Faculty Bibliography

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: 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

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.

In patients with metallic hip implants, distortions, and other artifacts relating to the echo-planar imaging acquisition may render prostate diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) nondiagnostic. Reduced field-of-view (rFOV) acquisition, using parallel transmission and focused excitation, is a novel DWI approach that reduces distortions and improves images quality. This article presents images from both standard and rFOV DWI acquisitions in 2 prostate cancer patients with hip implants, showing the effect of rFOV DWI for improving tumor localization. The findings have implications for the potential application of magnetic resonance imaging for guiding targeted biopsy and planning focal therapy in the growing population of patients with hip implants.

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.

Background: Traditional pathology reports of prostate biopsy mainly focus on presence of carcinoma but ignore other pathologic findings such as inflammation or hyperplasia. In the era of MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy (MRF-TB), where specific MRI regions of interest (ROI) are targeted for biopsy, these benign findings should be reported as they may guide decisions on when to repeat imaging or prostate biopsy. In this study, we reviewed MRF-TB prostate biopsies reported as negative for carcinoma to identify pathologic correlates to visible ROI on prostate MRI. Design: From 2012 to2016, 1595 men underwent a total of 1813 prebiopsy prostate MRI, followed by MRF-TB at our institution. We rereviewed the prostate biopsy cores for all patients with PI-RADS 4 or 5 (PI-RADS 4/5) ROI but had no cancer detected on MRF-TB. Pathologic findings were separated into two groups: significant pathologic findings (SPF, such as inflammation, hyperplasia, ASAP/HGPIN) and no significant pathologic findings (NSPF) with or without cancer in same/adjacent site on systematic biopsy (SB). Patients with repeat MRI and follow-up MRF-TB evaluation. Results: 497 men had PI-RADS 4/5 lesions out of 1595 initial biopsies. Of these 497 men, 101 (20%) had MRF-TB negative for carcinoma. Upon review, 54 had SPF and 47 had NSPF on MRF-TB. Of 54 men with SPF on initial MRF-TB, 31 had repeat MRI, 23 of 31 men downgraded in which 16 had repeat MRF-TB with 1 had cancer detect. The other 8 of 31 men had persistent PI-RADS 4/5 lesions, 3 were detected cancer on repeat MRF-TB. Of 47 men with NSPF on initial MRF-TB, 19 had PCa in the same/ adjacent site on SB and were considered as missed on MRF-TB; of the other 28, 13 underwent repeat MRI. 8 of 13 downgraded with 0 had PCa in the repeat MRF-TB and 5 of 13 men with persistent PI-RADS 4/5 lesions, 3 had PCa detect on repeat MRF-TB. Altogether, 22/47 (47%) of the cases with NSPF in the initial MRF-TB were missed cancer. Conclusions: 1/5 of the target biopsy cases on PI-RADS 4/5 ROI had negative cancer detection. Inflammation, nodular hyperplasia and HGPIN can account for some of the cases, and those were downgraded in followup MRI usually had a negative repeat biopsy. Cases with NSPF on MRF-TB for PI-RADS 4/5 lesions are likely (47%) missed PCa, high likelihood of persistent PI-RADS 4/5 ROI on repeat MRI and PCa detection on repeat biopsy. We suggest pathology findings beside cancer should be reported on MRF-TB biopsy as they can guide decisions on repeat imagine and biopsy

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.