Salary Equity in Academic Radiology Relative to Other Clinical Specialties.

BACKGROUND: Equity in faculty compensation in U.S. academic radiology physicians relative to other specialties is not well known. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess salary equity in U.S. academic radiology physicians at different ranks relative to other clinical specialties. METHODS: The American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) Faculty Salary Survey was used to collect information for full-time faculty at U.S. medical schools. Financial compensation data were collected for 2023 for faculty with MD or equivalent degree in medical specialties, stratified by gender and rank. RESULTS: The AAMC Faculty Salary Survey data for 2023 included responses for 97,224 faculty members in clinical specialties, with 5847 faculty members in Radiology departments. In radiology, compared to men (n = 3839), the women faculty members (n = 1763) had a lower median faculty compensation by 6% at the rank of Assistant Professor, 3% for Associate Professors, 4% for Professors and 6% for Section Chief positions. Surgery had the highest difference in median compensation with 21%, 24%, 22% and 19% lower faculty compensation, respectively, for women faculty members at corresponding ranks. Pathology had the lowest percent difference (<1%) in median compensation for all professor ranks. Salary inequity in radiology was lower compared to most other specialties. From assistant to full professors, all other clinical specialties except Pathology and Psychiatry, had a greater salary inequity than Radiology. CONCLUSION: The salary inequity in academic radiology faculty is lower than most other specialties. Further efforts should be made to reduce salary inequities as broader efforts to provide a more diverse, equitable and inclusive environment. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Salary inequity in academic radiology faculty is lower than most other specialties.

Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Physician Authors of ACR Appropriateness Criteria.

BACKGROUND: The accuracy and completeness of self-disclosures by authors of imaging guidelines are not well known. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of financial disclosures by US authors of ACR appropriateness criteria. METHODS: We reviewed financial disclosures provided by US-based authors of all ACR-AC published in 2019, 2021 and 2023. For each US- based author, payment reports were extracted from the Open Payments Database (OPD) in the previous 36 months related to general category and research payments categories. We analyzed each author individually to determine if the reported disclosures matched results from OPD. RESULTS: A total of 633 authorships, including 333 unique authors were included from 38 ACR AC articles in 2019, with 606 authorships (387 unique authors) from 35 ACR-AC articles published in 2021, and 540 authorships (367 unique authors) from 32 ACR AC articles published in 2023. Among authors who received industry payments, failure to disclose any financial relationship was seen in 125/147 unique authors in 2019, 142/148 authors in 2021 and 95/125 unique authors in 2023. The proportion of nondisclosed total value of payments was 86.1% in 2019, 88.6% in 2021 and 56.7% in 2023. General category payments were nondisclosed in 94.1% in 2019, 89.7% in 2021 and 94.4% in 2023 by payment value. CONCLUSION: Industry payments to authors of radiology guidelines are common and frequently undisclosed.

Nine Steps in the Entrepreneurial Journey for Academic Radiologists.

In this article, we explore the nine steps that we have found to be critical for success in our journeys in taking ideas in imaging to commercial products. These nine steps include 1) findings ideas that resonate, 2) protecting your intellectual property, 3) developing a great team that shares in the vision for the product, 4) building a low-fidelity prototype, 5) customer discovery to test your business hypothesis, 6) forming a company, 7) serving on a study section as a prelude to 8) seeking non-dilutive funding, and finally, 9) angel/venture funding.

Financial Viability of the No Surprises Act Independent Dispute Resolution Process: Radiology and Other Hospital-Based Specialties.

BACKGROUND. The federal No Surprises Act (NSA), designed to eliminate surprise medical billing for out-of-network (OON) care for circumstances beyond patients' control, established the independent dispute resolution (IDR) process to settle clinician-payer payment disputes for OON care. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to assess the fraction of OON claims for which radiologists and other hospital-based specialists can expect to at least break even when challenging payer-determined payments through the NSA IDR process, as a measure of the process's financial viability. METHODS. This retrospective study extracted claims from a national commercial database (Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart) for hospital-based specialties occurring on the same day as in-network emergency department (ED) visits or inpatient stays from January 2017 to December 2021. OON claims were identified. OON claims batching was simulated using IDR rules. Maximum potential recovered payments from the IDR process were estimated as the difference between the charges and the allowed amount. The percentages of claims for which the maximum potential payment and one-quarter of this amount (a more realistic payment recovery estimate) would exceed IDR fees were determined, using US$150 and US$450 fee thresholds to approximate the range of final 2024 IDR fees. These values represented the percentage of OON claims that would be financially viable candidates for IDR submission. RESULTS. Among 76,221,264 claims for hospital-based specialties associated with in-network ED visits or inpatient stays, 1,482,973 (1.9%) were OON. The maximum potential payment exceeded fee thresholds of US$150 and US$450 for 55.0% and 32.1%, respectively, of batched OON claims for radiologists and 76.8% and 61.3% of batched OON claims for all other hospital-based specialties combined. At payment of one-quarter of that amount, these values were 26.9% and 10.6%, respectively, for radiologists and 56.6% and 38.4% for all other hospital-based specialties combined. CONCLUSION. The IDR process would be financially unviable for a substantial fraction of OON claims for hospital-based specialists (more so for radiology than for other such specialties). CLINICAL IMPACT. Although the NSA enacted important patient protections, IDR fees limit clinicians' opportunities to dispute payer-determined payments and potentially undermine their bargaining power in contract negotiations. Therefore, IDR rulemaking may negatively impact patient access to in-network care.

Federal Out-of-Network Balance Billing Legislation: Context and Implications for Radiology Practices.

Out-of-network (OON) balance billing, commonly known as surprise billing but better described as a surprise gap in health insurance coverage, occurs when an individual with private health insurance (vs a public insurer such as Medicare) is administered unanticipated care from a physician who is not in their health plan's network. Such unexpected OON care may result in substantial out-of-pocket costs for patients. Although ending surprise billing is patient centric, patient protective, and noncontroversial, passing federal legislation was challenging given its ability to disrupt insurer-physician good-faith negotiations and thus impact in-network rates. Like past proposals, the recently passed No Surprises Act takes patients out of the middle of insurer-physician OON reimbursement disputes, limiting patients' expense to standard in-network cost-sharing amounts. The new law, based on arbitration, attempts to protect good-faith negotiations between physicians and insurance companies and encourages network contracting. Radiology practices, even those that are fully in network or that never practiced surprise billing, could nonetheless be affected. Ongoing rulemaking processes will have meaningful roles in determining how the law is made operational. Physician and stakeholder advocacy has been and will continue to be crucial to the ongoing evolution of this process. © RSNA, 2021.

Price Transparency in Radiology: Challenges and Opportunities to Improve.

Increasing health care consumerism has been proposed as a solution for rising U.S. health care costs. Although price transparency initiatives aim to inform patients about outof-pocket costs (OOPCs), challenges remain regarding price transparency tools, including limited accuracy of estimates, accounting for multiple payers for the same service, the need for quality measures, optimal OOPC delivery, and psychosocial consequences of OOPC information. As radiology practices consider implementing price transparency initiatives, improvements should address enhancing patients' experience with OOPC communication.

Peer Learning in Radiology: Effect of a Pay-for-Performance Initiative on Clinical Impact and Usage.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to assess the effects of a pay-for-performance (PFP) initiative on clinical impact and usage of a radiology peer learning tool. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This retrospective study was performed at a large academic hospital. On May 1, 2017, a peer learning tool was implemented to facilitate radiologist peer feedback including clinical follow-up, positive feedback, and consultation. Subsequently, PFP target numbers for peer learning tool alerts by subspecialty divisions (October 1, 2017) and individual radiologists (October 1, 2018) were set. The primary outcome was report addendum rate (percent of clinical follow-up alerts with addenda), which was a proxy for peer learning tool clinical impact. Secondary outcomes were peer learning tool usage rate (number of peer learning tool alerts per 1000 radiology reports) and proportion of clinical follow-up alerts (percent of clinical follow-ups among all peer learning tool alerts). Outcomes were assessed biweekly using ANOVA and statistical process control analyses. RESULTS. Among 1,265,839 radiology reports from May 1, 2017, to September 29, 2019, a total of 20,902 peer learning tool alerts were generated. The clinical follow-up alert addendum rate was not significantly different between the period before the PFP initiative (9.9%) and the periods including division-wide (8.3%) and individual (7.9%) PFP initiatives (p = .55; ANOVA). Peer learning tool usage increased from 2.2 alerts per 1000 reports before the PFP initiative to 12.6 per 1000 during the division-wide PFP period (5.7-fold increase; 12.6/2.2), to 25.2 in the individual PFP period (11.5-fold increase vs before PFP; twofold increase vs division-wide) (p < .001). The clinical follow-up alert proportion decreased from 37.5% before the PFP initiative, to 34.4% in the division-wide period, to 31.3% in the individual PFP period. CONCLUSION. A PFP initiative improved radiologist engagement in peer learning by marked increase in peer learning tool usage rate without a change in report addendum rate as a proxy for clinical impact.

The Need for an Ecologic Understanding of Radiology Practice.

OBJECTIVE. Many models have been used to understand radiology practice, including economics, engineering, and information technology. Each has advantages, but each also has drawbacks, failing to illuminate important aspects of radiologists' work. A model that offers additional insights is ecology. CONCLUSION. By looking at radiology practice through the ecologic concept of symbiosis, radiologists can gain new understanding and appreciation of aspects of their work that can render it more fruitful and sustainable.

Special Report of the RSNA COVID-19 Task Force: The Short- and Long-term Financial Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Private Radiology Practices.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in widespread disruption to the global economy, including demand for imaging services. The resulting reduction in demand for imaging services had an abrupt and substantial impact on private radiology practices, which are heavily dependent on examination volumes for practice revenues. The goal of this report is to describe the specific experiences of radiologists working in various types of private radiology practices during the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Herein, the authors describe factors determining the impact of the pandemic on private practices, the challenges these practices faced, the cost levers leaders adjusted, and the government subsidies sought. In addition, the authors describe adjustments practices are making to their mid- and long-term strategic plans to pivot for long-term success while managing the COVID-19 pandemic. Private practices have crafted tiered strategies to respond to the impact of the pandemic by pulling various cost levers to adjust service availability, staffing, compensation, benefits, time off, and expense reductions. In addition, they have sought additional revenues, within the boundaries of their practice, to mitigate ongoing financial losses. The longer term impact of the pandemic will alter existing practices, making some of them more likely than others to succeed in the years ahead. This report synthesizes the collective experience of private-practice radiologists shared with members of the Radiological Society of North America COVID-19 Task Force, including discussions with colleagues and leaders of private-practice radiology groups from across the United States.

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. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.

Teaching Physician Supervision: Medicare's Ongoing Imperative for Academic Radiologists.

OBJECTIVE. Medicare permits radiologists to bill for trainee work but only in narrowly defined circumstances and with considerable consequences for noncompliance. The purpose of this article is to introduce relevant policy rationale and definitions, review payment requirements, outline documentation and operational considerations for diagnostic and interventional radiology services, and offer practical suggestions for academic radiologists striving to optimize regulatory compliance. CONCLUSION. As academic radiology departments advance their missions of service, teaching, and scholarship, most rely on residents and fellows to support expanding clinical demands. Given the risks of technical noncompliance, institutional commitment and ongoing education regarding teaching supervision compliance are warranted.

Basics of time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) and applications in breast imaging.

Time-drive activity-based costing (TDABC) is a practical way of calculating costs, decreasing waste, and improving efficiency. Although TDABC has been utilized in other service industries for years, it has only recently gained attention in healthcare. In this review article, we define the basic concepts and steps of TDABC and provide examples for applications in breast imaging.

Initial Impact of COVID-19 on Radiology Practices: An ACR/RBMA Survey.

PURPOSE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic affected radiology practices in many ways. The aim of this survey was to estimate declines in imaging volumes and financial impact across different practice settings during April 2020. METHODS: The survey, comprising 48 questions, was conducted among members of the ACR and the Radiology Business Management Association during May 2020. Survey questions focused on practice demographics, volumes, financials, personnel and staff adjustments, and anticipation of recovery. RESULTS: During April 2020, nearly all radiology practices reported substantial (56.4%-63.7%) declines in imaging volumes, with outpatient imaging volumes most severely affected. Mean gross charges declined by 50.1% to 54.8% and collections declined by 46.4% to 53.9%. Percentage reductions did not correlate with practice size. The majority of respondents believed that volumes would recover but not entirely (62%-88%) and anticipated a short-term recovery, with a surge likely in the short term due to postponement of elective imaging (52%-64%). About 16% of respondents reported that radiologists in their practices tested positive for COVID-19. More than half (52.3%) reported that availability of personal protective equipment had become an issue or was inadequate. A majority (62.3%) reported that their practices had existing remote reading or teleradiology capabilities in place before the pandemic, and 22.3% developed such capabilities in response to the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Radiology practices across different settings experienced substantial declines in imaging volumes and collections during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in April 2020. Most are actively engaged in both short- and long-term operational adjustments.

State variation in Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements in musculoskeletal radiology.

BACKGROUND: Medicaid reimbursements for physician services are determined by each state. However, how these reimbursements vary between states, and how these reimbursements vary in comparison to Medicare reimbursements is unknown for musculoskeletal radiology studies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the variability in Medicaid and Medicare physician reimbursements for musculoskeletal imaging studies between states. METHODS: We evaluated the Medicare and Medicaid physician reimbursements for the most commonly performed musculoskeletal radiology studies (15 radiographs and 10 MRIs) based on Medicare's 2017 National Summary Data File. Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements for these studies were compared by dollar difference (difference in reimbursement in dollars between Medicare and Medicaid). State-wide variability in these reimbursements was quantified by the coefficient of variation (COV) and by the dollar difference in reimbursement amounts. Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement rates were compared using a paired t-test, since the data was paired by state. RESULTS: The mean Medicaid reimbursement rates were lower for musculoskeletal radiographs (p < 0.05) but higher for musculoskeletal MRI studies than the Medicare rates (p < 0.05). As hypothesized, there was variation in both Medicare and Medicaid imaging reimbursements between states, however, the variation was substantially higher for Medicaid reimbursements. We found the Medicare reimbursement COV between states was 0.07 for all imaging studies, whereas the Medicaid reimbursement COV between states varied from 0.23 to 0.55 for radiographs and from 0.31 to 0.45 for MRIs. DISCUSSION: The data show that there is mild, but constant variation across imaging studies in Medicare reimbursement for musculoskeletal imaging studies between states. However, there is more variation in the Medicaid reimbursements across imaging studies and between states. More appropriate reimbursement may increase access to care for Medicaid patients.