4,386; P = .061). CONCLUSIONS: Consumables accounted for the majority of total cost of UAE, driven by the cost of embolic agents and vascular devices.

Current Interventional Radiology-Related Benchmarked Clinical Quality Measures Are Less Likely to be "Capped" Than Diagnostic Radiology Clinical Quality Measures.

In the merit-based incentive payment system (MIPS), quality measures are considered topped out if national median performance rates are ≥95%. Quality measures worth 10 points can be capped at 7 points if topped out for ≥2 years. This report compares the availability of diagnostic radiology (DR)-related and interventional radiology (IR)-related measures worth 10 points. A total of 196 MIPS clinical quality measures were reviewed on the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services MIPS website. There are significantly more IR-related measures worth 10 points than DR measures (2/9 DR measures vs 9/12 IR measures; P = .03), demonstrating that clinical IR services can help mixed IR/DR groups maximize their Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services payment adjustment.

Cost effectiveness and the role of the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in interventional radiology.

Healthcare expenditure is continually increasing and projected to accelerate in the future, with an increasing proportion being spent on interventional radiology. The role of cost effectiveness studies in ensuring the best allocation of resources is discussed, and the role of National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in determining this. Issues with demonstrating cost effectiveness have been discussed, and it has been found that there is significant scope for improving cost effectiveness, with suggestions made for how this can be achieved. In this way, more patients can benefit from better treatment given limited healthcare budgets.

Time-driven activity-based costing of a novel form of CT-guided high-dose-rate brachytherapy intraoperative radiation therapy compared with conventional breast intraoperative radiation therapy for early stage breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Intraoperative radiation therapy is an emerging option for adjuvant therapy for early stage breast cancer, although it is not currently considered standard of care in the United States. We applied time-driven activity-based costing to compare two alternative methods of breast intraoperative radiation therapy, including treatment similar to the techniques employed in the TARGIT-A clinical trial and a novel version with CT-guidance and high-dose-rate (HRD) brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Process maps were created to describe the steps required to deliver intraoperative radiation therapy for early stage breast cancer at each institution. The components of intraoperative radiation therapy included personnel, equipment, and consumable supplies. The capacity cost rate was determined for each resource. Based on this, the delivery costs were calculated for each regimen. For comparison across centers, we did not account for indirect facilities costs and interinstitutional differences in personnel salaries. RESULTS: The CT-guided, HRD form of intraoperative radiation therapy costs more to deliver ($4,126.21) than the conventional method studied in the TARGIT-A trial ($1,070.45). The cost of the brachytherapy balloon applicator ($2,750) was the primary driver of the estimated differences in costs. Consumable supplies were the largest contributor to the brachytherapy-based approach, whereas personnel costs were the largest contributor to costs of the standard form of intraoperative radiation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with the more established method of intraoperative radiation therapy using a portable superficial photon unit, the delivery of treatment with CT guidance and HDR brachytherapy is associated with substantially higher costs. The excess costs are driven primarily by the cost of the disposable brachytherapy balloon applicator and, to a lesser extent, additional personnel costs. Future work should include evaluation of a less expensive brachytherapy applicator to increase the anticipated value of brachytherapy-based intraoperative radiation therapy.

Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging Services are Significant Sources of Medicare Revenue for Highly Reimbursed Nonradiologist Providers.

INTRODUCTION: Nonradiologist providers increasingly perform diagnostic imaging examinations and imaging-guided interventions traditionally performed by radiologists, which have raised concerns regarding appropriate utilization and self-referral. The purpose of this study was to assess the contribution of imaging studies to Medicare reimbursements for highly compensated nonradiologist providers in specialties often performing imaging studies. METHODS: The Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Database was queried for provider information regarding overall reimbursement for providers in anesthesiology, cardiology, emergency medicine, neurology, obstetrics and gynecology, orthopedic surgery, neurology, and vascular surgery. Information regarding imaging studies reported and payment amounts were extracted for the 25 highest-reimbursed providers. Data were analyzed for relative contribution of imaging payments to overall medical Medicare payments. RESULTS: Significant differences between numbers of imaging studies, types of imaging, and payment amounts were noted based on provider specialty (p < 0.001). Highest-reimbursed cardiologists received the greatest percentage of Medicare payments from imaging (18.3%) followed by vascular surgery (11.6%), obstetrics and gynecology (10.9%), orthopedic surgery (9.6%), emergency medicine (8.7%), neurology (7.8%), and anesthesiology (3.2%) providers. Mean imaging payments amongst highly reimbursed nonradiologists were greatest for cardiology ($578,265), vascular surgery ($363,912), and orthopedic surgery ($113,634). Amongst highly reimbursed specialists, most common nonradiologist imaging payments were from ultrasound (45%) and cardiac nuclear medicine studies (40%). CONCLUSIONS: Nonradiologist performed imaging payments comprised substantial proportions of overall Medicare reimbursement for highly reimbursed physicians in several specialties, especially cardiology, vascular surgery, and orthopedic surgery. Further investigation is needed to better understand the wider economic implications of nonradiologist imaging study performance and self-referral beyond the Medicare population.

A Descriptive Revenue Analysis of a Wound-Center IR Collaboration to Treat Lower Extremity Venous Ulcers.

PURPOSE: To describe the revenue from a collaboration between a dedicated wound care center and an interventional radiology (IR) practice for venous leg ulcer (VLU) management at a tertiary care center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 36 patients with VLU referred from a wound care center to an IR division during the 10-month active study period (April 2017 to January 2018) with a 6-month surveillance period (January 2018 to June 2018). A total of 15 patients underwent endovascular therapy (intervention group), whereas 21 patients did not (nonintervention group). Work relative value units (wRVUs) and dollar revenue were calculated using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Physician Fee Schedule. RESULTS: Three sources of revenue were identified: evaluation and management (E&M), diagnostic imaging, and procedures. The pathway generated 518.15 wRVUs, translating to $37,522. Procedures contributed the most revenue (342.27 wRVUs, $18,042), followed by E&M (124.23 wRVUs, $8,881), and diagnostic imaging (51.65 wRVUs, $10,599). Intervention patients accounted for 86.7% of wRVUs (449.48) and 80.0% of the revenue ($30,010). An average of 33 minutes (38.3 hours total) and 2.06 hours (36.8 hours total) were spent on E&M visits and procedures, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this collaboration between the wound center and IR undertaken to treat VLU, IR and E&M visits generated revenue and enabled procedural and downstream imaging revenue.

The Implications of Acute Clinical Care Responsibilities on the Contemporary Practice of Interventional Cardiology.

The responsibilities of the interventional cardiologist (IC) have evolved in contemporary practice to include substantial acute care clinical duties outside of the cardiac catheterization laboratory. In particular, the IC has assumed a central role in the global management of myocardial infarction and other acute coronary syndromes in the intensive care unit and beyond. These duties have expanded to include many nonprocedural tasks. The Interventional Section Leadership Council (ISLC) of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) therefore recommends: 1) these implications should be directly considered in the ACC's future planning and policy statements concerning manpower, competence, education, and reimbursement; 2) the development of an acute care cardiology subspecialty should be undertaken; 3) steps should be taken to adjust the number of ICs primarily on the basis of optimizing procedural volume and quality; and 4) the annual number of coronary interventions performed should not solely define competence in the future, but should include the performance of acute cardiology responsibilities.

Tools for Simulation; Low Budget and No Budget.

Interventional Radiology (IR) incorporates a unique set of technical skills such as ultrasound-guided needle placement, inferior vena cava filter placement, and wire/catheter exchange, which are not easily attained in other aspects of medical training. Simple, low cost models can allow medical students and residents to attain these skills in a low risk setting. These simulated tasks will ultimately combine to improve preparedness of trainees during patient procedures allowing them to advance more quickly through the training paradigm without patient risk. Many commercially available devices may be cost prohibitive, so low cost solutions are presented.

The Physician Payment Sunshine Act: Evaluating Industrial Payments in Radiology.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The characterization of payments made to physicians by pharmaceutical companies, device manufacturers, and group purchasing organizations is crucial for assessing potential conflicts of interest and their impact on practice patterns. This study examines the compensation received by general radiologists (GR) in the United States, as well as radiologists in the following five subspecialties: body imaging, neuroradiology, pediatric radiology, nuclear radiology and radiological physics, and vascular and interventional radiology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were extracted from the Open Payments database for radiology subspecialists in the United States who received installments in calendar year 2015 from pharmaceutical and device manufacturing companies. RESULTS: In 2015, a total of $43,685,052 was paid in 65,507 payments (mean $667/payment; median $32/payment) to radiologists, including 9826 GR, 362 body imaging radiologists, 479 neuroradiologists, 127 pediatric radiologists, 175 physicians in nuclear radiology and radiological physics, and 1584 vascular and interventional radiologists. Payments were unequally distributed across these six major subspecialties of radiology (p < 0.01), with GR receiving the largest number of total payments (44,695), and neuroradiologists receiving significantly higher median payments than any other subspecialty ($80 vs $32 for all radiologists; p < 0.01). Medtronic Neurovascular was the single largest payer to all radiologists combined. CONCLUSION: Commercial entities make substantial payments to radiologists, with a significant variation in payments made to the different radiology subspecialties. While the largest number of total payments was made to GGR, the highest median payments were made to neuroradiologists, and significant dispersion in these payments was seen across different geographic regions. The impact of these payments on practice patterns remains to be elucidated.

Interventional Radiology in Canada: Current Challenges and Future Directions.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to define the practice of interventional radiology (IR) in Canada, barriers that have been faced by interventional radiologists, and ways in which the Canadian Interventional Radiology Association (CIRA) have attempted to address these issues. CONCLUSION: IR has faced significant challenges in the Canadian setting. Recognizing the need to address these challenges, leaders in the field of IR in Canada founded the CIRA to serve as our national voice and lobby group.

Comparison of the Revenue Situation in Interventional Radiology Based on the Example of Peripheral Artery Disease in the Case of a DRG Payment System and Various Internal Treatment Charges.

PURPOSE: Calculation of process-orientated costs for inpatient endovascular treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD) from an interventional radiology (IR) perspective. Comparison of revenue situations in consideration of different ways to calculate internal treatment charges (ITCs) and diagnosis-related groups (DRG) for an independent IR department. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Costs (personnel, operating, material, and indirect costs) for endovascular treatment of PAD patients in an inpatient setting were calculated on a full cost basis. These costs were compared to the revenue situation for IR for five different scenarios: 1) IR receives the total DRG amount. IR receives the following DRG shares using ITCs based on InEK shares for 2) "Radiology" cost center type, 3) "OP" cost center type, 4) "Radiology" and "OP" cost center type, and 5) based on DKG-NT (scale of charges of the German Hospital Society). RESULTS: 78 patients (mean age: 68.6 ±â€Š11.4y) with the following DRGs were evaluated: F59A (n = 6), F59B (n = 14), F59C (n = 20) and F59 D (n = 38). The length of stay for these DRG groups was 15.8 ±â€Š12.1, 9.4 ±â€Š7.8, 2.8 ±â€Š3.7 and 3.4 ±â€Š6.5 days Material costs represented the bulk of all costs, especially if new and complex endovascular procedures were performed. Revenues for neither InEK shares nor ITCs based on DKG-NT were high enough to cover material costs. Contribution margins for the five scenarios were 1 = €â€Š1,539.29, 2 = €â€Š-1,775.31, 3 = €â€Š-2,579.41, 4 = €â€Š-963.43, 5 = €â€Š-2,687.22 in F59A, 1 = €â€Š-792.67, 2 = €â€Š-2,685.00, 3 = €â€Š-2,600.81, 4 = €â€Š-1,618.94, 5 = €â€Š-3,060.03 in F59B, 1 = €â€Š-879.87, 2 = €â€Š-2,633.14, 3 = €â€Š-3,001.07, 4 = €â€Š-1,952.33, 5 = €â€Š-3,136.24 in F59C and 1 = €â€Š703.65, 2 = €â€Š-106.35, 3 = €â€Š-773.86, 4 = €â€Š205.14, 5 = €â€Š-647.22 in F59 D. InEK shares return on average €â€Š150 - 500 more than ITCs based on the DKG-NT catalog. CONCLUSION: In this study positive contribution margins were seen only if IR receives the complete DRG amount. InEK shares do not cover incurred costs, with material costs representing the main part of treatment costs. Internal treatment charges based on the DKG-NT catalog provide the worst cost coverage. KEY POINTS: · Internal treatment charges based on the DKG-NT catalog provide the worst cost coverage for interventional radiology at our university hospital.. · Shares from the InEK matrix such as the cost center "radiology" or "OP" as revenue for IR are not sufficient to cover incurred costs. A positive contribution margin is achieved only in the case of a compensation method in which IR receives the total DRG amount.. CITATION FORMAT: · Vogt FM, Hunold P, Haegele J et al. Comparison of the Revenue Situation in Interventional Radiology Based on the Example of Peripheral Artery Disease in the Case of a DRG Payment System and Various Internal Treatment Charges. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2017; 190: 348 - 357.

Outside the operating room: How a robotics program changed resource utilization on the inpatient Ward.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the changes in the composition of the gynecologic oncology inpatient ward following the implementation of a robotic surgery program and its impact on inpatient resource utilization and costs. METHODS: Retrospective review of the medical charts of patients admitted onto the gynecologic oncology ward the year prior to and five years after the implementation of robotics. The following variables were collected: patient characteristics, hospitalization details (reason for admission and length of hospital stay), and resource utilization (number of hospitalization days, consultations, and imaging). RESULTS: Following the introduction of robotic surgery, there were more admissions for elective surgery yet these accounted for only 21% of the inpatient ward in terms of number of hospital days, compared to 36% prior to the robotic program. This coincided with a sharp increase in the overall number of patients operated on by a minimally invasive approach (15% to 76%, p<0.0001). The cost per surgical admission on the inpatient ward decreased by 59% ($9827 vs. $4058) in the robotics era. The robotics program contributed to a ward with higher proportion of patients with complex comorbidities (Charlson≥5: RR 1.06), Stage IV disease (RR 1.30), and recurrent disease (RR 1.99). CONCLUSION: Introduction of robotic surgery allowed for more patients to be treated surgically while simultaneously decreasing inpatient resource use. With more patients with non-surgical oncological issues and greater medical complexity, the gynecologic oncology ward functions more like a medical rather than surgical ward after the introduction of robotics, which has implications for hospital-wide resource planning.

The effects of expanding outpatient and inpatient evaluation and management services in a pediatric interventional radiology practice.

BACKGROUND: Despite a continuing emphasis on evaluation and management clinical services in adult interventional radiology (IR) practice, the peer-reviewed literature addressing these services - and their potential economic benefits - is lacking in pediatric IR practice. OBJECTIVE: To measure the effects of expanding evaluation and management (E&M) services through the establishment of a dedicated pediatric interventional radiology outpatient clinic and inpatient E&M reporting system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collected and analyzed E&M current procedural terminology (CPT) codes from all patients seen in a pediatric interventional radiology outpatient clinic between November 2014 and August 2015. We also calculated the number of new patients seen in the clinic who had a subsequent procedure (procedural conversion rate). For comparison, we used historical data comprising pediatric patients seen in a general interventional radiology (IR) clinic for the 2 years immediately prior. An inpatient E&M reporting system was implemented and all inpatient E&M (and subsequent procedural) services between July 2015 and September 2015 were collected and analyzed. We estimated revenue for both outpatient and inpatient services using the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule global non-facility price as a surrogate. RESULTS: Following inception of a pediatric IR clinic, the number of new outpatients (5.5/month; +112%), procedural conversion rate (74.5%; +19%), estimated E&M revenue (+158%), and estimated procedural revenue from new outpatients (+228%) all increased. Following implementation of an inpatient clinic reporting system, there were 8.3 consults and 7.3 subsequent hospital encounters per month, with a procedural conversion rate of 88%. CONCLUSION: Growth was observed in all meaningful metrics following expansion of outpatient and inpatient pediatric IR E&M services.

Management of Ureteroenteric Stricture: Predictive Modeling to Compare Cost.

BACKGROUND: Ureteroenteric stricture occurs in as many as 15% of patients after cystectomy with urinary diversion. First-line management is typically percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) drainage. We sought to compare costs of a urologic approach of retrograde stenting through flexible endoscopy and an interventional radiology (IR) approach of PCN and antegrade stenting using predictive modeling. The purpose of this study is to inform best practice for initial stricture management based on existing literature regardless of the benign stricture rate following radical cystectomy. Our hypothesis is that initial management by a urologist may be superior to IR management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The primary outcome measure was cost based on 2015 Medicare reimbursement rates by Current Procedural Technology codes with a secondary endpoint of number of procedures a patient undergoes. We developed a simulation model to replicate the experience of stricture patients. The model describes three arms: urologic management with retrograde stent placement, sequential management by IR, and single-stage IR management. We simulated 10,000 patients through the model with the percentage of patients pursuing each treatment arm and success rates chosen based on a review of relevant literature and clinic experience. RESULTS: The average cost of urologic management is $703.23 compared with the average cost of $838.09 for patients using radiologic management. Within radiologic management, the average cost is $862.98 for sequential IR management and $639.44 for single-stage IR management. Patients would undergo an average of 2.53 procedures for those patients initially sent to urology and 2.91 procedures for those sent to radiology. For sequential IR, the average is 3.02 procedures, and for single-stage IR, it is 2.03 procedures. From a cost perspective, the success rate at which retrograde stent placement becomes worth attempting is 35%. If radiologic management is attempted initially, sequential IR management represents a cost-conscious option that limits the total number of procedures. CONCLUSION: The disparity in cost between IR and urologic management of ureteral stricture provides a rationale for rural practices that may not have immediate access to IR to manage the patient.

Introduction to Cost Analysis in IR: Challenges and Opportunities.

Demonstration of value has become increasingly important in the current health care system. This review summarizes four of the most commonly used cost analysis methods relevant to IR that could be adopted to demonstrate the value of IR interventions: the cost minimization study, cost-effectiveness assessment, cost-utility analysis, and cost-benefit analysis. In addition, the issues of true cost versus hospital charges, modeling in cost studies, and sensitivity analysis are discussed.

Activity-based cost analysis of hepatic tumor ablation using CT-guided high-dose rate brachytherapy or CT-guided radiofrequency ablation in hepatocellular carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To analyse and compare the costs of hepatic tumor ablation with computed tomography (CT)-guided high-dose rate brachytherapy (CT-HDRBT) and CT-guided radiofrequency ablation (CT-RFA) as two alternative minimally invasive treatment options of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: An activity based process model was created determining working steps and required staff of CT-RFA and CT-HDRBT. Prorated costs of equipment use (purchase, depreciation, and maintenance), costs of staff, and expenditure for disposables were identified in a sample of 20 patients (10 treated by CT-RFA and 10 by CT-HDRBT) and compared. A sensitivity and break even analysis was performed to analyse the dependence of costs on the number of patients treated annually with both methods. RESULTS: Costs of CT-RFA were nearly stable with mean overall costs of approximately 1909 €, 1847 €, 1816 € and 1801 € per patient when treating 25, 50, 100 or 200 patients annually, as the main factor influencing the costs of this procedure was the single-use RFA probe. Mean costs of CT-HDRBT decreased significantly per patient ablation with a rising number of patients treated annually, with prorated costs of 3442 €, 1962 €, 1222 € and 852 € when treating 25, 50, 100 or 200 patients, due to low costs of single-use disposables compared to high annual fix-costs which proportionally decreased per patient with a higher number of patients treated annually. A break-even between both methods was reached when treating at least 55 patients annually. CONCLUSION: Although CT-HDRBT is a more complex procedure with more staff involved, it can be performed at lower costs per patient from the perspective of the medical provider when treating more than 55 patients compared to CT-RFA, mainly due to lower costs for disposables and a decreasing percentage of fixed costs with an increasing number of treatments.