Current State of Private Practice and Academic Interventional Radiology: Differences in Practice Structure,Case Mix,and Productivity

PurposeTo investigate whether private practice interventional radiology (IR) groups self-report higher overall productivity given differing case mix and more diagnostic radiology interpretation.Materials and MethodsA 60-question survey was distributed to 3,159 self-identified US IR physicians via the Society of Interventional Radiologists member search engine, with 357 responses (11.3% response rate). Of these responses, there were 258 unique practices from 34 US states.ResultsOut of 84 IR group responses, private practice IR (PPIR) physicians reported a minimal trend for higher annual work relative value units (wRVUs) per clinical full-time equivalent compared with academic IR physicians (8,000 versus 7,140, P = .202), but this did not reach statistical significance. PPIR groups reported fewer median weekly hours (50 versus 52), more frequent call (every 6 versus every 5 days), and significantly higher median tenured compensation ($573,000 versus $451,000, P = .000). Out of 179 responses, academic practices reported significantly higher case percentages of interventional oncology and complex hepatobiliary intervention (P <.001), and private practices reported significantly higher percentages of musculoskeletal intervention (P < .001) with a nonsignificant trend for stroke or neurologic intervention (P = .010). Private practices reported more wRVUs from the interpretation of diagnostic imaging, at 26% of total wRVU production compared with 7% of total wRVU production for academic practices (P < .001; n = 131).ConclusionsSelf-reported data from private and academic IR groups suggest minimally higher wRVUs per clinical full-time equivalent among PPIRs with lower weekly work hours, more frequent call, differing case mix, and significantly higher tenured compensation among PPIR groups.     

Value of Second-Opinion Interpretation of Outside-Facility Breast Imaging Studies to a Radiology Department and Cancer Center

PurposeThe aim of this study was to estimate the physician work effort for formal written breast radiology second-opinion reports of imaging performed at outside facilities, to compare this effort with a per-report credit system, and to estimate the downstream value of subsequent services provided by the radiology department and institution at a National Comprehensive Cancer Network–designated comprehensive cancer center.MethodsA retrospective review was conducted of consecutive reports for “outside film review” from July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2018. The number and types of breast imaging studies reinterpreted for each individual patient request were tabulated for requests for a 3-month sample from each year. Physician effort was estimated on the basis of the primary interpretation CMS fee schedule for work relative value units (wRVUs) for the study-specific Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code and study type. This effort was compared with the interpreting radiologist credit of 0.44 wRVUs per report. Subsequent imaging and evaluation and management encounters generated by these second-opinion patient requests were tracked through June 30, 2019.ResultsFor the 3-year period reviewed, 2,513 unique patient requests were identified, averaging 837 per fiscal year. For January to March of 2016, 2017, and 2018, 645 unique patient reports were identified. For these reports, 2,216 studies were reinterpreted, with an estimated physician effort of 2,660 wRVUs compared with 284 wRVUs on the basis of per-report credit. The range of annualized wRVUs for all outside studies interpreted and credited per specific CPT code was 3,135 to 3,804 (mean, 3,547). However, the institutional relative value unit credit received for fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017, on the basis of the number of patient requests, was only 385, 375, and 345 wRVUs, respectively.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates the substantial work effort necessary to provide formal second-opinion interpretations for breast imaging studies at a National Comprehensive Cancer Network cancer center. The authors believe that these data support billing for the study-specific CPT code and crediting the radiologist with the full wRVUs for each study reinterpreted.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

What are the costs of glenohumeral osteoarthritis in the year prior to a total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA)?

ABSTRACT

Objectives: To identify patterns of health-care utilization and costs associated with management of glenohumeral osteoarthritis in the year prior to undergoing an anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (ATSA).

Methods: The PearlDiver Humana database, an administrative database of Medicare Advantage (MA) and Commercial insurance beneficiaries was queried for active records of patients undergoing a primary ATSA from the fourth quarter of 2010–2015. Pre-operative health-care utilization was categorized as 1) Procedures & Anesthesia, 2) Office visits, 3) Radiology, 4) Injections – a) Steroid injections and b) Hyaluronic Acid (HA) injections, 5) Physical Therapy, 6) Non-opioid pain medications and 7) Opioids. Overall costs/reimbursement and Per-patient average reimbursements (PPARs) were calculated for each category.

Results: A total of 3,920 patients (MA = 3,691; Commercial = 229) undergoing primary ATSA were retrieved. Based on defined categories, the total costs prior to ATSA were $368,137 and $2,812,617 for Commercial and MA beneficiaries, respectively. Overall 1-year PPAR for each category was as follows: Procedures & Anesthesia (MA = $1765; Commercial = $5333), Office visits (MA = $441; Commercial = $396); Radiology (MA = $253; Commercial = $558), Injections (MA = $117, Commercial = $173), Physical therapy (MA = $473; Commercial = $372), Non-opioid pain meds (MA = $49; Commercial = $147) and Opioids (MA = $26; Commercial = $49). The highest utilization was seen in the three months prior to ATSA with 42–81% of overall PPAR being accounted for various categories.

Conclusion: A high utilization of all health-care resource categories was noted within three months prior to surgery. Providers should consider judicious use of such interventions, particularly in patients which ultimately require surgery in a short frame of time, to reduce the costs associated with the overall episode of care.     

Quantifying the Financial Impact of Delayed Adoption of CPT Code Changes in Radiology

PurposeTo quantify the financial effect of delayed reporting of new moderate sedation (MS) Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes at an academic radiology practice, and to identify barriers to timely reporting.Materials and MethodsBilling and reimbursement data was collected for a 28-month period (January 1, 2017-April 30, 2019). Reporting of new MS codes was identified and compared to the number of procedures performed by radiology over the study period. Using the number of procedures performed and payment data, losses were estimated. A root cause analysis was then performed to further understand delayed reporting.ResultsMS was reported with 2.5% of cases in 2017, 47.8% of cases in 2018 and 69.1% of cases in 2019. Appropriate coding was not achieved until June 2018, equating to a 17-month lag in implementation. Lost revenue from inaccurate reporting of MS alone was $21,357 ± $3,945 per month. Primary barriers to an efficient transition included (1) updating billing systems, (2-5) coder, nursing, technologist, and operator education and coordination, and (6) drafting and vetting new procedural report templates.ConclusionsDelayed reporting of the new moderate sedation codes resulted in a $363,069 ± $67,065 loss of procedural revenue at an academic radiology practice. Primary drivers of the delay were lags in education and coordination at multiple points in the reporting chain. As healthcare policy shifts and changes to coding become more frequent and significant, timely adoption becomes more salient for radiologists.     

Interventional Radiology Peer,a Newly Developed Peer-Review Scoring System Designed for Interventional Radiology Practice

PurposeExisting diagnostic radiology peer-review systems do not address the specificities of interventional radiology (IR) practice. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of a specifically developed interventional peer review method, IR Peer.Materials and MethodsRetrospective review of a prospectively encoded pilot database aimed at demonstrating the feasibility of IR Peer in a multiphysician practice was performed. This scoring system used morning peer review of selected IR cases from the previous day in the form of a five-item questionnaire and an ordinal answer scale that grades reviewers’ agreement with imaging findings, procedural/technical management, early outcomes, and follow-up plan. Patient lists from IR Peer and morbidity and mortality (M&M) conferences were compared to evaluate the amount of overlap and capability of IR Peer to help detect adverse events (AEs).ResultsA total of 417 consecutive reviews of IR attending physician cases by peers were performed in 163 consecutive patients over 18 months, and 94% of cases were reviewed by two or three IR attending physicians. Each question was answered 99%–100% of the time. Answers showed disagreement in 10% of cases (2% by a single reviewer, 8% by several), most related to procedural technique. Overall AE incidence was 1.8%. IR Peer contributed 10.7% of cases to the M&M list.ConclusionsIR Peer is feasible, relevant, and easy to implement in a multiphysician IR practice. When used along with other quality-assurance processes, it might help in the detection of AEs for M&M; the latter will require further confirmatory research.     

Health care corporate law: Financing and liability

Health care corporate law: Financing and liability, Edited by M. Hall (Little, Brown & Co., Boston, Massachusetts, 1994), 733 pages, loose‐leaf, $145.     

Economics of MRI Operations After Implementation of Interpersonal Skills Training

PurposeExamine the cost of MRI operations before and after implementation of interpersonal skills training to reduce unanticipated patient-related events in an academic medical center.MethodsTeams at four MRI sites (two hospital-based, two freestanding) were trained in evidence-based communication skills in February to April 2015. Training was designed to enable staff members to help patients mobilize their innate coping skills in response to any distress they experienced during their MRI visit. Data were collected before training and afterward from January to June 2016. Staff reported the incidence of disruptive motion, sedation use, MRI delays, incomplete examinations, and no-shows. Cost and revenue associated with MRI operations and staff and physician costs were estimated using Medicare and private insurance rates and data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.ResultsThe study included 12,930 outpatient MRI visits. From baseline to follow-up, average monthly patient volume increased from 1,105 to 1,463 at hospital MRI sites and from 245 to 313 at freestanding MRI sites. Patient factors necessitating sedation or interfering with image progression or quality decreased from 9.0% to 5.5% at hospital sites and from 3.1% to 1.2% at freestanding sites. These changes translated into a reduction in operational costs of $4,600 per 1,000 scheduled patients and an increase in profit of $8,370 per 1,000 scheduled patients in hospital MRI sites, and a corresponding increase in operational costs of $1,570 per 1,000 scheduled-patients and an increase in profit of $12,800 per 1,000 scheduled patients in freestanding MRI sites.ConclusionsWe found significant improvements in MRI operational efficiency after interpersonal skills team training, which were associated with reductions in costs and growth in revenue.     

Increased per-patient imaging utilization in an emergency department setting during COVID-19

IntroductionCOVID-19 has resulted in decreases in absolute imaging volumes, however imaging utilization on a per-patient basis has not been reported. Here we compare per-patient imaging utilization, characterized by imaging studies and work relative value units (wRVUs), in an emergency department (ED) during a COVID-19 surge to the same period in 2019.MethodsThis retrospective study included patients presenting to the ED from April 1–May 1, 2020 and 2019. Patients were stratified into three primary subgroups: all patients (n = 9580, n = 5686), patients presenting with respiratory complaints (n = 1373, n = 2193), and patients presenting without respiratory complaints (n = 8207, n = 3493). The primary outcome was imaging studies/patient and wRVU/patient. Secondary analysis was by disposition and COVID status. Comparisons were via the Wilcoxon rank-sum or Chi-squared tests.ResultsThe total patients, imaging exams, and wRVUs during the 2020 and 2019 periods were 5686 and 9580 (−41%), 6624 and 8765 (−24%), and 4988 and 7818 (−36%), respectively, and the percentage patients receiving any imaging was 67% and 51%, respectively (p < .0001). In 2020 there was a 170% relative increase in patients presenting with respiratory complaints. In 2020, patients without respiratory complaints generated 24% more wRVU/patient (p < .0001) and 33% more studies/patient (p < .0001), highlighted by 38% more CTs/patient.ConclusionWe report increased per-patient imaging utilization in an emergency department during COVID-19, particularly in patients without respiratory complaints.     

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on radiology physician work RVUs at a large subspecialized radiology practice

PurposeAs the COVID-19 pandemic continues, efforts by radiology departments to protect patients and healthcare workers and mitigate disease spread have reduced imaging volumes. This study aims to quantify the pandemic's impact on physician productivity across radiology practice areas as measured by physician work Relative Value Units (wRVUs).Materials and methodsAll signed diagnostic and procedural radiology reports were curated from January 1st to July 1st of 2019 and 2020. Physician work RVUs were assigned to each study type based on the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. Utilizing divisional assignments, radiologist schedules were mapped to each report to generate a sum of wRVUs credited to that division for each week. Differential impact on divisions were calculated relative to a matched timeframe in 2019 and a same length pre-pandemic time period in 2020.ResultsAll practice areas saw a substantial decrease in wRVUs from the 2020 pre- to intra-pandemic time period with a mean decrease of 51.5% (range 15.4%–76.9%). The largest declines were in Breast imaging, Musculoskeletal, and Neuroradiology, which had decreases of 76.9%, 75.3%, and 67.5%, respectively. The modalities with the greatest percentage decrease were mammography, MRI, and non-PET nuclear medicine.ConclusionAll radiology practice areas and modalities experienced a substantial decrease in wRVUs. The greatest decline was in Breast imaging, Neuroradiology, and Musculoskeletal radiology. Understanding the differential impact of the pandemic on practice areas will help radiology departments prepare for the potential depth and duration of the pandemic by better understanding staffing needs and the financial effects.     

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.     

Transfer Patient Imaging: Assessment of the Impact of Discrepancies Identified by Emergency Radiologists

PurposeAdvanced imaging examinations of emergently transferred patients (ETPs) are overread to various degrees by receiving institutions. The practical clinical impact of these second opinions has not been studied in the past. The purpose of this study is to determine if emergency radiology overreads change emergency medicine decision making on ETPs in the emergency department (ED).MethodsAll CT and MRI examinations on patients transferred to a level I trauma center during calendar year 2018 were routinely overread by emergency radiologists and discrepancies with the outside report electronically flagged. All discrepant reports compared with the outside interpretations were reviewed by one of four emergency medicine physicians. Comparing the original and final reports, reviewers identified changes in patient management that could be attributed to the additional information contained in the final report. Changes in patient care were categorized as affecting ED management, disposition, follow-up, or consulting services.ResultsOver a 12-month period, 5,834 patients were accepted in transfer. Among 5,631 CT or MRI examinations with outside reports available, 669 examinations (12%) had at least one discrepancy in the corresponding outside report. In 219 examinations (33%), ED management was changed by discrepancies noted on the final report; patient disposition was affected in 84 (13%), outpatient follow-up in 54 (8%), and selection of consulting services in 411 (61%), and ED stay was extended in 544 (81%). Discrepant findings affected decision making in 613 of 669 of examinations (92%).ConclusionEmergency radiology overreading of transferred patients’ advanced imaging examinations provided actionable additional information to emergency medicine physicians in the care of 613 of 669 (92%) examinations with discrepant findings. This added value is worth the effort to design workflows to routinely overread CT and MRI examinations of ETPs.     

Patient and Provider Perspectives of Telehealth and In-Person Interventional Radiology Clinic Visits

PurposeTo assess patient and provider satisfaction with interventional radiology (IR) outpatient telehealth and in-person clinic.Materials and MethodsThis institutional review board–approved study analyzed patient satisfaction with clinic via survey after an IR outpatient telehealth or in-person visit. A physician telehealth experience survey was completed by 8 IR physicians.ResultsDuring the initial survey period, 44 (83%) of 53 patients completed a survey via telephone compared with 37 (23%) of 158 patients who were offered an electronic survey during the second survey period. Of 81 respondents, 18 (22%) were in-person and 63 (78%) were via telehealth. Of the respondents, nearly all patients (97%) in the telehealth group reported satisfaction with their telehealth clinic visit, with similar rates of high patient satisfaction between in-person and telehealth visits (P = .51). Most patients (98%) in the telehealth group strongly agreed that their physician’s recommendations were clear in the telehealth visit and that their visit was private, similar to in-person visits (P = .13). A telehealth visit saved time for all patients (100%), with 78% reporting >1 hour of time-saving. All IR physicians (n = 8) reported greater efficiency with telehealth clinic than with in-person clinic and that follow-up patterns would change if telehealth was available. However, all providers (100%) found telephone visits less satisfying than in-person visits, with video visits being either equally satisfying (71%) or less satisfying (29%).ConclusionsPatient satisfaction with the in-person and telehealth outpatient IR clinic was high, with patients and providers reporting time-saving and greater efficiency with telehealth, suggesting that telehealth should remain an important component of outpatient IR clinic care.     

Thoracic Duct Embolization—Value Analysis Using a Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Approach: A Single Institution Experience

PurposeTo quantify cost drivers for thoracic duct embolization based on time-driven activity-based costing methods.Materials and MethodsThis was an Institutional Review Board-approved (HUM00141114) and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study performed at a quaternary care institution over a 14-month period. After process maps for thoracic duct embolization were prepared, staff practical capacity rates and consumable equipment costs were analyzed via a time-driven activity-based costing methodology. Sensitivity analyses were performed to identify primary cost drivers.ResultsMean procedure duration was 4.29 hours (range: 2.15-7.16 hours). Base case cost, per case, for thoracic duct embolization was $7466.67. Multivariate sensitivity analyses performed with all minimum and maximum values for cost input variables yielded a cost range of $1001.95 (minimum) to $89,503.50 (maximum). Using local salary information and negotiated prices for materials as cost parameters, the true cost per case of thoracic duct embolization at the study institution was $8038.94. Univariate analysis demonstrated that the primary driver of staffing costs was the length of time the attending anesthesiologist was present. The predominant modifiable cost drivers included cyanoacrylate glue volume used (minimum $4467; maximum $12,467), cost of glue utilized (minimum $5217; maximum $10,467), and cost of coils utilized (minimum $7377; maximum $10,917). Univariate analysis predicted that the use of Histoacryl glue in place of TRUFILL cyanoacrylate glue resulted in a cost savings of $2947.50 per case.ConclusionsThe base cost per case for thoracic duct embolization was $7466.67. Costs, namely anesthesia staffing costs, cyanoacrylate glue, and coils were large, potentially modifiable drivers of overall cost for thoracic duct embolization.     

An Analysis of Cancer Center–Provided Rideshare Utilization for Radiation Therapy

ObjectivesThe potential of rideshare services to facilitate timely radiation therapy (RT), especially for resource-limited patients, is understudied.MethodsPatients (n = 63) who received 73 courses of RT (1,513 fractions) and utilized free hospital-provided rideshare service (537 rides) were included in this retrospective study. A multidimensional analysis was conducted including a comparison of demographic, disease characteristics, and treatment completion data; a revenue analysis to evaluate the financial impact of rideshare services; and a geospatial analysis to evaluate community-level characteristics of patients.ResultsMedian age was 59; most were female (56%) and self-identified as Black or African American (56%), not working (91%), not partnered (83%), high school educated or less (78%), and insured with Medicaid (51%). Geospatial analysis revealed that patients lived in communities with significantly higher rates of resource deprivation. Median rideshare distance was 6.4 miles (interquartile range 3.4-11.2) with a median cost of $13.04 per rideshare (interquartile range 9-19). Of the rideshare-facilitated treatments, 100% were completed, with an overall course completion rate of 97.3% compared with 85.4% for those who did not use rideshare (P = .001); two patients discontinued RT for reasons unrelated to transportation. High rideshare utilization (n = 32), defined as utilization ≥ 45% of the treatment course, was associated with significantly shorter treatment courses and lower radiation doses compared with low rideshare utilization (P = .04). Total rideshare cost for high utilizers and whole cohort was $11,589 and $16,895, facilitating an estimated revenue of $401,952 and $1,175,119, respectively.ConclusionsFree hospital-provided rideshare service is economically feasible and associated with high RT completion rates. It may help enhance quality radiation care for those who come from resource-limited communities.     

Characteristics of COVID-19 Community Practice Declines in Noninvasive Diagnostic Imaging Professional Work

PurposeThe operational and financial impact of the widespread coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) curtailment of imaging services on radiology practices is unknown. We aimed to characterize recent COVID-19-related community practice noninvasive diagnostic imaging professional work declines.MethodsUsing imaging metadata from nine community radiology practices across the United States between January 2019 and May 2020, we mapped work relative value unit (wRVU)-weighted stand-alone noninvasive diagnostic imaging service codes to both modality and body region. Weekly 2020 versus 2019 wRVU changes were analyzed by modality, body region, and site of service. Practice share χ² testing was performed.ResultsAggregate weekly wRVUs ranged from a high of 120,450 (February 2020) to a low of 55,188 (April 2020). During that −52% wRVU nadir, outpatient declines were greatest (−66%). All practices followed similar aggregate trends in the distribution of wRVUs between each 2020 versus 2019 week (P = .96-.98). As a percentage of total all-practice wRVUs, declines in CT (20,046 of 63,992; 31%) and radiography and fluoroscopy (19,196; 30%) were greatest. By body region, declines in abdomen and pelvis (16,203; 25%) and breast (12,032; 19%) imaging were greatest. Mammography (−17%) and abdominal and pelvic CT (−14%) accounted for the largest shares of total all-practice wRVU reductions. Across modality-region groups, declines were far greatest for mammography (−92%).ConclusionsSubstantial COVID-19-related diagnostic imaging work declines were similar across community practices and disproportionately impacted mammography. Decline patterns could facilitate pandemic second wave planning. Overall implications for practice workflows, practice finances, patient access, and payment policy are manifold.