The Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and Unethical Behavior.

This Viewpoint discusses the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and its flaws, including how they might be remedied by severing CMS dependence on Relative Value Update Committee estimates of time and intensity.

Added Therapeutic Benefit of Top-Selling Brand-name Drugs in Medicare.

Importance: The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 authorizes Medicare to negotiate prices of top-selling drugs based on several factors, including therapeutic benefit compared with existing treatment options. Objective: To determine the added therapeutic benefit of the 50 top-selling brand-name drugs in Medicare in 2020, as assessed by health technology assessment (HTA) organizations in Canada, France, and Germany. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, publicly available therapeutic benefit ratings, US Food and Drug Administration documents, and the Medicare Part B and Part D prescription drug spending dashboards were used to determine the 50 top-selling single-source drugs used in Medicare in 2020 and to assess their added therapeutic benefit ratings through 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Ratings from HTA bodies in Canada, France, and Germany were categorized as high (moderate or greater) or low (minor or no) added benefit. Each drug was rated based on its most favorable rating across countries, indications, subpopulations, and dosage forms. We compared the use and prerebate and postrebate (ie, net) Medicare spending between drugs with high vs low added benefit. Results: Forty-nine drugs (98%) received an HTA rating by at least 1 country; 22 of 36 drugs (61%) received a low added benefit rating in Canada, 34 of 47 in France (72%), and 17 of 29 in Germany (59%). Across countries, 27 drugs (55%) had a low added therapeutic rating, accounting for $19.3 billion in annual estimated net spending, or 35% of Medicare net spending on the 50 top-selling single-source drugs and 11% of total Medicare net prescription drug spending in 2020. Compared with those with high added benefit, drugs with a low added therapeutic rating were used by more Medicare beneficiaries (median 387 149 vs 44 869) and had lower net spending per beneficiary (median $992 vs $32 287). Conclusions and Relevance: Many top-selling Medicare drugs received low added benefit ratings by the national HTA organizations of Canada, France, and Germany. When negotiating prices for these drugs, Medicare should ensure they are not priced higher than reasonable therapeutic alternatives.

Estimated Medicare Part B Savings From Inflationary Rebates.

This study uses annual Medicare Part B spending data to examine the potential savings from the drug pricing reforms in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

Prescription Drug Spending in Fee-for-Service Medicare, 2008-2019.

Importance: Prescription drug spending is a topic of increased interest to the public and policymakers. However, prior assessments have been limited by focusing on retail spending (Part D-covered drugs), omitting clinician-administered (Part B-covered) drug spending, or focusing on all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, regardless of their enrollment into prescription drug coverage. Objective: To estimate the proportion of health care spending contributed by prescription drugs and to assess spending for retail and clinician-administered prescriptions. Design, Setting, and Participants: Descriptive, serial, cross-sectional analysis of a 20% random sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in the United States from 2008 to 2019 who were continuously enrolled in Parts A (hospital), B (medical), and D (prescription drug) benefits, and not in Medicare Advantage. Exposure: Calendar year. Main Outcomes and Measures: Net spending on retail (Part D-covered) and clinician-administered (Part B-covered) prescription drugs; prescription drug spending (spending on Part B-covered and Part D-covered drugs) as a percentage of total per-capita health care spending. Measures were adjusted for inflation and for postsale rebates (for Part D-covered drugs). Results: There were 3 201 284 beneficiaries enrolled in Parts A, B, and D in 2008 and 4 502 718 in 2019. In 2019, beneficiaries had a mean (SD) age of 71.7 (12.0) years, documented sex was female for 57.7%, and 69.5% had no low-income subsidies. Total per-capita spending was $16 345 in 2008 and $20 117 in 2019. Comparing 2008 with 2019, per-capita Part A spending was $7106 (95% CI, $7084-$7128) vs $7120 (95% CI, $7098-$7141), Part B drug spending was $720 (95% CI, $713-$728) vs $1641 (95% CI, $1629-$1653), Part B nondrug spending was $5113 (95% CI, $5105-$5122) vs $6702 (95% CI, $6692-$6712), and Part D net spending was $3122 (95% CI, $3117-$3127) vs $3477 (95% CI, $3466-$3489). The proportion of total annual spending attributed to prescription drugs increased from 24.0% in 2008 to 27.2% in 2019, net of estimated rebates and discounts. Conclusions and Relevance: In 2019, spending on prescription drugs represented approximately 27% of total spending among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Part D, even after accounting for postsale rebates.

Association of Generic Competition With Price Decreases in Physician-Administered Drugs and Estimated Price Decreases for Biosimilar Competition.

Importance: Price decreases of biologic and biosimilar products in Medicare Part B have been minimal, even with biosimilar competition. Medicare reimburses clinicians for biologics and biosimilars differently than for brand-name and generic drugs, which has generated greater price reductions. Objective: To characterize the nature of price competition among brand-name and generic drugs under Medicare Part B and to estimate the cost savings to the program of subjecting biologic and biosimilar therapies to a similar price competition. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed all brand-name drugs and their approved generic versions as well as biologics and biosimilars that were reimbursed under Medicare Part B from quarter 1 of 2005 to quarter 2 of 2021. Two separate data sets were created: brand-name and generic drugs as well as biologics and biosimilars data sets. Brand-name products with generic versions that were introduced before 2005 were excluded, and so were vaccines. Exposures: Number of generic and biosimilar competitors over time. Main Outcomes and Measures: Price change as a percentage of the brand-name drug or biologic price in the quarter before generic or biosimilar competition. Price change was modeled using a linear, fixed-effects time series regression, with the number of generic or biosimilar competitors as the main covariate. Time was expressed as the number of quarters since the first generic or biosimilar competitor entered the market. Savings were estimated by projecting the regression model of brand-name and generic drug competition to observed biologic and biosimilar competition and by applying the estimated price reduction to actual Medicare spending for those products from 2015 to 2019. Results: Of the 988 Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes identified, 50 (5.0%) met the inclusion criteria for the brand-name and generic drug data set and 28 (2.8%) met the criteria for the biologic and biosimilar data set. The first generic competitor was associated with reduced drug prices by 17.0%, the second competitor with a 39.5% decrease, the third competitor with a 52.5% decrease, and the fourth and more competitors with a 70.2% decrease (price decline was measured from brand-name drug price before the first generic competitor rather than from price established with fewer competitors). If biologics and biosimilars were subject to the same Medicare reimbursement framework as brand-name and generic drugs, Medicare spending on these products was estimated to have been 26.6% lower ($1.6 billion) from 2015 to 2019. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found minimal uptake of biosimilars and limited price reductions for biologics and biosimilars under the current Medicare Part B reimbursement policy. Adopting the bundled biosimilar reimbursement structure for biologic and biosimilar therapies may be associated with substantial savings and encourage greater biosimilar market entry.

A decade of increases in Medicare Part B pharmaceutical spending: what are the drivers?

BACKGROUND: Medicare Part B pharmaceutical spending has increased rapidly, more than doubling in 2006-2017. Yet, it is unclear whether this increase was driven by increased utilization or increased cost per claim. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative impact of changes in drug utilization and cost per claim on changes in Medicare Part B pharmaceutical spending in 2008-2016 overall, by drug type (specialty and nonspecialty) and therapeutic category. METHODS: In this retrospective descriptive study, we extracted all claims in 2008-2016 for separately payable Part B drugs from a 5% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries. Our study included 3 outcomes calculated annually for all included drugs: (1) spending, defined as the sum of total payments; (2) utilization, defined as total number of claims; and (3) cost per claim, defined as spending divided by the number of claims. Estimates of spending and utilization were expressed per beneficiary-year. Spending and cost per claim were adjusted for inflation. For each outcome, we calculated relative changes in 2008-2016. We repeated analyses stratifying by drug type (specialty and nonspecialty) and therapeutic class. RESULTS: Pharmaceutical spending in Medicare Part B increased by 34% from 2008-2016, driven by a 53% increase in the cost per claim. Utilization decreased by 12%. Spending on specialty drugs increased by 56%, driven by a 48% increase in the cost per claim and a 6% utilization increase. Spending on nonspecialty drugs decreased by 32% driven by an 18% reduction in the cost per claim and a 17% reduction in utilization. Spending on ophthalmic preparations increased by 281%, driven by a 238% utilization increase and a 13% increase in the cost per claim. Spending on antiarthritic and immunologic agents increased by 159%, driven by a 117% increase in the cost per claim and a 19% utilization increase. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare Part B pharmaceutical spending grew in recent years, despite decreased utilization, driven by an overall increase in the cost per claim. This was a product of rising drug prices and increased utilization of more expensive specialty drugs. These findings support the development of policies that aim to spur competition and control price growth of provider-administered drugs. DISCLOSURES: The authors acknowledge funding from the Myers Family Foundation. Hernandez was funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (grant number K01HL142847). Shrank is an employee of Humana. Good is an employee of the UPMC Health Plan Insurance Services Division. There are no other potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Comparing apples with oranges: administrative expenses and finances in Medicare systems.

OBJECTIVES: Proponents of a single-payer or public option health care system often cite the lower administrative expenses in public Medicare compared with those in private Medicare, claiming that this difference represents efficiency. We check the validity of this comparison in terms of accuracy and definitions and suggest expanding its scope to include expanded financial data of the 2 Medicare systems. STUDY DESIGN: Using annual Medicare Boards of Trustees and National Health Expenditure Accounts data from CMS and health insurers' financial statement data, we compare the level and percentage of the administrative expenses of the Medicare systems and show incompatible and not reconcilable definitions of administrative expenses. We expand our analysis to income, benefits, gains and losses, and loss ratios of the programs. METHODS: Our methodology is a careful comparison of categories of expenses between public and private insurers using official data sources. The comparison is both qualitative and quantitative. RESULTS: We validate the low administrative expenses of Medicare parts A, B, and D (1.35% of benefits in 2018) compared with Medicare Part C (10.86% of benefits without loss adjustment expenses [LAE] and 14.84% with LAE for 2018). Expanding the focus, the income and benefits per beneficiary grew faster and larger in Medicare parts A, B, and D than in Medicare Part C-a reversal of earlier trends. The public Medicare program suffered losses in 11 years during 2002-2018, whereas private insurers' Medicare remained solvent with about an 85% loss ratio. CONCLUSIONS: Comparisons of the systems in the United States would benefit from expanding the focus beyond incomparable administrative expenses. For the current period of coronavirus disease 2019, if the trends continue, public Medicare may suffer greater deficits relative to the private Medicare Part C.

Recent Trends in Medicare Utilization and Reimbursement for Orthopaedic Procedures Performed at Ambulatory Surgery Centers.

BACKGROUND: As part of a market-driven response to the increasing costs of hospital-based surgical care, an increasing volume of orthopaedic procedures are being performed in ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs). The purpose of the present study was to identify recent trends in orthopaedic ASC procedure volume, utilization, and reimbursements in the Medicare system between 2012 and 2017. METHODS: This cross-sectional, national study tracked annual Medicare claims and payments and aggregated data at the county level. Descriptive statistics and multivariate regression models were used to evaluate trends in procedure volume, utilization rates, and reimbursement rates, and to identify demographic predictors of ASC utilization. RESULTS: A total of 1,914,905 orthopaedic procedures were performed at ASCs in the Medicare population between 2012 and 2017, with an 8.8% increase in annual procedure volume and a 10.5% increase in average reimbursements per case. ASC orthopaedic procedure utilization, including utilization across all subspecialties, is strongly associated with metropolitan areas compared with rural areas. In addition, orthopaedic procedure utilization, including for sports and hand procedures, was found to be significantly higher in wealthier counties (measured by average household income) and in counties located in the South. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated increasing orthopaedic ASC procedure volume in recent years, driven by increases in hand procedure volume. Medicare reimbursements per case have steadily risen and outpaced the rate of inflation over the study period. However, as orthopaedic practice overhead continues to increase, other Medicare expenditures such as hospital payments and operational and implant costs also must be evaluated. These findings may provide a source of information that can be used by orthopaedic surgeons, policy makers, investors, and other stakeholders to make informed decisions regarding the costs and benefits of the use of ASCs for orthopaedic procedures.

Characterizing the providers of and reimbursement for chronic migraine chemodenervation among the Medicare population.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize reimbursement trends and providers for chronic migraine (CM) chemodenervation treatment within the Medicare population since the introduction of the migraine-specific CPT code in 2013. METHODS: We describe trends in procedure volume and total allowed charge on cross-sectional data obtained from 2013 to 2018 Medicare Part B National Summary files. We also utilized the 2017 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data to analyze higher volume providers (>10 procedures) of this treatment modality. RESULTS: The total number of CM chemodenervation treatments rose from 37,863 in 2013 to 135,023 in 2018 in a near-linear pattern (r = 0.999) and total allowed charges rose from ~$5,217,712 to $19,166,160 (r = 0.999). The majority of high-volume providers were neurologists (78.4%; 1060 of 1352), but a substantial proportion were advanced practice providers (APPs) (10.2%; 138 of 1352). Of the physicians, neurologists performed a higher mean number of procedures per physician compared to non-neurologists (59.6 [95% CI: 56.6-62.6] vs. 45.4 [95% CI: 41.0-50.0], p < 0.001). When comparing physicians and APPs, APPs were paid significantly less ($146.5 [95% CI: $145.6-$147.5] vs. $119.7 [95% CI: $117.6-$121.8], p < 0.001). As a percent of the number of total beneficiaries in each state, the percent of Medicare patients receiving ≥1 CM chemodenervation treatment from a high-volume provider in 2017 ranged from 0.024% (24 patients of 98,033 beneficiaries) in Wyoming to 0.135% (997 of 736,521) in Arizona, with six states falling outside of this range. CONCLUSION: Chemodenervation is an increasingly popular treatment for CM among neurologists and other providers, but the reason for this increase is unclear. There is substantial geographic variation in its use.

Associations of Intensive Lifestyle Intervention in Type 2 Diabetes With Health Care Use, Spending, and Disability: An Ancillary Study of the Look AHEAD Study.

Importance: Intensive lifestyle interventions focused on diet and exercise can reduce weight and improve diabetes management. However, the long-term effects on health care use and spending are unclear, especially for public payers. Objective: To estimate the association of effective intensive lifestyle intervention for weight loss with long-term health care use and Medicare spending. Design, Setting, and Participants: This ancillary study used data from the Look AHEAD randomized clinical trial, which randomized participants with type 2 diabetes to an intensive lifestyle intervention or control group (ie, diabetes support and education), provided ongoing intervention from 2001 to 2012, and demonstrated improved diabetes management and reduced health care costs during the intervention. This study compared Medicare data between study arms from 2012 to 2015 to determine whether the intervention was associated with persistent reductions in health care spending. Exposure: Starting in 2001, Look AHEAD's intervention group participated in sessions with lifestyle counselors, dieticians, exercise specialists, and behavioral therapists with the goal of reducing weight 7% in the first year. Sessions occurred weekly in the first 6 months of the intervention and decreased over the intervention period. The controls participated in periodic group education sessions that occurred 3 times per year in the first year and decreased to 1 time per year later in the trial. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included total Medicare spending, Part D prescription drug costs, Part A and Part B Medicare spending, hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and disability-related Medicare eligibility. Results: This study matched Medicare administrative records for 2796 Look AHEAD study participants (54% of 5145 participants initially randomized and 86% of 3246 participants consenting to linkages). Linked intervention and control participants were of a similar age (mean [SD] age, 59.6 [5.4] years vs 59.6 [5.5] years at randomization) and sex (818 [58.1%] women vs 822 [59.3%] women). There was no statistically significant difference in total Medicare spending between groups (difference, -$133 [95% CI, -$1946 to $1681]; P = .89). In the intervention group, compared with the control group, there was statistically significantly higher Part B spending (difference, $513 [95% CI, $70 to $955]; P = .02) but lower prescription drug costs (difference, -$803 [95% CI, -$1522 to -$83]; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: This ancillary study of a randomized clinical trial found that reductions in health care use and spending associated with an intensive lifestyle intervention for type 2 diabetes diminished as participants aged. Intensive lifestyle interventions may need to be sustained to reduce long-term health care spending. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03952728.

Bundled Medicare Payments: Trends in Utilization and Physician Payments for Dialysis Arteriovenous Fistula and Graft Maintenance Procedures From 2010 to 2018.

OBJECTIVE. The purposes of this study were to evaluate the volume of and payments for dialysis arteriovenous fistula and arteriovenous graft maintenance procedures among Medicare beneficiaries from 2010 to 2018 and analyze trends by physician specialty and practice setting after the introduction of bundled Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes in 2017. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Claims from the Medicare Part B Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master File for the years 2010 through 2018 were extracted by use of the CPT codes for arteriovenous fistula and arteriovenous graft maintenance procedures. Total volumes, payment amounts (professional component), and trends were analyzed by physician specialty and practice setting. RESULTS. From 2010 to 2018, the volume of dialysis circuit maintenance procedures increased 25%, from 308,140 to 385,440 procedures. This increase was driven by increased volumes among nephrologists (30.0%) and surgeons (30.5%) with only a modest increase for interventional radiologists (1.5%). Total physician payments increased 20%, from $333.8 million to $399.5 million. After the introduction of bundled CPT codes in 2017, per-procedure physician payment decreased from $1073 in 2016 to $1025 in 2017 (4.5%). The true decrease in per-procedure payment was underestimated owing to inclusion of higher-cost stenting and embolization procedures in the dialysis-specific codes beginning in 2017. CONCLUSION. The volume of dialysis access maintenance procedures and total physician payments increased from 2010 to 2018 in keeping with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Fistula First Breakthrough Initiative. Introduction of bundled CPT codes in 2017, designed to reduce redundant payments, correlated with a decrease in average per-procedure physician payment.

Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Cost Savings Achievable with Increased Bevacizumab Reimbursement and Use.

PURPOSE: To model Medicare Part B and patient savings associated with increased bevacizumab payment and use for intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy. DESIGN: Cost analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS®) Registry data. METHODS: Medicare claims and IRIS® Registry data were used to calculate Medicare Part B expenditures and patient copayments for anti-VEGF agents with increasing reimbursement and use of bevacizumab relative to ranibizumab and aflibercept. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Medicare Part B costs and patient copayments for anti-VEGF agents in the Medicare fee-for-service population. RESULTS: Increasing bevacizumab reimbursement to $125.78, equalizing the dollar margin with aflibercept, would result in Medicare Part B savings of $468 million and patient savings of $119 million with a 10% increase in bevacizumab market share. CONCLUSIONS: Increased use of bevacizumab achievable with increased reimbursement to eliminate the financial disincentive to its use would result in substantial savings for the Medicare Part B program and for patients receiving anti-VEGF intravitreal injections.

Biosimilar Uptake in Medicare Part B Varied Across Hospital Outpatient Departments and Physician Practices: The Case of Filgrastim.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the uptake of filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio), the first biosimilar to launch in the United States, in the Medicare Part B fee-for-service program from its launch in September 2015 to December 2017 and compare characteristics of patients and facilities that used filgrastim-sndz or originator filgrastim (Neupogen). METHODS: The 20% sample of Medicare Part B fee-for-service administrative claims data was used to extract information on claims for any filgrastim product between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017. RESULTS: The utilization of filgrastim-sndz in Medicare Part B increased sharply between January and August 2016, surpassing filgrastim by November 2017, contributing to a 30% decrease in overall spending on this drug since 2015. Uptake was faster and larger in physician practices compared with hospital outpatient departments. About 77% of patients receiving filgrastim-sndz were new users. Utilization patterns indicated that product selection occurred at the facility level, rather than being at the discretion of the prescribing physician or driven by patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: Uptake of biosimilar filgrastim in the Medicare Part B program occurred despite multiple challenges to the adoption of biosimilars in the US market, suggesting that substantial potential savings could be generated by improving biosimilar uptake. Our findings indicated that physician practices and hospital outpatient departments have distinctive biosimilar uptake patterns. Thus policy makers aiming to contain Medicare Part B spending might consider focusing on incentivizing biosimilar uptake among hospital outpatient departments.

Sepsis Among Medicare Beneficiaries: 1. The Burdens of Sepsis, 2012-2018.

OBJECTIVES: To provide contemporary estimates of the burdens (costs and mortality) associated with acute inpatient Medicare beneficiary admissions for sepsis. DESIGN: Analysis of paid Medicare claims via the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services DataLink Project. SETTING: All U.S. acute care hospitals, excluding federally operated hospitals (Veterans Administration and Defense Health Agency). PATIENTS: All Medicare beneficiaries, 2012-2018, with an inpatient admission including one or more explicit sepsis codes. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Total inpatient hospital and skilled nursing facility admission counts, costs, and mortality over time. From calendar year (CY)2012-CY2018, the total number of Medicare Part A/B (fee-for-service) beneficiaries with an inpatient hospital admission associated with an explicit sepsis code rose from 811,644 to 1,136,889. The total cost of inpatient hospital admission including an explicit sepsis code for those beneficiaries in those calendar years rose from $17,792,657,303 to $22,439,794,212. The total cost of skilled nursing facility care in the 90 days subsequent to an inpatient hospital discharge that included an explicit sepsis code for Medicare Part A/B rose from $3,931,616,160 to $5,623,862,486 over that same interval. Precise costs are not available for Medicare Part C (Medicare Advantage) patients. Using available federal data sources, we estimated the aggregate cost of inpatient admissions and skilled nursing facility admissions for Medicare Advantage patients to have risen from $6.0 to $13.4 billion over the CY2012-CY2018 interval. Combining data for fee-for-service beneficiaries and estimates for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries, we estimate the total inpatient admission sepsis cost and any subsequent skilled nursing facility admission for all (fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage) Medicare patients to have risen from $27.7 to $41.5 billion. Contemporary 6-month mortality rates for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with a sepsis inpatient admission remain high: for septic shock, approximately 60%; for severe sepsis, approximately 36%; for sepsis attributed to a specific organism, approximately 31%; and for unspecified sepsis, approximately 27%. CONCLUSION: Sepsis remains common, costly to treat, and presages significant mortality for Medicare beneficiaries.

Recent Trends in Medicare Reimbursements to Nonradiologist Physicians for In-Office MRI and CT.

PURPOSE: Previous studies demonstrated rapid growth in payments to nonradiologist providers (NRPs) for MRI and CT in their private offices. In this study, we re-examine the trends in these payments. METHODS: The nationwide Medicare Part B master files from 2004 to 2016 were accessed. They provide payment data for all Current Procedural Terminology codes. Codes for MRI and CT were selected. Global and technical component claims were counted. Medicare specialty codes identified payments made to NRPs and radiologists, and place-of-service codes identified payments directed to their private offices. RESULTS: Medicare MRI payments to NRPs peaked in 2006 at $247.7 million. As a result of the Deficit Reduction Act, there was a sharp drop to $189.5 million in 2007, eventually declining to $101.6 million by 2016 (-59% from peak in 2006). The NRP specialty groups with the highest payments for MRI ownership include orthopedists, neurologists, primary care physicians, and hospital-based specialists (pathology, physiatry, and hospitalists). Medicare CT payments to NRPs peaked in 2008 at $284.1 million and declined to $94.7 million in 2016 (-67% from peak). Cardiologists, primary care physicians, internal medicine specialists, urologists, and medical oncologists accounted for the most payments made to NRPs. Dollars paid to radiologists for private office MRI and CT dropped substantially since they peaked in 2006. CONCLUSIONS: NRP private offices (and radiology offices also) experienced massive decreases in Medicare payments for MRI and CT since peaking in 2006 and 2008, respectively. These trends suggest the financial viability of private office practice may be in jeopardy. However, certain recent policy changes could promote a resurgence.