Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to assess the percentage and characteristics of radiologists who meet criteria for facility-based measurement in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). MATERIALS AND METHODS. The Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File was used to identify radiologists who bill 75% or more of their Medicare Part B claims in the facility setting. RESULTS. Among 31,217 included radiologists nationwide, 71.0% met the eligibility criteria for facility-based measurement as individuals in MIPS. The percentage of predicted eligibility was slightly higher for male than female radiologists (72.9% vs 64.5%). The percentage decreased slightly with increasing years in practice (from 78.8% for radiologists with < 10 years in practice to 67.3% for radiologists with ≥ 25 years in practice). The eligibility percentage was also higher for radiologists in rural as opposed to urban practices (81.6% vs 71.3%) and in academic as opposed to nonacademic practices (77.2% vs 70.3%). However, the percentages were similar across practices of varying sizes. There was also a greater degree of heterogeneity by state, ranging from 50.9% in Minnesota to 94.0% in West Virginia. By overall geographic region, the percentage of predicted eligibility was lowest in the Northeast (64.7%) and highest in the Midwest (78.3%). A higher percentage of generalists met the 75% facility-based threshold than did subspecialists (77.3% vs 65.4%). When stratified by subspecialty, however, facility-based eligibility was lowest for musculoskeletal radiologists (38.1%) and breast imagers (45.1%) and highest for cardiothoracic radiologists (85.1%). For other subspecialties, predicted eligibility ranged from 66.0% to 77.8%. CONCLUSION. Most radiologists will be eligible for facility-based reporting for MIPS in 2019, with some variation by demographic and specialty characteristics. The facility-based option provides a safety net for radiologists who face challenges accessing hospital data for reporting quality measures. In general, radiologists should not alter their current MIPS strategy but should instead consider facility-based measurement as a contingency plan that could result in a higher final score.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Medicare established its Hospital Outpatient Quality Reporting Program(HOQRP) to promote and incentivize quality care and appropriate utilization in the hospital outpatient setting. The program includes "imaging efficiency" metrics evaluating appropriate utilization of imaging examinations. Our purpose was to evaluate the longitudinal performance of the nation's hospitals on the HOQPR's imaging efficiency metrics. METHODS:Data were obtained from CMS Hospital Compare for hospitals participating in the Medicare HOQRP during both initial (January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2011) and follow-up (July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2016) periods. The six reported imaging efficiency metrics were: MRI lumbar spine for low back pain, mammography follow-up rates, abdomen and chest CT double scans(imaging with and without intravenous contrast), cardiac imaging for preoperative risk assessment for low-risk surgery, and simultaneous use of brain and sinus CT. Differences in imaging efficiency metrics were calculated using fixed effects linear regression models. RESULTS:Baseline and follow-up data were available for 3,960 hospitals. Median changes were: MRI lumbar spine for low back pain: +3.6% (range: -27.9% to +31.4%; P < .001); mammography follow-up: -0.3% (range: -69.5% to +62.6%; P = .03); double scan abdomen CT: -1.9% (range: -73.5% to +32.3%; P < .001); double scan chest CT: -0.4% (range: -73.2% to +28.0%; P < .001); preoperative cardiac imaging: -0.7% (range: -10.0% to +9.9%; P < .001); simultaneous brain and sinus CT: -0.9% (range: -11.8% to +7.8%; P < .001). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Medicare's nationwide hospital outpatient imaging efficiency reporting initiative was associating with worse performance in lumbar spine MRI utilization and small improvements in double CT scans. Because quality metrics are increasingly imposed on health care providers, health service researchers will need to rigorously evaluate their effectiveness before and during early implementation.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the changing use of transcatheter hemodialysis conduit procedures. METHODS:Multiple Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services datasets were used to assess hemodialysis conduit angiography. Use was normalized per 100,000 beneficiaries and stratified by specialty and site of service. RESULTS:From 2001 to 2015, hemodialysis angiography use increased from 385 to 1,045 per 100,000 beneficiaries (compound annual growth rate [CAGR], +7.4%)]. Thrombectomy use increased from 114 to 168 (CAGR, +2.8%). Angiography and thrombectomy changed, by specialty, +1.5% and -1.3% for radiologists, +18.4% and +14.4% for surgeons, and +24.0% and +17.7% for nephrologists, respectively. By site, angiography and thrombectomy changed +29.1% and +20.7% for office settings and +0.8% and -2.4% for hospital settings, respectively. Radiologists' angiography and thrombectomy market shares decreased from 81.5% to 37.0% and from 84.2% to 47.3%, respectively. Angiography use showed the greatest growth for nephrologists in the office (from 5 to 265) and the greatest decline for radiologists in the hospital (299 to 205). Across states in 2015, there was marked variation in the use of angiography (0 [Wyoming] to 1173 [Georgia]) and thrombectomy (0 [6 states] to 275 [Rhode Island]). Radiologists' angiography and thrombectomy market shares decreased in 48 and 31 states, respectively, in some instances dramatically (eg, angiography in Nevada from 100.0% to 6.7%). CONCLUSIONS:Dialysis conduit angiography use has grown substantially, more so than thrombectomy. This growth has been accompanied by a drastic market shift from radiologists in hospitals to nephrologists and surgeons in offices. Despite wide geographic variability nationally, radiologist market share has declined in most states.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to discuss the evolution of MRI in prostate cancer from the early 1980s to the current day, providing analysis of the key studies on this topic. CONCLUSION. The rapid diffusion of MRI technology has meant that residual variability remains between centers regarding the quality of acquisition and the quality and standardization of reporting.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To analyze the changes in the work profiles of radiologists and the reporting time after the implementation of professional subspecialization in the radiology department of a Swiss university hospital. METHODS:In a retrospective analysis, the overall number of different radiologic examinations performed in the department of radiology of the largest Swiss university hospital was documented for 2014 and 2016 before and after the implementation of subspecialized reporting (subspecialities: abdominal, musculoskeletal, cardiothoracic, emergency, and pediatric imaging) in May 2015. For six selected radiologists, the number and types of reported examinations as well as the related radiology report turnaround times (RTATs) were analyzed in detail and compared between the two 1-year periods. RESULTS:Overall, there was a significant increase of 10.3% in the total number of examinations performed in the whole department in 2016 compared with 2014. For four of the six radiologists, the range of different types of examinations significantly decreased with the introduction of subspecialized reporting (p < 0.05). Furthermore, there was a significant change in the subset of the ten most commonly reported types of examinations reported by each of the six radiologists. Mean overall RTATs significantly increased for five of the six radiologists (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Implementation of subspecialized reporting led to a change in the structure and a decrease in the range of different examination types reported by each radiologist. Mean RTAT increased for most radiologists. Subspecialized reporting allows the individual radiologist to focus on a special field of professional competence but can result in longer overall RTAT.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To assess subspecialty mix and case volumes of general and abdominal subspecialty radiologists interpreting abdominal MRI. METHODS:The 2016 CMS Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master File was used to obtain billed counts of radiologist-interpreted abdominal fluoroscopy, US, CT, and MRI examinations. The CMS Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File was used to assess the subspecialty mix and case volume of the radiologists interpreting those examinations. RESULTS:The fraction of all abdominal imaging examinations interpreted by generalists and abdominal subspecialty radiologists was 70.7% and 16.5% for fluoroscopy; 68.7% and 21.0% for US; 71.4% and 19.2% for CT; and 41.9% and 52.5% for MRI. In 2016, the fraction of general and abdominal radiologists interpreting > 50 fluoroscopy examinations on Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries was 15.1% and 16.2%. For > 50 US examinations, the fraction was 61.5% and 60.5%; for > 50 CT examinations, 91.2% and 79.6%; and for > 50 MRI examinations, 4.0% and 28.5%. The fraction of abdominal imaging examinations interpreted overall by low-volume providers (those interpreting ≤ 50 examinations in 2016) was 59.5% for fluoroscopy, 17.5% for US, 6.3% for CT, and 50.6% for MRI. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Nationally, most abdominal fluoroscopy, US, and CT examinations are interpreted by general radiologists, who have similar annual volumes of these examinations as abdominal subspecialty radiologists. In contrast, most abdominal MRI examinations are interpreted by abdominal subspecialty radiologists, who attain considerably higher volumes. These findings have implications for workforce planning and abdominal imaging fellowship design to ensure their graduates are optimally prepared to contribute to their future practices.

BACKGROUND:Evaluation of prostate MRI relies on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), commonly distorted by susceptibility artifacts, thereby creating a need for approaches to correct such distortion. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To compare geometric distortion on prostate MRI between standard DWI and a geometric distortion correction method for DWI described as static distortion correction DWI (SDC DWI). STUDY TYPE/METHODS:Retrospective case study. POPULATION/METHODS:Thirty patients (ages 31-81 years) undergoing prostate MRI. SEQUENCE/UNASSIGNED:-field map to estimate geometric distortions. ASSESSMENT/RESULTS:WI) as an anatomic standard. Pixel shifts and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values were compared between prostate contours applied to the SDC DWI and standard DWI sequences. Detailed characterization of the impact of SDC DWI was performed in three representative patients. STATISTICAL TESTS/UNASSIGNED:One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, Spearman correlation test, and Bland-Altman plots were calculated. RESULTS:= 0.21). DATA CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:SDC DWI appears to correct for susceptibility-related pixel shifts in the prostate compared with standard DWI, which may have value for assessing prostate lesions obscured by geometric warping. Level of Evidence 4 Technical Efficacy Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019.

OBJECTIVE:Recent research on inferior vena cava (IVC) filter utilization in the United States has largely focused on national aggregate Medicare datasets, showing recent declines. Whether these national Medicare trends are generalizable across regions and payer populations is unknown. We studied recent state-level variation in IVC filter utilization across both Medicare and private insurance populations. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Using large individual beneficiary claims-level Medicare research identifiable files and a proprietary U.S. research database of the commercially insured population, we identified all billed IVC filter placement procedures performed between 2009 and 2015. We compared population-adjusted utilization rates by state and payer type. RESULTS:Between 2009 and 2015, IVC filter utilization across the United States declined by 36.3% (from 177.9 to 113.3 procedures per 100,000 beneficiaries) in the Medicare population and by 26.6% (from 32.7 to 24.0 procedures per 100,000 beneficiaries) in the privately insured population. For the Medicare population, state-level utilization rates varied 5.2-fold, from 48.4 to 251.3 procedures per 100,000 beneficiaries in Alaska and New Jersey, respectively. For the private insurance population, rates varied 5.5-fold, from 10.8 to 59.5 procedures per 100,000 beneficiaries in Oregon and Michigan, respectively. Nationally, utilization in the Medicare population was 5.0 times higher than that in the private insurance population (range by state, from 2.0 times higher in Hawaii to 11.1 times higher in Utah). Despite the national decline, utilization in Medicare and private insurance populations increased in five and seven states, respectively. State-level IVC filter utilization rates for the Medicare population correlated strongly with those for the privately insured population (r = 0.74; p < 0.001). In both the Medicare and privately insured populations, utilization rates correlated moderately with beneficiary age (r = 0.44 and r = 0.50, respectively; p < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:IVC filter utilization rates vary dramatically by state and payer population, and they likely depend in part on the age of the covered population. To better identify demographic and socioeconomic drivers of utilization, future research should prioritize nonaggregate multipayer claims-level approaches.