Musculoskeletal biopsy: utilization and provider distribution in the United States Medicare population

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Physicians from many specialties perform musculoskeletal biopsy. Using the Medicare database, we sought to determine which specialties represent the physicians who are performing the majority. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the CMS physician supplier procedure summary master file for 1996-2003, we extracted all claims for biopsy procedure codes (including marrow aspiration, muscle biopsy, percutaneous bone biopsy, and open surgical biopsy) categorized by provider specialty, and we analyzed procedure volumes. RESULTS: Since 1996, the rate of utilization of percutaneous bone biopsy has remained stable. In 2003, marrow aspiration was most commonly performed by hematology/oncology (80,038, 57%), followed by medical oncology (23,428, 17%); radiologists performed 755 (0.5%). Muscle biopsies were predominantly performed by radiologists (4,761, 40%), followed by neurosurgery (591, 5%). Percutaneous bone biopsy was mostly performed by radiologists (14,830, 53%), but orthopedic surgeons, neurosurgeons, and hematology/oncology specialists performed a large minority (6,879, 2,296, and 1,048 respectively; in aggregate, 37%). From 1996 to 2003, radiologists performed 71% more muscle biopsies (2,788 to 4,761) and 60% more percutaneous bone biopsies (9,259 to 14,830). Although most specialties are performing fewer percutaneous bone biopsies (e.g., oncologists: 7,217 to 1,048, -85%), orthopedic surgeons are performing 247% more (1,983 to 6,879) and neurosurgeons are performing 2,343% more (94 to 2,296). CONCLUSION: Excluding marrow aspiration, radiologists perform the majority of percutaneous bone biopsies, and the volume is increasing in the U.S. Medicare population. The overall volume has remained relatively stable from 1996 to 2003; although medical specialties are performing fewer, the volume performed by surgeons is increasing rapidly.     

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.     

Unique Medicare Beneficiaries Served: A Radiologist-Focused Specialty-Level Analysis

PurposeThe aims of this study were to compare the number of unique Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries served by radiologists and other physicians and to identify characteristics of radiologists serving the most number of unique patients.MethodsMedicare Physician and Other Supplier Public Use Files were used to identify all physicians who provided services to Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries for the entirety of 2013. The average number of unique beneficiaries served was computed per specialty. The number of unique beneficiaries served was further stratified among radiologists in terms of physician and practice characteristics.ResultsAmong 56 unique physician specialties, diagnostic radiologists on average served the most unique beneficiaries (3,150 ± 2,344). Among radiologists, the number of unique beneficiaries varied in association with numerous characteristics and was larger for male (3,214) versus female (2,521) radiologists, rural (3,551) versus urban (3,092) radiologists, nonacademic (3,427) versus academic (1,932) radiologists, generalist (3,866) versus subspecialist (1,981) radiologists, and radiologists in the South (3,716) versus other geographic regions (range, 2,432-3,217). The number of unique beneficiaries served increased significantly with smaller group practice size (2,218 for ≥100 group members versus 3,669 for ≤9 members). Among subspecialists, the number of unique beneficiaries was largest for breast imagers (2,594).ConclusionsThe large number of unique beneficiaries served by radiologists highlights their important role in orchestrating patient care and their immense opportunities to expand the face of the specialty. An understanding of which radiologists serve the largest numbers of unique patients may help radiology practices target patient engagement and other Imaging 3.0™ efforts.     

Medicare Policy Initiatives and the Relative Utilization of “Double-Scan” CT

PurposeCommonly called “double scans” by the media, combined pre- and postcontrast thoracic and abdominal CT examinations have been the focus of recent CMS policy initiatives. The aim of this study was to examine trends in the relative utilization of double-scan CT before and after 2006 legislation mandating relevant Medicare reporting initiatives.MethodsMedicare Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files from 2001 through 2012 were used to identify claims for thoracic and abdominal CT examinations. Double-scan rates by billing physician specialty and place of service were analyzed over time. Rates of double-scan CT between radiologists and nonradiologists were compared using t tests.ResultsFrom 2001 to 2006, double-scan rates for thoracic and abdominal CT examinations declined by 1.7% and 7.5% for radiologists, respectively (from 6.0% to 5.9% and from 22.6% to 20.9%) but increased by 15.8% and 23.6% for nonradiologists (from 5.7% to 6.6% and from 28.8% to 35.6%). From 2006 through 2012, double-scan rates declined by 42.3% and 35.2% (from 5.9% to 3.4% and from 20.9% to 13.5%) for radiologists but only by 31.8% and 8.1% (from 6.6% to 4.5% and from 35.6% to 32.7%) for nonradiologists. Double-scan rates were significantly lower for radiologists than nonradiologists for all years for abdominal CT (P < .001) and for all years after 2006 legislation for thoracic CT (P < .05).ConclusionsReductions in thoracic and abdominal CT double-scan rates followed legislation mandating CMS initiatives designed to reduce costs and radiation. For nonradiologists, double-scan rates were consistently higher and declined more slowly than those for radiologists. Medicare policy initiatives directed toward imaging utilization seem to influence behavior differently for radiologists compared with nonradiologists.     

Characteristics of High-Performing Radiologists Within Medicare Quality Programs

PurposeThe aim of this study was to assess radiologists’ performance on Medicare quality measures and identify physician characteristics potentially influencing such scores.MethodsMedicare quality scores reported by US radiologists in 2015 were obtained from CMS. Associations were explored with publicly available physician characteristic data.ResultsOverall, 15,045 radiologists reported 40,427 Medicare quality scores encompassing 25 claims measures, 18 registry measures, and 2 qualified clinical data registry (QCDR) measures. Claims measures included reporting fluoroscopic times (n = 10,152; mean score, 80.3 ± 27.6), carotid ultrasound stenosis (n = 8,940; mean score, 86.8 ± 20.6), inappropriate mammography use of “probably benign” (n = 8,083; mean score, 0.4 ± 3.3), mammography reminders (n = 7,229; mean score, 86.6 ± 29.0), bone scintigraphy correlation (n = 2,712; mean score, 76.0 ± 27.0), and line-related infection prevention (n = 2,226; mean score, 83.3 ± 27.4). Registry measures were reported by ≤17 radiologists. The two QCDR measures were dose index registry participation (n = 246; mean score, 99.5 ± 1.4) and mammography recall rate (n = 77; mean score, 9.0 ± 5.6). Higher scores were observed for radiologists in larger practices (strongest independent predictor), in subspecialized practices, in academic practices, in the South and West, and with fewer years in practice. The fluoroscopic exposure times measure had the best performance scores by musculoskeletal and interventional radiologists, carotid Doppler measure by abdominal radiologists, mammography measures by breast radiologists, bone scintigraphy measure by musculoskeletal and nuclear medicine radiologists, and line infection measure by interventionalists. The dose registry participation QCDR measure had near perfect performance across generalists and subspecialists.ConclusionsCurrent Medicare performance metrics favor radiologists in larger practices and subspecialized radiologists, possibly reflecting support infrastructures and the narrow focus of most metrics, respectively. These findings may assist targeted data-driven reporting by radiologists and guide efforts to refine existing and develop new metrics.     

Nationwide Trends in Tube-Related Genitourinary Interventions for Medicare Beneficiaries

PurposeTo evaluate national trends in tube-related genitourinary interventions, with specific attention to primary operator specialty.MethodsUsing a 5% national sample of Medicare claims data from 2005 to 2015, all claims associated with nephrostomy tube, nephro-ureteral tube, and ureteral stent placement and exchange were identified. The annual volume of the nine billable procedures were analyzed to evaluate trends in the number of procedures performed and primary operator specialty over time. The Charleston Comorbidity Index (CCI) was used to evaluate patient comorbidities and to determine differences in patient populations treated by interventional radiologists and urologists.ResultsThe total volume of tube-related genitourinary interventions has increased over the course of the study period, representing 455.0 services per 100,000 Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries in 2005 to 607.2 services in 2015, an increase of 33.4%. Interventional radiologists performed the majority of all procedures in all procedure types and for each year (>90%) with the exception of nephro-ureteral catheter placement or ureteral stent placement, for which urologists performed the overwhelming majority of procedures each year (>85%). Interventional radiologists performed 63% of their total number of procedures on patients with a CCI = 3 or higher, and urologists performed 42% of their total number of procedures on patients with a CCI = 3 or higher (P < .01).ConclusionTube-related genitourinary interventions have demonstrated persistent growth over the 2005 to 2015 decade. Interventional radiologists are the dominant providers for the majority of these interventions compared with urologists while delivering care to a patient population with a higher number of comorbidities.     

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.     

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.     

High-volume providers and brachytherapy practice: A Medicare provider utilization and payment analysis

PurposeBrachytherapy is an important component of the treatment of gynecologic and prostate cancers, with data supporting its impact on clinical outcomes. Prior data have suggested that brachytherapy tends to be focused at high-volume centers. Medicare reimbursement data can provide an understanding of the distribution of brachytherapy cases among billing providers. The objective of this study is to quantify the distribution of brachytherapy cases and high volume providers.Methods and MaterialsThe Medicare Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File was queried for individual physicians who had performed brachytherapy for more than 10 patients with gynecologic or prostate cancer in the years 2012–2015. Aggregate data were also queried. Trends were identified, and basic summary statistics were tabulated.ResultsDuring the study period, there was an increase in vaginal brachytherapy (3328 unique cases in 2012–4308 in 2015) but a decrease in intrauterine implants, such as tandem placements (1522 in 2012–1307 in 2015) and prostate brachytherapy (8860 in 2012–6527 in 2015). High-volume providers treating more than 10 patients represented a disproportionate number of patients treated, particularly with intra-uterine brachytherapy, representing no more than 1.2% of the active providers in a given year but up to 11.1% of intra-uterine brachytherapy cases.ConclusionsAmong Medicare claims, a small number of providers accounted for a significant proportion of gynecologic and prostate brachytherapy cases, particularly in the case of intrauterine implants. The vast majority of brachytherapy providers perform limited cases in this population. Efforts toward improving access to intrauterine implants in Medicare patients should be a national priority.     

Trends in Medicare Reimbursement and Work Relative Value Unit Production in Radiation Oncology

PurposeMedicare payments to individual physicians are released annually by the CMS. The purpose of this study is to analyze trends in Medicare reimbursement and work relative value unit (wRVU) production to radiation oncologists.Materials and MethodsThe Medicare Physician Supplier and Other Provider Public Use File and the CMS Physician Fee Schedule Relative Value Files (to calculate wRVUs) for the calendar years 2012 to 2015 were used in this analysis. Medicare reimbursement was aggregated for each calendar year. Using the CMS Physician Fee Schedule Relative Value Files, the number of Medicare wRVUs was calculated for each radiation oncologist.ResultsIn 2015, 4,323 radiation oncologists produced 12,895,298 wRVUs compared with 11,352,286 wRVUs produced in 2012. These datasets include only Medicare reimbursements and do not include wRVUs from private insurance or other payers. In 2015, radiation oncologists produced a median of 2,486 wRVUs from Medicare (range 3 to 24,349). Billing to Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System Code 77427 (radiation treatment management, five treatments), a proxy for total radiation treatments, fell from 1,111,670 in 2012 to 1,039,403 in 2015, a decline of 7%.ConclusionThe total number of wRVUs produced by radiation oncologists has risen by 14% from 2012 to 2015. However, the number of external beam radiation fractions has declined by approximately 7% over this same period, likely due to a trend toward hypofractionated courses of treatment and use of special treatment modalities such as proton beam therapy or stereotactic body radiation therapy.     

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.     

Diagnostic Radiology Resident and Fellow Workloads: A 12-Year Longitudinal Trend Analysis Using National Medicare Aggregate Claims Data

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate changes in diagnostic radiology resident and fellow workloads in recent years.MethodsBerenson-Eggers Type of Service categorization was applied to Medicare Part B Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files to identify total and resident-specific claims for radiologist imaging services between 1998 and 2010. Data were extracted and subgroup analytics performed by modality. Volumes were annually normalized for active diagnostic radiology trainees.ResultsFrom 1998 to 2010, Medicare claims for imaging services rendered by radiologists increased from 78,901,255 to 105,252,599 (+33.4%). Service volumes increased across all modalities: for radiography from 55,661,683 to 59,654,659 (+7.2%), for mammography from 5,780,624 to 6,570,673 (+13.7%), for ultrasound from 5,851,864 to 9,853,459 (+68.4%), for CT from 9,351,780 to 22,527,488 (+140.9%), and for MR from 2,255,304 to 6,646,320 (+194.7%). Total trainee services nationally increased 3 times as rapidly. On an average per trainee basis, however, the average number of diagnostic services rendered annually to Medicare Part B beneficiaries increased from 499 to 629 (+26.1%). By modality, this represents an average change from 333 to 306 examinations (−8.1%) for radiography, from 20 to 18 (−7.4%) for mammography, from 37 to 56 (+49.7%) for ultrasound, from 88 to 202 (+129.1%) for CT, and from 20 to 47 (+132.0%) for MRI.ConclusionsBetween 1998 and 2010, the number of imaging examinations interpreted by diagnostic radiology residents and fellows on Medicare beneficiaries increased on average by 26% per trainee, with growth largely accounted for by disproportionate increases in more complex services (CT and MRI).     

Enteral Access Procedures: An 18-Year Analysis of Changing Patterns of Utilization in the Medicare Population

Purpose

To evaluate national trends in enteral access and maintenance procedures for Medicare beneficiaries with regard to utilization rates, specialty group roles, and sites of service.

Geographic Variations in Growth of Radiologists and Medicare Enrollees From 2012 to 2019

ObjectiveAnalyze changes in the number of Medicare-serving radiologists and Medicare enrollees nationwide and by geographic region and state from 2012 to 2019 to understand variations in allocation of imaging health care services over the past decade.MethodsThe number of radiologists submitting claims to Medicare was extracted from the CMS Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File Database. The number of Medicare enrollees by state was obtained from the Kaiser Family Foundation. National-, regional-, and state-level changes in rates of growth of radiologists, Medicare enrollees, and radiologists per 100,000 Medicare enrollees from 2012 to 2019 were tabulated.ResultsThe overall number of radiologists per 100,000 Medicare enrollees was 79.7 in 2012, increasing to 79.9 in 2019. In 2012, the number of radiologists per 100,000 enrollees was lower than the national average in the South (66.9; 16% lower) and Midwest (79.1; 0.7% lower) and higher in the Northeast (98.3; 23% higher) and West (88.8; 11% higher). In 2019, the number of radiologists per 100,000 enrollees was lower than the national average in the South (69.8; 12% lower) only and was higher in the Midwest (81.4; 1.9% higher), Northeast (99.3; 24% higher), and West (80.2; 0.4% higher). By state, there was a 4.2-fold variation in the number of radiologists per 100,000 Medicare enrollees, ranging from 38.8 in Wyoming to 161.4 in Minnesota (200.5 in Washington, DC).DiscussionThe growth of Medicare-serving radiologists and Medicare enrollees was stable nationally and demonstrated tremendous variations by US region and state. These variations bring to light potential implications for patient access to care and distribution of health care resources.     

Evolving Radiologist Participation in Medicare Shared Savings Program Accountable Care Organizations

PurposeThe aim of this study was to temporally characterize radiologist participation in Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) accountable care organizations (ACOs).MethodsUsing CMS Physician and Other Supplier Public Use Files, ACO provider-level Research Identifiable Files, and Shared Savings Program ACO Public-Use Files for 2013 through 2018, characteristics of radiologist ACO participation were assessed over time.ResultsBetween 2013 and 2018, the percentage of Medicare-participating radiologists affiliated with MSSP ACOs increased from 10.4% to 34.9%. During that time, the share of large ACOs (>20,000 beneficiaries) with participating radiologists averaged 87.0%, and the shares of medium ACOs (10,000-20,000) and small ACOs (<10,000) with participating radiologists rose from 62.5% to 66.0% and from 26.3% to 51.6%, respectively. The number of physicians in MSSP ACOs with radiologists was substantially larger than those without radiologists (mean range across years, 573-945 versus 107-179). Primary care physicians constituted a larger percentage of the physician population for ACOs without radiologists (average across years, 66.3% versus 38.5%), and ACOs with radiologists had a higher rate of specialist representation (56.0% versus 33.7%). Beneficiary age, race, and sex demographics were similar among radiologist-participating versus nonparticipating ACOs.ConclusionsIn recent years, radiologist participation in MSSP ACOs has increased substantially. ACOs with radiologist participation are large and more diverse in their physician specialty composition. Nonparticipating radiologists should prepare accordingly.     

Historic Physician Quality and Reporting System Reporting by Radiologists: A Wake-up Call to Avoid Penalties Under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA)

PurposeThe Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) Quality performance category is the successor to the Physician Quality and Reporting System (PQRS) program and now contributes to physicians’ income adjustments based upon performance rates calculated for a minimum of six measures. We assess radiologists’ frequency of reporting PQRS measures as a marker of preparedness for MACRA.MethodsMedicare-participating radiologists were randomly searched through the Physician Compare website until identifying 1,000 radiologists who reported at least one PQRS measure. Associations were explored between the number of reported measures and radiologist characteristics.ResultsFor PQRS-reporting radiologists, the number of reported PQRS measures was 1 (25.2%), 2 (27.3%), 3 (18.2%), 4 (19.3%), 5 (8.3%), and 6 (1.7%). The most commonly reported measures were “documenting radiation exposure time for procedures using fluoroscopy” (64.3%) and “accurate measurement of carotid artery narrowing” (56.8%). Reporting at least two measures was significantly (P < .001) more likely for nonacademic (77.3%) versus academic (44.9%) radiologists, generalists (82.7%) versus subspecialists (59.1%), and radiologists in smaller (≤9 members) (84.7%) versus larger (≥100 members) (39.7%) practices. Reporting six measures was significantly (P < .05) more likely for generalists (2.6%) versus subspecialists (0.4%).ConclusionMost PQRS-reporting radiologists reported only one or two measures, well below MACRA’s requirement of six. Radiologists continuing such reporting levels will likely be disadvantaged in terms of potential payment adjustments under MACRA. Lower reporting rates for academic and subspecialized radiologists, as well as those in larger practices, may relate to such radiologists’ reliance on their hospitals or networks for PQRS reporting. Qualified clinical data registries should be embraced to facilitate more robust measure reporting.