Trends in Diagnostic Imaging Medicare Reimbursements: 2007 to 2019

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate recent trends in Medicare reimbursement rates for various imaging studies.MethodsCommon diagnostic radiologic studies were selected across multiple imaging modalities: bone densitometry, CT, CT angiography, mammography, MR angiography, MRI, nuclear medicine, radiography, and ultrasound. The Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool from CMS was queried for Current Procedural Terminology codes to extract reimbursement data. All monetary data were adjusted for inflation to 2019 US dollars. The compound annual growth rate, average annual change, and total percentage change in reimbursement were calculated on the basis of these adjusted trends.ResultsInflation-adjusted Medicare reimbursement for all imaging modalities decreased between 2007 and 2019. The greatest mean decrease in reimbursement rates was observed for MRI (−$52.08), and the largest decrease in total percentage change was seen for bone densitometry (−70.5%). Nuclear medicine demonstrated the smallest mean decreases in both annual change (−$0.32) and total percentage change (−4.28%).ConclusionsThis study examined Medicare reimbursements for radiologic studies from 2007 to 2019. After accounting for inflation, reimbursement rates were shown to decline for all studies across all imaging modalities except for individual studies in nuclear medicine, radiography, and ultrasound. Further investigation is encouraged to properly model future trends in reimbursement rates.     

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.     

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.     

Growth in Thoracentesis and Paracentesis Performed by Radiology and Advanced Practice Providers: Medicare Volume and Reimbursement Trends From 2012 to 2018

PurposeTo study trends in volume and reimbursement for paracentesis and thoracentesis by physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) after the introduction of discreet Current Procedural Terminology codes for image guidance.MethodsMedicare claims for 2012 to 2018 (paracentesis) and 2013 to 2018 (thoracentesis) were extracted using Current Procedural Terminology codes for blind and image-guided paracentesis and thoracentesis. Total volumes were analyzed by provider specialty. Nonfacility reimbursement and relative value units were compared.ResultsFor blind paracentesis, volume decreased from 17,393 to 12,226 procedures from 2012 to 2018. Conversely, volume of image-guided paracentesis increased from 171,631 to 253,834 procedures. Radiology performed the majority of image-guide paracentesis (83.9% in 2012 and 77.1% in 2018). Volume and relative share for APPs dramatically increased (from 10.2% to 15.8%). For blind thoracentesis, volume decreased from 26,716 to 15,075 procedures from 2013 to 2018. Conversely, volume of image-guided thoracentesis increased from 187,168 to 222,673 procedures. Radiology performed the majority of image-guided thoracentesis (73.6% in 2013 and 66.2% in 2018). Volume and relative share for APPs dramatically increased (from 7.7% to 12.9%). Although reimbursement for both image-guided paracentesis and thoracentesis decreased, their reimbursement remained higher than that of blind paracentesis and thoracentesis throughout the study period.ConclusionA higher percentage of these procedures are being performed using image guidance; radiologists performed a growing number but declining percentage of image-guided paracentesis and thoracentesis. APPs are playing an increasing role, particularly using image guidance. Given decreasing reimbursement for these procedures, APPs can provide a large cost advantage in procedural radiology practices.     

Medicare Reimbursement Trends for Interventional Radiology Procedures: 2012 to 2020

PurposeTo investigate the reimbursement trends for interventional radiology (IR) procedures from 2012 to 2020.Materials and MethodsReimbursement data from the Physician Fee Schedule look-up tool from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was compiled for 20 common IR procedures. The authors then investigated compensation trends after adjusting for inflation and from the unadjusted data between 2012 and 2020.ResultsFrom 2012 to 2020, the mean unadjusted reimbursement for procedures decreased by ?6.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], ?13.5% to ?0.34%). This trend was even more profound after inflation was taken into account, with a mean decline in adjusted reimbursement of ?18.7% (95% CI, ?24.4% to ?12.9%) during the study period, with a mean yearly decline of ?2.8%. The difference between the mean unadjusted and adjusted payment amounts was significant (P = .012). Similarly, linear regression analysis of the adjusted average reimbursement across all procedures revealed an overall decline from 2012 to 2020 (R² = 0.97), indicating a steady decline in reimbursement over time.ConclusionsIn just under a decade, IR has experienced significant reimbursement cuts by Medicare, as demonstrated by both the unadjusted and inflation-adjusted payment trends. Knowledge of these trends is critically important for practicing interventional radiologists, leaders within the field, and legislators, who may play a role in formulating future reimbursement schedules for IR. These data may be used to help support more amenable reimbursement plans to sustain and facilitate the growth of the specialty.     

Reductions in Reimbursement and Relative Value Units for Interventional Radiology Procedures: Trends from 2011 to 2021 Compared with Those for Other Physician Specialties

PurposeTo compare recent trends in Medicare reimbursement and relative value units (RVUs) for interventional radiology (IR) procedures similar to those performed by non-IR specialties.Materials and MethodsData from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Physician Fee Schedule for facility reimbursement and RVU component values for 23 commonly performed single Current Procedural Terminology IR procedures were compared with similar procedures or procedures for similar indications performed by non-IR specialties between 2011 and 2021.ResultsThe work RVU component decreased in 18 of 23 (78.3%) IR procedures compared with 6 of 23 (26.1%) similar procedures performed by non-IR specialties. The largest change in single RVU component was a 19.2% reduction in practice expense RVU for IR compared with a 16.5% reduction for similar procedures performed by non-IR specialties.ConclusionsAs a specialty, IR experienced a disproportionately greater reduction in reimbursement and RVU valuation for a range of comparable procedures performed by non-IR specialties.     

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.     

National Trends in Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement and Retrieval Procedures in the Medicare Population Over Two Decades

PurposeTo assess trends in inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement and retrieval procedures in Medicare beneficiaries over the last two decades.MethodsUsing Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files from 1994 through 2015, we calculated utilization rates for IVC filter placement and retrieval procedures in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Services were stratified by provider specialty group and site of service.ResultsIVC filter placement rates increased from 1994 to 2008 (from 65.0 to 202.1 per 100,000 beneficiaries, compound annual growth rate [CAGR] +8.4%) and then decreased to 128.9 by 2015 (CAGR −6.2%). This decrease was observed across all specialty groups and sites of service. From 1994 to 2015, placement procedure market share increased for radiologists (from 45.1% to 62.7%) and cardiologists (from 2.5% to 6.7%) but decreased for surgeons (from 46.6% to 27.9%). Overall, procedures shifted slightly from the inpatient (from 94.5% to 86.5% of all procedures) to outpatient hospital (from 4.9% to 14.9%) settings. Between 2012 and 2015, retrieval rates increased from 12.0 to 17.7 (CAGR +13.9%). Retrievals as a percentage of placement procedures were similar across specialties in 2015 (range 13.0%-13.8%).ConclusionDespite prior dramatic growth, the utilization of IVC filters in Medicare beneficiaries markedly declined over the last decade, likely relating to evolving views regarding efficacy and long-term safety. This decline was accompanied by several filter-related market shifts, including increasing placement by radiologists and cardiologists, increasing outpatient placement procedures, and increasing retrieval rates.     

Recent Trends in PET Image Interpretations Using Volumetric and Texture-based Quantification Methods in Nuclear Oncology

Image quantification studies in positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) are of immense importance in the diagnosis and follow-up of variety of cancers. In this review we have described the current image quantification methodologies employed in ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose (¹⁸F-FDG) PET in major oncological conditions with particular emphasis on tumor heterogeneity studies. We have described various quantitative parameters being used in PET image analysis. The main contemporary methodology is to measure tumor metabolic activity; however, analysis of other image-related parameters is also increasing. Primarily, we have identified the existing role of tumor heterogeneity studies in major cancers using ¹⁸F-FDG PET. We have also described some newer radiopharmaceuticals other than ¹⁸F-FDG being studied/used in the management of these cancers. Tumor heterogeneity studies are being performed in almost all major oncological conditions using ¹⁸F-FDG PET. The role of these studies is very promising in the management of these conditions.     

Financial Effect of Unbundling Moderate Sedation from Procedural Codes in Radiology

PurposeTo assess and quantify the financial effect of unbundling newly unbundled moderate sedation codes across major payors at an academic radiology practice.Materials and MethodsBilling and reimbursement data for 23 months of unbundled moderate sedation codes were analyzed for reimbursement rates and trends. This included 10,481 and 28,189 units billed and $443,257 and $226,444 total receipts for codes 99152 (initial 15 minutes of moderate sedation) and 99153 (each subsequent 15 minute increment of moderate sedation), respectively. Five index procedures—(i) central venous port placement, (ii) endovascular tumor embolization, (iii) tunneled central venous catheter placement, (iv) percutaneous gastrostomy placement, and (v) percutaneous nephrostomy placement—were identified, and moderate sedation reimbursements for Medicare and the dominant private payor were calculated and compared to pre-bundled reimbursements. Revenue variation models across different patient insurance mixes were then created using averages from 4 common practice settings among radiologists (independent practices, all hospitals, safety-net hospitals, and non-safety-net hospitals).ResultsDepartmental reimbursement for unbundled moderate sedation in FY2018 and FY2019 totaled $669,701.34, with high per-unit variability across payors, especially for code 99153. Across the 5 index procedures, moderate sedation reimbursement decreased 1.3% after unbundling and accounted for 3.9% of procedural revenue from Medicare and increased 11.9% and accounted for 5.5% of procedural revenue from the dominant private payor. Between different patient insurance mix models, estimated reimbursement from moderate sedation varied by as much as 29.9%.ConclusionsDepartmental reimbursement from billing the new unbundled moderate sedation codes was sizable and heterogeneous, highlighting the need for consistent and accurate reporting of moderate sedation. Total collections vary by case mix, patient insurance mix, and negotiated reimbursement rates.