Secondary Interpretation of CT Examinations: Frequency and Payment in the Medicare Fee-for-Service Population

PurposeSecondary interpretation of diagnostic imaging examinations (providing a second formal interpretation for imaging performed at another institution) may reduce repeat imaging after transfer of care. Recently, CMS requested information to guide payment policy. We aimed to study historic trends in submitted claims and payments for secondary interpretation services in the Medicare fee-for-service population.MethodsApplying current procedural terminology codes by body part to Medicare Part B aggregate claims files, we identified all CT interpretation services rendered between 1999 and 2012. Secondary interpretation services were identified using combined code modifiers 26 and 77, in accordance with CMS billing guidelines. The frequencies of billed and denied services were extracted for primary and secondary CT interpretation services. Primary versus secondary interpretation denial rates were calculated and compared.ResultsOf all 227 million Medicare Part B claims for CT services, 299,468 (0.13%) were for secondary interpretation services. From 1999 to 2012, growth in secondary interpretation claims outpaced that in primary interpretation claims (+811% versus +56%; compound annual growth rate 17% versus 3.2%). As a percentage of all services, secondary interpretations increased from 0.05% in 1999 to 0.30% in 2012. Denial rates for second interpretations decreased from 1999 to 2012 (12.7% to 7.0%), and now approach those for primary interpretations (5.4% in 2012).ConclusionsMedicare claims for secondary interpretation of CT examinations are growing but account for less than 1% of all billed CT interpretation services. Denial rates are similar to those of primary interpretation services.     

The Health Care Value Transparency Movement and Its Implications for Radiology

The US health care system is in the midst of disruptive changes intended to expand access, improve outcomes, and lower costs. As part of this movement, a growing number of stakeholders have advocated dramatically increasing consumer transparency into the quality and price of health care services. The authors review the general movement toward American health care value transparency within the public, private, and nonprofit sectors, with an emphasis on those initiatives most relevant to radiology. They conclude that radiology, along with other “ancillary services,” has been a major focus of early efforts to enhance consumer price transparency. By contrast, radiology as a field remains in the “middle of the pack” with regard to quality transparency. There is thus the danger that radiology value transparency in its current form will stimulate primarily price-based competition, erode provider profit margins, and disincentivize quality. The authors conclude with suggested actions radiologists can take to ensure that a more optimal balance is struck between quality transparency and price transparency, one that will enable true value-based competition among radiologists rather than commoditization.     

Recent Trends in Clinical Setting and Provider Specialty for Endovascular Peripheral Artery Disease Interventions for the Medicare Population

PurposeTo describe national trends in peripheral endovascular interventions by physician specialty, anatomic segment of disease, and clinical location of service.Materials and MethodsCurrent Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify claims for peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs) in 2011–2017 Physician Supplier Procedure Summary master files, which contain 100% Part B Medicare billing. Market share was defined as enrollment-adjusted proportion of billed PVI services for each specialty. Annual volume of billed services was additionally evaluated by clinical location (inpatient, outpatient, office-based laboratories) and anatomic segment of disease (iliac, femoral/popliteal, infrapopliteal).ResultsAggregate PVI claims increased 31.3%, from 227,091 in 2011 to 298,127 in 2017. Annual market share remained relatively stable for all specialties: surgery, 48.3%–49.6%; cardiology, 37.2%–35.1%; radiology, 12.8%–13.3%. Accounting for Medicare enrollment, the volume of iliac interventions decreased by 18% over the study period, while femoral/popliteal interventions increased modestly (+7.5%) and infrapopliteal interventions increased (+46%). The greatest proportional increase in infrapopliteal claims occurred among radiologists (surgeons +40.4%, cardiologists +32.1%, radiologists +106.6%). Adjusting for enrollment, claims from office-based laboratories increased substantially (+305.7%), while hospital-based billing decreased (inpatient −25.7%, outpatient −12.9%). Office-based laboratory utilization increased dramatically with all specialties (surgery +331.8%, cardiology +256.0%, radiology +475.7%).ConclusionsUtilization of PVIs continues to increase, while specialty market shares have stabilized since 2011, leaving surgeons and cardiologists as the major providers of endovascular peripheral artery disease care. The greatest relative increases are occurring in infrapopliteal interventions and office-based laboratory procedures, where radiologist involvement has increased dramatically.     

Determining the Patient Complexity of Head CT Examinations: Implications for Proper Valuation of a Critical Imaging Service

PurposeThe head-computed tomography (CT) exam code was recently identified by policy makers as having a potentially overvalued resource value units (RVU). A critical aspect in determining RVUs is the complexity of patients undergoing the service. This study evaluated the complexity of patients undergoing head-CT.MethodsThe 2017 Medicare PSPS Master File was used to identify the most common site for performing head-CT examinations. Given the most common location, the 5% Research Identifiable File, was then used to evaluate complexity of patients undergoing head CT on the same day as an emergency department (ED) visit based on the Evaluation & Management (E&M) “level” of these visits (1-least complex to 5-most complex patient) and the ICD-10 diagnosis coding associated with the billed head CT claims.Results56.1% of head CT examinations were performed in the ED. Seventy percent of noncontrast exams performed in the ED were ordered in the most complex patient encounters (level 5 E&M visits). The most common ICD-10 code for head-CT without intravenous contrast billed with a level 5 E&M visit was “dizziness and giddiness,” and for head-CT without and with intravenous contrast was “headache.”ConclusionHead-CT is not only most frequently ordered in the ED, but also during the most complex ED visits, suggesting that the ICD-10 codes associated with such exams do not appropriately reflects patient complexity. The valuation process should also consider the complexity of associated billed patient encounters, as indicated by E&M visit levels.     

Secondary Interpretations of Diagnostic Imaging Examinations: Patient Liabilities and Out-of-Pocket Costs

BackgroundSecondary interpretations of diagnostic imaging examinations are increasingly performed to improve care for complex patients. We sought to determine associated patient-billed liabilities and out-of-pocket payments and to identify patient and imaging study characteristics that correlate with higher patient bills and out-of-pocket payments.MethodsData extracted for 7,740 secondary imaging interpretations performed across our large metropolitan health system over 25 months included total professional charges, insurance payments, patient-billed liabilities, and patient out-of-pocket payments. Multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify patient and imaging factors associated with higher patient bills and out-of-pocket payments.ResultsMean secondary interpretation professional charges, insurance payments, patient-billed liabilities, and patient out-of-pocket payments were $306.50, $108.02, $27.80, and $14.55, respectively. Patients received bills for 47.5% of services and made out-of-pocket payments for 17.1%. Patient-billed liabilities and out-of-pocket payments were higher for patients who were younger and uninsured and for secondary interpretations requested for patients seen in outpatient (versus inpatient) settings. Patient-billed liabilities and out-of-pocket payments were lower for patients who were Black (versus White) and had government-sponsored (versus commercial) insurance and for secondary interpretations performed during the second, third, or fourth (versus first) quarter of each calendar year.ConclusionObserved differences between patient-billed liabilities and out-of-pocket payments suggest that secondary interpretations of diagnostic imaging examinations can result in small but real patient financial burdens. Improved price transparency and enhanced patient communication about the value of secondary interpretations could reduce potential surprises when patients receive these bills.     

Changes in Current Procedural Terminology Coding and Its Effect on Specialty-Level Utilization of Musculoskeletal Ultrasound

PurposeConcerns regarding increasing utilization of non-vascular extremity ultrasound (US) imaging led to the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) Editorial Panel separating a singular billing code into distinct comprehensive and focused examination codes with differential reimbursement. We explore this policy change's temporal association with utilization.MethodsUsing Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files, we identified all nonvascular extremity US services billed for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries between 1994 and 2017. These included generic (CPT code 76880 from 1994 to 2010), complete (code 76881 from 2011 to 2017), and limited (code 76882 from 2011 to 2017) examinations. Annual utilization per 100,000 beneficiaries was computed and stratified by billing specialty. Compound annual growth rates were calculated.ResultsRadiologists and podiatrists were the top 2 billing specialties for nonvascular extremity US examinations. From 1994 to 2010, radiologist services increased 6.1% annually. Following the 2011 code separation, radiologists’ utilization increased 2.7% annually for complete and 12.3% for limited exams. Between 1994 and 2017, radiologists’ market share decreased 72.8% to 40.4%. From 1994 to 2010, podiatrist services increased 87.1% annually. Following the code separation, podiatrists’ annual utilization growth stabilized 0.4% for complete and 0.6% for limited exams. Podiatrists’ market share was 9.1% in 2001, peaked at 31.3% in 2009, and declined to 14.3% in 2017.ConclusionsPrior rapid growth in extremity nonvascular US for podiatrists slowed considerably following CPT code separation in 2011. Subsequent service growth has largely been related to less costly, focused examinations performed by radiologists. Further study may help better understand how CPT coding changes alter imaging utilization more broadly.     

Out-of-Pocket Costs for Advanced Imaging Across the US Private Insurance Marketplace

PurposeThe aim of this study was to characterize out-of-pocket patient costs for advanced imaging across the US private insurance marketplace.MethodsUsing the 2017 CMS Health Insurance Marketplace Benefits and Cost Sharing Public Use File, which details coverage policies for qualified health plans on federally facilitated marketplaces, measures of out-of-pocket costs for advanced imaging and other essential health benefits were analyzed for all 18,429 plans.ResultsIndependent of deductibles, 48.0% of plans required coinsurance (percentage fees) for advanced imaging, 9.7% required copayments (flat fees), and 8.0% required both; 34.3% required neither. For out-of-network services, 91.5% required coinsurance, 0.1% copayments, and 1.0% both; only 7.4% required neither. In the presence of deductibles, patient coinsurance burdens for advanced imaging in and out of network were 27.7% and 47.7%, respectively, and average in- and out-of-network copayments were $319 and $630, respectively. In the presence of deductibles, patients’ average coinsurance ranged from 10.0% to 40.9% in network and from 29.1% to 75.0% out of network by state; these tended to be higher in lower income states (r = −0.332). For no-deductible policies, patients’ average out-of-network coinsurance burden for advanced imaging was 99.9%. Among assessed benefits, advanced imaging had the highest in-network and second highest out-of-network copayments.ConclusionsIn the US private insurance marketplace, patients very commonly pay coinsurance when undergoing advanced imaging, both in and out of network. But out-of-network services usually involve drastically higher patient financial responsibilities (potentially 100% of examination cost). To more effectively engage patients in shared decision making and mitigate the hardships of surprise balance billing, radiologists should facilitate transparent communication of advanced imaging costs with patients.     

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

PurposeWith radiology practices increasingly employing nonphysician practitioners (NPPs), we aimed to characterize specific NPP clinical roles.MethodsLinking 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.ResultsAs 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%).ConclusionsAs 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.     

Costs Versus Quality in Imaging Examination Decisions

PurposeEmerging price transparency tools allow consumers to access individualized out-of-pocket cost (OOPC) estimates, but many lack quality metrics. The aim of this study was to evaluate how potential patients weigh imaging OOPC versus measures of quality when selecting an imaging center for a hypothetical health condition (back pain).MethodsSurveying 1,310 Amazon Mechanical Turk volunteers, the authors evaluated how potential patients weigh MRI OOPC ($50 vs $400 vs unknown cost at the time of the examination, with billed OOPC responsibility varying between $50 and $3,500) versus service quality surrogates using three different quality indicators (examination results accuracy, physician recommendation of an imaging center on the basis of familiarity, and facility online star ratings) in their decisions when selecting a radiology center for imaging of two hypothetical clinical conditions (mild and severe back pain), using ranking-based conjoint analyses.ResultsA total of 1,025 eligible respondents completed the survey. Respondents expressed higher preference for perceived quality over cost in hypothetical severe back pain scenarios, resulting in a relative importance of 65.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62.2%-69.4%) for improved imaging results accuracy from 87% to 96%, 63.9% (95% CI, 60.3%-67.5%) for provider recommendations of the facility, and 80.1% (95% CI, 74.2%-85.9%) for an increase in online review star ratings from 2.5 to 4.5 (out of 5) compared with an increased cost from $50 to $400. For mild back pain, there was no statistical difference in respondents’ preference for perceived quality and cost.ConclusionsIncorporating quality metrics into price transparency tools is important. Further research is needed to identify metrics that are most comparable and easily obtainable across imaging centers that remain important to patients.     

How Much Is That Head CT? Price Transparency and Variability in Radiology

PurposeTo extend the investigation of price transparency and variability to medical imaging.MethodsEighteen upper-tier academic hospitals identified by U.S. News & World Report and 14 of the 100 largest private radiology practices in the country identified by the Radiology Business Journal were contacted by telephone between December 2013 and February 2014 to determine the cash price for a noncontrast head CT. The price for a noncontrast head CT was chosen to assess price transparency in medical imaging because it represents a standard imaging examination with minimal differences in quality.ResultsFourteen upper-tier academic hospitals (78%) and 11 private practices (79%) were able to provide prices for a noncontrast head CT. There was no significant difference between the proportions of upper-tier academic hospitals and private practices that were able to provide prices for a noncontrast head CT (P = .96). The average total price for the upper-tier academic hospitals was $1,390.12 ± $686.13, with the price ranging from $391.62 to $2,015. The average total price for the private practices was $681.60 ± $563.58, with the total price ranging from $211 to $2,200.ConclusionsPrices for a noncontrast head CT study were readily available from the vast majority of upper-tier academic hospitals and private practices, although there was tremendous variation in the price estimates both within and between the upper-tier academic hospitals and private practices. Routine medical imaging thus appears to be more price transparent compared with other health care services.     

Predictors of MRI Leakage Among Patients Attributed to an Academic Medical Center Commercial Risk-Shared Insurance Contract

PurposeFor health care organizations engaged in risk-shared insurance contracts, leakage of advanced diagnostic imaging to imaging sites not affiliated with the risk-sharing organization may undermine performance on financial and quality metrics. The goal of this study was to identify factors that are predictive of leakage of MRI examinations among patients attributed to an academic health care organization’s risk-shared commercial insurance contract.MethodsAdministrative claims data from 2015 through 2016 for patients attributed to a single risk-shared commercial insurance contract at a large academic medical center (AMC) were analyzed. Primary outcome was MRI leakage: an outpatient MRI study performed at a site not affiliated with the AMC’s integrated health care system. Ordering provider alignment with the AMC’s risk-shared insurance contract was categorized as strong, weak, or none. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the relationship between provider alignment and MRI leakage, while adjusting for selected covariates.ResultsAmong 8,215 patients meeting inclusion criteria, there were 13,272 MRI encounters. The overall proportion of leaked MRI studies was 12.7%. MRI studies ordered by providers with weak AMC alignment (odds ratio, 3.16; 95% confidence interval, 2.49-4.02) or no AMC alignment (odds ratio, 3.68; 95% confidence interval, 3.12-4.33) were more likely to leak than MRI studies ordered by providers with strong AMC alignment.ConclusionsAn ordering provider with no alignment with an AMC’s commercial risk-shared insurance contract was the strongest predictor of MRI leakage. Population health management initiatives aimed at reducing leakage should consider the impact of provider networks and clinical referral patterns that drive imaging utilization.     

Volume and Coverage of Secondary Imaging Interpretation Under Medicare, 2003 to 2016

PurposeThe aim of this study was to assess changing Medicare volumes of, and coverage for, secondary interpretations of diagnostic imaging examinations stratified by modality and body region service families.MethodsMedicare Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files for 2003 to 2016 were obtained. Aggregate Part B fee-for-service claims frequency and payment data were isolated for noninvasive diagnostic imaging and stratified by service family. Using published Medicare payment rules, secondary interpretations were identified as studies billed using both modifiers 26 and 77. Billed and denied services volumes were calculated and compared across modality and body region service families.ResultsSeven service families showed a compound annual growth rate from 2003 to 2016 of >20% (an additional 12 service families, >10% growth). For select high-volume service families (chest radiography and fluoroscopy [R&F], brain MRI, and abdominal and pelvic CT), relative growth in billed secondary interpretation services exceeded that for primary interpretations. In 2016, body region and modality service families with the most billed secondary interpretations were chest R&F (674,124), abdominal and pelvic R&F (65,566), brain CT (45,642), extremity R&F (34,560), abdominal and pelvic CT (14,269), and chest CT (10,914). All service families had secondary interpretation denial rates <25% in 2016 (15 service families, <10%).ConclusionsAmong Medicare beneficiaries, the frequency of billed secondary interpretation services for diagnostic imaging services increased from 2003 to 2016 across a broad range of modalities and body regions, often dramatically. Payment denial rates were consistently low across service families. As CMS continues to seek input on appropriate coverage for these services, these findings suggest increasing clinical demand for and payer acceptance of these value-added radiologist services.     

Shorter Perceived Outpatient MRI Wait Times Associated With Higher Patient Satisfaction

PurposeThe aim of this study was to assess differences in perceived versus actual wait times among patients undergoing outpatient MRI examinations and to correlate those times with patient satisfaction.MethodsOver 15 weeks, 190 patients presenting for outpatient MR in a radiology department in which “patient experience” is one of the stated strategic priorities were asked to (1) estimate their wait times for various stages in the imaging process and (2) state their satisfaction with their imaging experience. Perceived times were compared with actual electronic time stamps. Perceived and actual times were compared and correlated with standardized satisfaction scores using Kendall τ correlation.ResultsThe mean actual wait time between patient arrival and examination start was 53.4 ± 33.8 min, whereas patients perceived a mean wait time of 27.8 ± 23.1 min, a statistically significant underestimation of 25.6 min (P < .001). Both shorter actual and perceived wait times at all points during patient encounters were correlated with higher satisfaction scores (P < .001).ConclusionsPatients undergoing outpatient MR examinations in an environment designed to optimize patient experience underestimated wait times at all points during their encounters. Shorter perceived and actual wait times were both correlated with higher satisfaction scores. As satisfaction surveys play a larger role in an environment of metric transparency and value-based payments, better understanding of such factors will be increasingly important.     

The cost effectiveness of Air Force optometry

A study was performed which attempted to assess the relative value of a military optometric practice and to provide epidemiological information on ocular pathologies typical in that practice setting. A mock billing system was employed which assessed fees against patient examinations and procedures using Current Procedural Terminology codes. The fees were determined from a survey of the fee structures of local optometrists. The study showed that the military optometric practice was cost effective in relation to the cost that would be incurred through civilian referral. It also demonstrated that military optometric practice is full in scope and encounters a wide variety of pathological entities above and beyond standard refractive modalities.     

RadTranslate: An Artificial Intelligence–Powered Intervention for Urgent Imaging to Enhance Care Equity for Patients With Limited English Proficiency During the COVID-19 Pandemic

PurposeDisproportionally high rates of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been noted among communities with limited English proficiency, resulting in an unmet need for improved multilingual care and interpreter services. To enhance multilingual care, the authors created a freely available web application, RadTranslate, that provides multilingual radiology examination instructions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of this intervention in radiology.MethodsThe device-agnostic web application leverages artificial intelligence text-to-speech technology to provide standardized, human-like spoken examination instructions in the patient’s preferred language. Standardized phrases were collected from a consensus group consisting of technologists, radiologists, and ancillary staff members. RadTranslate was piloted in Spanish for chest radiography performed at a COVID-19 triage outpatient center that served a predominantly Spanish-speaking Latino community. Implementation included a tablet displaying the application in the chest radiography room. Imaging appointment duration was measured and compared between pre- and postimplementation groups.ResultsIn the 63-day test period after launch, there were 1,267 application uses, with technologists voluntarily switching exclusively to RadTranslate for Spanish-speaking patients. The most used phrases were a general explanation of the examination (30% of total), followed by instructions to disrobe and remove any jewelry (12%). There was no significant difference in imaging appointment duration (11 ± 7 and 12 ± 3 min for standard of care versus RadTranslate, respectively), but variability was significantly lower when RadTranslate was used (P = .003).ConclusionsArtificial intelligence–aided multilingual audio instructions were successfully integrated into imaging workflows, reducing strain on medical interpreters and variance in throughput and resulting in more reliable average examination length.     

Location,Location, Location: The Association Between Imaging Setting and Follow-Up of Findings of Indeterminate Malignant Potential

PurposeTo evaluate the relationship between patient location at time of imaging and completion of relevant imaging follow-up for findings with indeterminate malignant potential.MethodsWe used a mandatory hospital-wide standardized assessment categorization system to analyze all ultrasound, CT, and MRI examinations performed over a 7-month period. Multivariate logistic regression, adjusted for imaging modality, characteristics of patients, ordering clinicians, and interpreting radiologists, was used to evaluate the relationship between patient location (outpatient, inpatient, or emergency department) at the time of index examination and completion of relevant outpatient imaging follow-up.ResultsRelevant follow-up occurred in 49% of index examinations, with a greater percentage among those performed in the outpatient setting compared with those performed in the inpatient or emergency department settings (62% versus 18% versus 17%, respectively). Compared with examinations obtained in the outpatient setting, examinations performed in the emergency department (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03-0.19) and inpatient (aOR 0.14; 95% CI, 0.09-0.23) settings were less likely to be followed up. Black patients and those residing in lower-income neighborhoods were also less likely to receive relevant follow-up. Few lesions progressed to more suspicious lesions (4.6%).ConclusionsPatient location at time of imaging is associated with the likelihood of completing relevant follow-up imaging for lesions with indeterminate malignant potential. Future work should evaluate health system-level care processes related to care setting, as well as their effects on appropriate follow-up imaging. Doing so would support efforts to improve appropriate follow-up imaging and reduce health care disparities.     

Economic impact of outreach athletic trainers on a health system: implications for program growth and sustainability

Objectives: There are numerous benefits of organized athletics, but there is an inherent risk with competitive participation. The need for proper care for high school and community athletes can be met with comprehensive community sports medicine programs, and the employment of certified athletic trainers (AT-Cs). The benefit of clinic-based AT-C has been clearly demonstrated, but there has been little published on the economics of outreach AT-C serving directly in the community. Our hypothesis was that outreach AT-Cs are economically sustainable to an academic health system.

Methods: Evaluation of clinical business generated from the outreach Sports Medicine AT-C program at our institution was performed from fiscal years 2012 to 2015 to determine new referrals, billable patient encounters (bpe), and corresponding revenue generated. Data were retrieved from an existing aggregate business analysis, including both professional billing and hospital billing; data were restricted to the fiscal year of the initial referral. Both new patients and patients with established care were identified. Total revenue was determined, as well as the distribution across clinical departments within our health system.

Results: 8570 bpe resulted from 843 patients referred into the system, yielding $2286,733 in total revenue. Of these, 187 were new patients, yielding 1602 bpe. Each patient generated an average of 10.17 bpe, by combining revenue across services; this yielded an average of $2712 per patient generated through the AT-C program.

Conclusion: Affiliation between a health system and community sports teams through an outreach AT-C program is an economically sustainable, symbiotic relationship. Additionally, there is not only a positive economic impact for sports medicine and orthopaedic providers but also a distinct benefit to the entire health system. This is the first study to demonstrate that an outreach AT-C program is financially sustainable and directly benefits the entire health system across many subspecialties.     

Redundant Imaging in Transient Ischemic Attack: Evidence From the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample

PurposeIncreasing emergency department (ED) compliance with transient ischemic attack (TIA) imaging guidelines has previously been demonstrated, along with a substantial rise in imaging utilization over the past decade. The purpose of this study was to characterize the most commonly used combinations of imaging studies during ED workup of TIA and to quantify prevalence of redundant imaging (RI).MethodsTIA discharges from EDs in the United States from 2006 to 2017 were identified in the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample. Brain and neurovascular imaging obtained during the encounter was identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes. RI was defined as an ED encounter with any duplicate cross-sectional brain, brain-vascular, or neck-vascular imaging. Patient demographics and hospital characteristics were incorporated into a multivariable logistic regression analysis to identify significant associations with RI.ResultsThere were 184,870 discharges with TIA from EDs in 2017. RI (brain) was observed in 55,513 (30%) of encounters. RI (brain-vascular) and RI (neck-vascular) imaging was identified in 5,149 (2.8%) and 1,325 (0.7%) of encounters, respectively. Decreased odds of obtaining RI was observed in Medicaid patients (odds ratio [OR]: 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64-0.81), non–trauma centers (OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.26-0.93), rural hospital locations (OR: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.11-0.29), and weekend encounters (OR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.85-0.96). Trend analysis from 2006 to 2017 demonstrated a rise in RI (brain) from 2.3% of encounters in 2006 to 30% of encounters in 2017. RI for patients discharged from EDs with TIA in 2017 resulted in additional charges of approximately US$8,670,832.ConclusionIncreased imaging utilization for TIA workup across EDs in the United States is associated with rising use of redundant imaging. We identify imaging practices that could be targeted to mitigate health care expenditures while adhering to TIA imaging guidelines.     

Diagnostic Imaging Use for the Initial Evaluation of Low Back Pain by Primary Care Providers in the United States: 2011-2016

ObjectiveHigh-value care guidelines from multiple medical societies recommend against imaging for the initial evaluation of low back pain in the absence of red flag symptoms. We aimed to determine the current temporal and geographic landscape of imaging ordering patterns for this indication among US primary care providers.MethodsUsing a national commercial insurance claims database, we identified patients between 18 and 64 years old who presented to a primary care provider for an initial evaluation of low back pain between 2011 and 2016. Patients were identified via International Classification of Diseases codes, and the use of diagnostic imaging was identified by Current Procedural Terminology codes. Geographic regions were based on the location of patient residence.ResultsOverall, 627,118 encounters met inclusion criteria. Imaging acquisitions increased over time, from 14% of encounters in 2011 to 16% in 2016 (P < .01). Radiographs represented 96% of ordered imaging, CT 2%, and MRI 3%. The likelihood of having any imaging for low back pain varied significantly by US census region and by US state (P < .01). The greatest use of imaging was in the Midwest (13.9%) and the South (18.5%), and lowest in the Northeast and West (6.2% and 13.6%).DiscussionImaging utilization for the initial evaluation of low back pain by primary care providers has increased on a national level from 2011 to 2016, largely represented by radiographs. Significant regional variation also exists. Encouragingly, the use of advanced imaging has remained at a low level in the primary care setting (<1.0%).     

Invasive Procedural Versus Diagnostic Imaging and Clinical Services Rendered by Radiology Trainees Over Two Decades

PurposeTo characterize evolving radiology trainee exposure to invasive procedures.MethodsUsing Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files from 1997 to 2016, we identified Medicare services performed by radiology trainees in approved programs by extracting information on services billed by diagnostic and interventional radiologists reported with “GC” modifiers. Services were categorized as (1) invasive procedures, (2) noninvasive diagnostic imaging services, or (3) clinical evaluation and management (E&M) services. Relative category trainee work effort was estimated using service-level work relative value units.ResultsNationally from 1997 to 2016, invasive procedures declined from 34.2% to 14.3% of relative work effort for all Medicare-billed radiology trainee services. Radiology trainees’ noninvasive diagnostic imaging services increased from 65.1% to 85.4%. Clinical E&M services remained uniformly low (0.7%-0.3%). Diagnostic radiology (DR) and interventional radiology (IR) faculty supervised 81.0% and 19.0%, respectively, of all trainee invasive procedures in 1997, versus 68.3% and 31.7%, respectively, in 2016. Despite declining relative procedural work, trainees were exposed to a wide range of both basic and complex invasive procedures in both 1997 and 2016. Over this period, trainee noninvasive diagnostic imaging services shifted away from radiography to CT and MRI.ConclusionRadiology trainees’ relative invasive procedural work effort has declined over time as their work increasingly focuses on CT and MRI. As DR and IR-DR residency curricula begin to diverge, it is critical that both DR and IR residents receive robust training in basic image-guided procedures to ensure broad patient access to these services.