Faculty Bibliography

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To characterize online news coverage relating to mammography, including articles' stance toward screening mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Google News was used to search U.S. news sites over a 9-year period (2006-2015) based on the search terms "mammography" and "mammogram." The top 100 search results were recorded. Identified articles were manually reviewed. RESULTS: The top 100 news articles were from the following sources: local news outlet (50%), national news outlet (24%), nonimaging medical source (13%), entertainment or culture news outlet (6%), business news outlet (4%), peer-reviewed journal (1%), and radiology news outlet (1%). Most common major themes were the screening mammography controversy (29%), description of a new breast imaging technology (23%), dense breasts (11%), and promotion of a public screening initiative (11%). For the most recent year, article stance toward screening mammography was 59%, favorable; 16%, unfavorable; and 25%, neutral. After 2010, there was an abrupt shift in articles' stances from neutral to both favorable and unfavorable. CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of online news sources addressed a range of issues related to mammography. National, rather than local, news sites were more likely to focus on the screening controversy and more likely to take an unfavorable view. The controversial United States Preventive Services Task Force guidelines may have influenced articles to take a stance on screening mammography. As such online news may impact public perception of the topic and thus potentially impact guideline adherence, radiologists are encouraged to maintain awareness of this online coverage and to support the online dissemination of reliable and accurate information.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess both existing Medicare provider code assignments and a new claims-based system for subspecialty classification of private practice radiologists. METHODS: Websites of the 100 largest US radiology private practices were used to identify 1,476 radiologists self-identified with a single subspecialty ([1] abdominal, [2] breast, [3] cardiothoracic, or [4] musculoskeletal imaging; [5] nuclear medicine; [6] interventional radiology; [7] neuroradiology). Concordance of existing Medicare radiology subspecialty provider codes (present only for nuclear medicine and interventional radiology) was first assessed. Next, using a classification approach based on Neiman Imaging Types of Service (NITOS) piloted among academic practices, the percentage of subspecialty work relative value units (wRVUs) from 2012 to 2014 Medicare claims were used to assign each radiologist a unique subspecialty. RESULTS: Existing Medicare provider codes matched only 8.0% of nuclear medicine physicians and 10.7% of interventional radiologists to their self-reported subspecialties. The NITOS-based system mapped a median 51.9% of private practice radiologists' wRVUs to self-identified subspecialties (range, 23.3% [nuclear medicine] to 73.6% [neuroradiology]). The 50% NITOS-based wRVU threshold previously established for academic radiologists correctly assigned subspecialties to 48.8% of private practice radiologists but incorrectly categorized 2.9%. Practice patterns of the remaining 48.3% were sufficiently varied such that no single subspecialty assignment was possible. CONCLUSIONS: Existing Medicare provider codes poorly mirror subspecialty radiologists' own practice website-designated subspecialties. Actual payer claims data permit far more granular and accurate subspecialty identification for many radiologists. As new payment models increasingly focus on subspecialty-specific performance measures, claims-based identification methodologies show promise for reproducibly and transparently matching radiologists to practice-relevant metrics.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of questionnaires completed by patients at the time of abdominopelvic CT performed for abdominal pain on the completeness of clinical information and the identification of potential causes of pain, compared with order requisitions alone. METHODS: 100 outpatient CT examinations performed for the evaluation of abdominal pain were retrospectively reviewed. The specificity of the location of pain was compared between the order requisition and patient questionnaire. An abdominal imaging fellow (Reader 1) and abdominal radiologist (Reader 2) reviewed the examinations independently in two sessions 6 weeks apart (one with only the order requisition and one also with the questionnaire). Readers recorded identified causes of pain and rated their confidence in interpretation (1-5 scale; least to greatest confidence). RESULTS: In 30% of patients, the questionnaire provided a more specific location for pain. Among these, the pain was localized to a specific quadrant in 40%. With having access to the questionnaire, both readers identified additional causes for pain not identified in session 1 (Reader 1, 8.6% [7/81]; Reader 2 5.3% [4/75]). Additional identified causes of pain included diverticulitis, cystitis, peritoneal implants, epiploic appendagitis, osseous metastatic disease, umbilical hernia, gastritis, and SMA syndrome. Confidence in interpretation was significantly greater using the questionnaire for both readers (Reader 1: 4.8 +/- 0.6 vs. 4.0 +/- 0.5; Reader 2: 4.9 +/- 0.3 vs. 4.7 +/- 0.5, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patient questionnaires provide additional relevant clinical history, increased diagnostic yield, and improve radiologists' confidence. Radiology practices are encouraged to implement questionnaires and make these readily available to radiologists at the time of interpretation.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the outcomes of hyperechoic renal lesions measuring 1 cm or less at ultrasound examination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 161 hyperechoic renal lesions measuring 1 cm or less at ultrasound that were evaluated with follow-up ultrasound, CT, or MRI. Follow-up imaging examinations were reviewed to assess for definitive lesion characterization or size stability. RESULTS: Follow-up included 11 unenhanced CT, 39 contrast-enhanced CT, 52 unenhanced and contrast-enhanced CT, two unenhanced MRI, 50 unenhanced and contrast-enhanced MRI, and 87 ultrasound examinations. At CT or MRI 58.4% of lesions were confirmed to be angiomyolipomas. At CT, one lesion represented a stone, and one a hyperdense cyst. At CT or MRI 11.8% of the lesions had no correlate; 3.1% were not visualized at follow-up ultrasound. An additional 23.6% were stable at 2-year follow-up imaging or beyond. Two lesions were evaluated with only contrast-enhanced CT less than 1 month after ultrasound, and the CT images did not show macroscopic fat or calcification or meet the criteria for a simple cyst. These lesions were considered indeterminate. One lesion in a 65-year-old man was imaged with unenhanced and contrast-enhanced CT 23 months after ultrasound, and the CT showed an increase in size, solid enhancement, and no macroscopic fat. This lesion was presumed to represent renal cell carcinoma. Overall, the one lesion presumed malignant and the two indeterminate lesions constituted 1.9% of the cohort. The other 98.1% of lesions were considered clinically insignificant. CONCLUSION: Most hyperechoic renal lesions measuring 1 cm or smaller were clinically insignificant, suggesting that such lesions may not require additional imaging. Patient demographics, symptoms and risk factors for malignancy may help inform the decision to forgo follow-up imaging of such lesions.

PURPOSE: Prior studies have shown higher screening mammography rates for beneficiaries in capitated managed care Medicare Advantage (MA) plans compared with traditional fee-for-service Medicare. The aim of this study was to explore variation in screening mammography rates at the level of MA managed care plans. METHODS: Using the 2016 MA Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set Public Use File, screening mammography rates were identified for all 385 reporting MA plans. Associations were explored with a range of plan characteristics from this file, as well as from the CMS Part C and Part D Medicare Star Ratings Data File, Medicare Advantage Plan Directory, and Medicare Monthly Enrollment by Plan File. RESULTS: Overall MA plan screening rates were high (mean, 72.6 +/- 9.4%) but varied substantially among plans (range, 14.3%-91.8%). Screening rates were higher in nonprofit versus for-profit plans (77.3% versus 71.8%, P < .001), as well as in health maintenance organization or local preferred provider organization plans versus private fee-for-service or regional preferred provider organization plans (71.9%-73.2% versus 65.5%-66.8%, P = .001). Among parent organizations with five or more plans, screening rates were highest for Kaiser Foundation (median, 88.4%) and lowest for Molina Healthcare (median, 65.3%). Screening rates showed small but significant associations with plans' contract lengths, enrolled populations, and counties served. Screening rates showed strong associations (r = 0.796-0.798) with colorectal cancer screening and annual flu vaccine rates and showed moderate associations (r = 0.283-0.365) with ambulatory and preventive care visits, osteoporosis screenings, body mass index assessments, and nonrecommended prostate-specific antigen screenings after age 70. CONCLUSIONS: Screening mammography rates vary considerably among MA plans. With increased federal interest in promoting the MA program, enhanced transparency will be necessary to ensure appropriate Medicare beneficiary participation decision making.

PURPOSE: In 2006, the AMA/Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) introduced ongoing relativity screens to identify potentially misvalued medical services for payment adjustments. We assess the impact of these screens upon the valuation of noninvasive diagnostic radiology services. METHODS: Data regarding relativity screens and relative value unit (RVU) changes were obtained from the 2016 AMA Relativity Assessment Status Report. All global codes in the 2016 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule with associated work RVUs were classified as noninvasive diagnostic radiology services versus remaining services. The frequency of having ever undergone a screen was compared between the two groups. Screened radiology codes were further evaluated regarding the RVU impact of subsequent revaluation. RESULTS: Of noninvasive diagnostic radiology codes, 46.0% (201 of 437) were screened versus 22.2% (1,460 of 6,575) of remaining codes (P < .001). Most common screens for which radiology codes were identified as potentially misvalued were (1) high expenditures (27.5%) and (2) high utilization (25.6%). The modality and body region most likely to be identified in a screen were CT (82.1%) and breast (90.9%), respectively. Among screened radiology codes, work RVUs, practice expense RVUs, and nonfacility total RVUs decreased in 20.3%, 65.9%, and 75.3%, respectively. All screened CT, MRI, brain, and spine codes exhibited decreased total RVUs. CONCLUSION: Policymakers' ongoing search for potentially misvalued medical services has disproportionately impacted noninvasive diagnostic radiology services, risking the introduction of unintended or artificial shifts in physician practice.

As societal stakeholders call for increased evidence-based health policy, considerable attention has focused on Medicare, the country's largest payer. Concurrently, medical imaging has come under considerable scrutiny as a contributor to rising health care expenditures. Accordingly, many recent studies have focused on multiple factors related to the utilization of imaging among Medicare beneficiaries. This article summarizes several national Medicare fee-for-service data sources relevant to supporting ongoing investigations. Aggregated 100% data sets include the Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files and the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File. The former focuses on services, specialties, and sites of service; the latter focuses on providers. Both permit high-level national assessments of imaging utilization and spending. Individual 5% random-sample claims-level data sources include the Carrier Standard Analytical File Limited Data Set and the Research Identifiable File, which contain greater beneficiary-level information. Both facilitate more robust patient- and encounter-level analyses and some assessment of downstream outcomes but involve greater costs and require greater privacy oversight. More recently, Medicare data are being merged with registry data (eg, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare Linked Database files), creating opportunities for even more robust analyses given richer clinical information. Understanding these data sets and trade-offs in their use will aid policy-focused imaging health services researchers in most effectively conducting their investigations.

On 8 November 2016 the American electorate voted Donald Trump into the Presidency and a majority of Republicans into both houses of Congress. Since many Republicans ran for elected office on the promise to 'repeal and replace' Obamacare, this election result came with an expectation that campaign rhetoric would result in legislative action on healthcare. The American Health Care Act (AHCA) represented the Republican effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Key elements of the AHCA included modifications of Medicaid expansion, repeal of the individual mandate, replacement of ACA subsidies with tax credits, and a broadening of the opportunity to use healthcare savings accounts. Details of the bill and the political issues which ultimately impeded its passage are discussed here.