Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study is to identify the specialty characteristics of providers referring musculoskeletal (MSK) extremity imaging examinations to radiologists, so as to better understand the drivers of MSK imaging utilization and potentially improve the appropriateness of such imaging examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Data on provider referral for MSK extremity imaging services were extracted from the 2014 Medicare Referring Provider Utilization for Procedures public use file, which aggregates data on diagnostic procedures according to referring provider identities and service codes. MSK extremity imaging services were identified using Neiman Institute Types of Service codes. The referring provider specialty was identified from cross-linked Medicare provider characteristics files. RESULTS:For 4,275,647 MSK extremity imaging examinations ordered, the most common specialties of the referring providers were orthopedic surgery (37.6% of ordered examinations), internal medicine (20.2%), family practice (14.8%), emergency medicine (7.9%), and rheumatology (5.7%). Orthopedic surgery was the referring specialty that most commonly ordered MSK extremity CT (33,465 ordered examinations; for all other specialties, < 2000 examinations), MRI (325,485 examinations; for all other specialities, < 20,000 examinations), and radiography (1,249,748 examinations; for all other specialities, < 850,000 examinations), whereas internal medicine was the referring specialty that most commonly ordered MSK extremity ultrasound examinations (8052 ordered examinations; for all other specialties, < 6000 examinations). Among the select specialties most relevant to MSK imaging, the most frequent referrers after orthopedic surgeons were rheumatologists, for radiography (236,057 ordered examinations) and ultrasound (2034 examinations), and podiatrists, for CT (1201 examinations) and MRI (19,159 examinations). The most commonly ordered individual MSK extremity imaging services were knee radiography, with 190,354 examinations ordered by orthopedic surgeons; hand radiography, with 66,167 examinations ordered by rheumatologists; foot radiography, with 137,042 examinations ordered by podiatrists; shoulder radiography, with 11,299 examinations ordered by sports medicine specialists; and hip radiography, with 9838 examinations ordered by physiatrists. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Referral patterns for MSK imaging vary considerably by provider specialty. Referral pattern insights may guide targeted efforts by radiologists to ensure the appropriateness of such examinations.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To optimize the flexibility and relevancy of its Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), CMS exempts selected physicians and groups from participation and grants others relaxed reporting requirements. We assess the practical implications of such special status determinations. METHODS:For a random sample of 1,000 Medicare-participating radiologists, the CMS MIPS Participation Lookup Tool was manually searched. Individual radiologists' and associated groups' participation requirements and special statuses were assessed. RESULTS:Although only 55% of radiologists were required to participate in MIPS as individuals when considering only one associated taxpayer identification number (TIN), 83% were required to participate as individuals when considering all associated TINs. When using the group reporting option, 97% of radiology groups were required to participate. High participation requirements persisted across generalist and subspecialist radiologists, small and rural, and both academic and nonacademic practices. Non-patient-facing and hospital-based statuses were assigned to high fractions of individual radiologists (91% and 71%, respectively), but much lower fractions of group practices (72% and 25%). Rural and health professional shortage area statuses were assigned to higher percentages of groups (27% and 39%) than individuals (13% and 23%). Small practice status was assigned to 22% of individuals versus 16% of groups. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Although not apparent if only considering individual radiologist-TIN combinations, the overwhelming majority of radiologists will be required to participate in MIPS, at the individual or group level. Radiology groups are strongly encouraged to review their physicians' MIPS participation requirements and special statuses to ensure optimal performance scores and payment bonuses.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To assess associations between screening mammography utilization and Medicare beneficiaries' relationships with, and impressions of, their primary care physicians. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Using the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey Access to Care Public Use File, we retrospectively studied responses from a national random cross section of Medicare beneficiaries surveyed in 2013 regarding perceptions of their primary care physicians and their screening mammography utilization. Statistical analysis accounted for subject weighting factors to estimate national screening utilization. RESULTS:Among 7492 female Medicare beneficiaries, 62.0% (95% confidence interval 59.8%-64.2%) underwent screening mammography. Utilization was higher for beneficiaries having (vs. not) a regular medical practice or clinic (63.2% vs. 34.6%) and a usual physician (63.8% vs. 50.3%). Utilization was higher for beneficiaries very satisfied (vs. very dissatisfied) with the overall quality of care they received (66.0% vs. 35.8%), their ease of getting to a doctor (67.7% vs. 43.2%), and their physician's concerns for their health (65.7% vs. 53.4%), as well as for beneficiaries strongly agreeing (vs. strongly disagreeing) that their physician is competent (66.0% vs. 54.1%), understands what is wrong (66.3% vs. 47.1%), answers all questions (67.0% vs. 46.7%), and fosters confidence (66.0% vs. 50.6%). Independent predictors of screening mammography utilization (P < .05) were satisfaction with quality of care, having a regular practice or clinic, and satisfaction with ease of getting to their physician. CONCLUSIONS:Screening mammography utilization is higher among Medicare beneficiaries with established primary physician relationships, particularly when those relationships are favorable. To optimize screening mammography utilization, breast imagers are encouraged to support initiatives to enhance high-quality primary care relationships.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To explore associations between county-level measures of radiologist supply and subspecialization and county structural and health-related characteristics. METHODS:Medicare Physician and Other Supplier Public Use Files were used to subspecialty characterize 32,844 radiologists participating in Medicare between 2012 and 2014. Measures of radiologist supply and subspecialization were computed for 3,143 US counties. Additional county characteristics were identified using the 2014 County Health Rankings database. Mann-Whitney tests and Spearman correlations were performed. RESULTS:Counties with at least one (versus no) Medicare-participating radiologist had significantly (P < .001) larger populations (197,050 ± 457,056 versus 20,253 ± 23,689), lower rural percentages (39.5% ± 26.5% versus 74.6% ± 25.6%), higher household incomes ($47,608 ± $12,493 versus $42,510 ± $9,893), higher mammography screening rates (62.4% ± 7.0% versus 56.6% ± 15.3%), and lower premature deaths (7,581 ± 2,085 versus 7,784 ± 3,409 years of life lost). Counties' radiologists per 100,000 population and percent of subspecialized radiologists showed moderate positive correlations with counties' population (r = +0.505-+0.599) and moderate negative correlations with counties' rural percentage (r = -0.434 to -0.523). Radiologist supply and degree of subspecialization both showed concurrent positive or negative weak associations with counties' percent age 65+ (r = -0.256 to -0.271), percent Hispanic (r = +0.209-+0.234), and income (r = +0.230-+0.316). Radiologists per 100,000 population showed weak positive correlation with mammography screening (r = +0.214); percent of radiologists subspecialized showed weak negative correlation with premature death (r = -0.226). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Geographic disparities in radiologist supply at the community level are compounded by superimposed variation in the degree of subspecialization of those radiologists. The potential impact of such access disparities on county-level health warrants further investigation.

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

Purpose: To characterize Medicare services billed by current SSR members. Materials and Methods: With SSR Executive Committee permission, national provider identifiers (NPIs) were manually identified for all SSR members (who had all attested to >50% of one's practice in musculoskeletal [MSK] radiology). NPIs permitted member cross-linking to the 2015 CMS Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File to then identify all services each billed Medicare. Service codes were mapped to seven mapping-validated subspecialties (MSK, abdominal, breast, cardiothoracic, neuroradiology, nuclear medicine, and vascular-interventional radiology [VIR]) using the Neiman Imaging Types of Service classification system. Radiologists' percentages of work RVUs (wRVU) in each subspecialty were computed. Various subgroup analyses were performed. Results: Of 1,014 SSR members, 49.5% performed >=50% of their wRVUs in MSK. In terms of billed wRVUs, 53.4% of these radiologists mapped to a secondary subspecialty of neuroradiology in terms of billed wRVUs, 16.3% to abdominal, 11.8% to cardiothoracic, and 5.2% to VIR. Of all SSR members, 45.6% were generalists (i.e., no subspecialty crossed the majority wRVU threshold), but 37.4% of them performed a plurality of work in MSK. No other subspecialty accounted for greater than 2% of SSR members. A higher percentage of MSK wRVUs was significantly associated (p<0.001) with an academic affiliation (66.8% vs. 44.5%) as well as two different markers of greater SSR engagement: 1) attending the 2014 SSR meeting (63.5% vs. 49.9%) and 2) serving as an SSR committee member (75.7% vs. 51.6%). Of all other 27,618Medicare-participating radiologists nationally meeting inclusion criteria, 3.2% (879) had >=50% of their wRVUs in MSK but are not SSR members. Conclusion: Medicare claims-based practice classification provides unique insight into SSR membership. This information may help better understand current membership needs, plan future meeting content, and guide further society growth

Multiparametric MR imaging provides detailed anatomic assessment of the prostate as well as information that allows the detection and characterization of prostate cancer. To obtain high-quality MR imaging of the prostate, radiologists must understand sequence optimization to overcome commonly encountered technical challenges. This review discusses the techniques that are used in state-of-the-art MR imaging of the prostate, including imaging protocols, hardware considerations, and important aspects of patient preparation, with an emphasis on the recommendations provided in the prostate imaging-reporting and data system version 2 guidelines.

This article reviews basic concepts of report documentation for abdominal imaging examinations, focusing on practical elements for ensuring appropriate physician reimbursement. Nuances of abdominal radiography, CT, MRI, and ultrasonography codes are highlighted. Special considerations for the coding of 3D-rendering and contrast administration are also described. Greater abdominal radiologist awareness of these codes and their reporting requirements can help ensure proper documentation within radiology reports, thereby optimizing legitimate reimbursement.