Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To study opioid prescribing behavior of US interventional radiologists (IRs). METHODS:Using Medicare Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File claims, we identified 2,133 radiologists whose practice in 2015 comprised predominantly interventional radiology. Cross-linking the Medicare Part D Prescriber File, their opioid prescription writing behavior was characterized. RESULTS:Most (52.2%) IRs wrote 10 or fewer prescriptions total for Medicare beneficiaries. Of the 47.8% who wrote >10 prescriptions, 87.4% prescribed an opioid, most commonly hydrocodone with acetaminophen, at least once (71.3%, 1-10 opioid prescriptions; 27.4%, 11-100; 1.3%, ≥101). Overall, 23.0% of all prescriptions by those IRs writing >10 were for opioids, with an average 8.0-day prescription. Average opioid prescriptions per IR were significantly (P ≤ .015) independently associated with their providing clinical evaluation and management (E&M) services (9.7 opioid prescriptions per IR with demonstrable E&M encounters versus 2.2 if not), practice size (12.6 for practices with ≤ 10 members versus 3.7-4.8 for larger groups), and geography (8.3 in the South versus 3.6-4.0 elsewhere). Rates were highest in Georgia (39.5) and lowest in Delaware (2.0). Higher opioid prescribing rates showed additional univariable associations with more years in practice and nonacademic practices. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Most IRs write few, if any, prescriptions for Medicare beneficiaries. Of those who do, the large majority writes for opioids, at rates higher than national physician benchmarks. IRs' opioid prescribing varies significantly based on physician and practice characteristics and particularly whether the IR provides clinical E&M services. In light of the nation's opioid epidemic, these observations may guide education, practice improvement, and policy efforts to optimize opioid prescribing.

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: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/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.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The purpose of this study was to explore associations between CT and MRI utilization and cost savings achieved by Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP)-participating accountable care organizations (ACOs). METHODS:Summary data were obtained for all MSSP-participating ACOs (n = 214 in 2013; n = 333 in 2014). Multivariable regressions were performed to assess associations of CT and MRI utilization with ACOs' total savings and reaching minimum savings rates to share in Medicare savings. RESULTS:In 2014, 54.4% of ACOs achieved savings, meeting minimum rates to share in savings in 27.6%. Independent positive predictors of total savings included beneficiary risk scores (β = +20,265,720, P = .003) and MRI events (β = +19,964, P = .018) but not CT events (β = +2,084, P = .635). Independent positive predictors of meeting minimum savings rates included beneficiary risk scores (odds ratio = 2108, P = .001) and MRI events (odds ratio = 1.008, P = .002), but not CT events (odds ratio = 1.002, P = .289). Measures not independently associated with savings were total beneficiaries; beneficiaries' gender, age, race or ethnicity; and Medicare enrollment type (P > .05). For ACOs with 2013 and 2014 data, neither increases nor decreases in CT and MRI events between years were associated with 2014 total savings or meeting savings thresholds (P ≥ .466). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Higher MRI utilization rates were independently associated with small but significant MSSP ACO savings. The value of MRI might relate to the favorable impact of appropriate advanced imaging utilization on downstream outcomes and other resource utilization. Because MSSP ACOs represent a highly select group of sophisticated organizations subject to rigorous quality and care coordination standards, further research will be necessary to determine if these associations are generalizable to other health care settings.