Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to assess recent trends in the generalist versus subspecialist composition of the national radiologist workforce. METHODS:Practicing radiologists were identified using 2012 to 2017 CMS Physician and Other Supplier Public Use Files. Work relative value units associated with radiologists' billed claims were mapped to subspecialties using the Neiman Imaging Types of Service to classify radiologists as subspecialists when exceeding a 50% work effort in a given subspecialty and as generalists otherwise. Additional practice characteristics were obtained from CMS Physician Compare. Chi-square statistics were computed. RESULTS:The percentage of radiologists practicing as subspecialists increased from 37.1% in 2012 and 2013 to 38.8% in 2014, 41.0% in 2015, 43.9% in 2016, and 44.6% in 2017. By subspecialty, 2012 to 2017 workforce changes were as follows: breast, +3.7%; abdominal, +2.4%; neuroradiology, +1.8%; musculoskeletal, +0.8%; cardiothoracic, +0.2%; nuclear, -0.2%; and interventional, -1.2%. Increased subspecialization overall was consistently observed (P < .05) across cohorts defined by gender, years in practice, practice size, and academic status. The degree of increasing subspecialization was greatest for female (+12.1%) and earlier career (+10.2% for those in practice <10 years) radiologists and those in larger groups (+7.2% for ≥100 members). Subspecialization increased in 45 states, and state-level increased subspecialization correlated weakly with population density (r = +0.248). CONCLUSIONS:In recent years, the national radiologist workforce has become increasingly subspecialized, particularly related to shifts toward breast imaging, abdominal imaging, and neuroradiology. Although growing subspecialization may advance more sophisticated imaging care, a diminishing supply of generalists could affect patient access and potentially separate radiologists across workforce sectors.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The head-computed tomography (CT) exam code was recently identified by policy makers as having a potentially overvalued resource value units (RVU). A critical aspect in determining RVUs is the complexity of patients undergoing the service. This study evaluated the complexity of patients undergoing head-CT. METHODS:The 2017 Medicare PSPS Master File was used to identify the most common site for performing head-CT examinations. Given the most common location, the 5% Research Identifiable File, was then used to evaluate complexity of patients undergoing head CT on the same day as an emergency department (ED) visit based on the Evaluation & Management (E&M) "level" of these visits (1-least complex to 5-most complex patient) and the ICD-10 diagnosis coding associated with the billed head CT claims. RESULTS:56.1% of head CT examinations were performed in the ED. Seventy percent of noncontrast exams performed in the ED were ordered in the most complex patient encounters (level 5 E&M visits). The most common ICD-10 code for head-CT without intravenous contrast billed with a level 5 E&M visit was "dizziness and giddiness," and for head-CT without and with intravenous contrast was "headache." CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Head-CT is not only most frequently ordered in the ED, but also during the most complex ED visits, suggesting that the ICD-10 codes associated with such exams do not appropriately reflects patient complexity. The valuation process should also consider the complexity of associated billed patient encounters, as indicated by E&M visit levels.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:While subspecialty radiologists' practice patterns have received recent attention, little is known about the practice patterns of general radiologists. We aim to characterize this group (which represents most US radiologists). MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:US radiologists' individual work efforts were assessed using the 2017 Medicare Provider and Other Supplier Public Use File and a previously validated wRVU-weighted claims-based classification system. Using prior criteria, radiologists without >50% work efforts in a single subspecialty were deemed generalists. For this study, a >25% subspecialty work effort threshold was deemed a subspecialty "focus area," and generalists with ≥2 subspecialty focus areas were deemed "multispecialists." Practice characteristics were summarized using various parameters. RESULTS:Among 12,438 radiologists meeting existing claims-based criteria to be deemed generalists, 85.0% had ≥2 subspecialty focus areas of >25% work effort (i.e., multispecialists), 14.6% had one focus area, and 0.4% had no focus area. The fraction of generalists meeting multispecialist criteria was similar across radiologists' years in practice (range 84.7% to 85.4%), academic vs. nonacademic status (84.9% to 86.6%), and practice size (83.3% to 87.0%). Although general radiologist multispecialization varied geographically, a majority were multispecialists in all states (range 57.6% in VT to 93.9% in WY) and percentages were not associated with state-level population density (r = 0.013; p = 0.926). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The large majority of US general radiologists practice as multispecialists, and nearly all have at least one subspecialty focus area. The predominance of general radiologists' multispecialty focus across various practice types and locations supports their role in facilitating patient access to a range of radiologist subspecialties.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Occupational "horizontal segregation," defined as disparity in the distribution of responsibilities between genders, could discourage women from seeking careers in radiology, as well as impact women within radiology in terms of compensation, promotion, and career advancement. We aimed to explore the existence of horizontal workplace segregation in radiology, as potentially manifested as intergender differences in the distribution of clinical work effort among imaging modalities for radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Medicare-participating general radiologists, neuroradiologists, abdominal, cardiothoracic, and musculoskeletal radiologists were identified from the 2016 Medicare Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File. Work effort in radiography, ultrasound, CT, and MRI was stratified by gender. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed. RESULTS:22,445 radiologists were included (19.0% female; 19.6% in academic practices). At univariable analysis, female (vs. male) generalists had lower work effort in MRI (10.2% vs. 13.2%) (p < 0.001); abdominal radiologists had higher work effort in ultrasound (27.1% vs. 21.9%), with lower work effort in CT (53.7%. vs. 56.0%) and MRI (8.1%. vs. 9.4%) (p < 0.001); and musculoskeletal radiologists had higher work effort in radiography (41.6% vs. 34.8%) and less in MRI (44.8% vs. 49.6%) (p = 0.007). In multivariable analyses, female gender was independently associated with lower work effort in advanced imaging (CT and MRI) for generalists (coefficient, -0.020; p < 0.001), abdominal radiologists (coefficient, -0.042; p < 0.001), and neuroradiologists (coefficient -0.010; p = 0.035). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Horizontal occupational segregation exists in radiology with female radiologists devoting lower work effort to advanced imaging modalities. Further investigation is warranted to better understand the sources and downstream implications of such variation.

OBJECTIVE. Industry relationships drive technologic innovation in interventional radiology and offer opportunities for professional growth. Women are underrepresented in interventional radiology despite the growing recognition of the importance of diversity. This study characterized gender disparities in financial relationships between industry and academic interventional radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS. In this retrospective cross-sectional study, U.S. academic interventional radiology physicians and their academic ranks were identified by searching websites of practices with accredited interventional radiology fellowship programs. Publicly available databases were queried to collect each physician's gender, years since medical school graduation, h-index, academic rank, and industry payments in 2018. Wilcoxon and chi-square tests compared payments between genders. A general linear model assessed the impact of academic rank, years since graduation, gender, and h-index on payments. RESULTS. Of 842 academic interventional radiology physicians, 108 (13%) were women. A total $14,206,599.41 was received by 686 doctors (81%); only $147,975.28 (1%) was received by women. A lower percentage of women (74%) than men (83%) received payments (p = 0.04); median total payments were lower for women ($535) than men ($792) (p = 0.01). Academic rank, h-index, years since graduation, and male gender were independent predictors of higher payments. Industry payments supporting technologic advancement were made exclusively to men. CONCLUSION. Female interventional radiology physicians received fewer and lower industry payments, earning 1% of total payments despite constituting 13% of physicians. Gender independently predicted industry payments, regardless of h-index, academic rank, or years since graduation. Gender disparity in interventional radiology physician-industry relationships warrants further investigation and correction.

Background Prostate MRI is used widely in clinical care for guiding tissue sampling, active surveillance, and staging. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) helps provide a standardized probabilistic approach for identifying clinically significant prostate cancer. Despite widespread use, the variability in performance of prostate MRI across practices remains unknown. Purpose To estimate the positive predictive value (PPV) of PI-RADS for the detection of high-grade prostate cancer across imaging centers. Materials and Methods This retrospective cross-sectional study was compliant with the HIPAA. Twenty-six centers with members in the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel submitted data from men with suspected or biopsy-proven untreated prostate cancer. MRI scans were obtained between January 2015 and April 2018. This was followed with targeted biopsy. Only men with at least one MRI lesion assigned a PI-RADS score of 2-5 were included. Outcome was prostate cancer with Gleason score (GS) greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2). A mixed-model logistic regression with institution and individuals as random effects was used to estimate overall PPVs. The variability of observed PPV of PI-RADS across imaging centers was described by using the median and interquartile range. Results The authors evaluated 3449 men (mean age, 65 years ± 8 [standard deviation]) with 5082 lesions. Biopsy results showed 1698 cancers with GS greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2) in 2082 men. Across all centers, the estimated PPV was 35% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27%, 43%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 3 and 49% (95% CI: 40%, 58%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 4. The interquartile ranges of PPV at these same PI-RADS score thresholds were 27%-44% and 27%-48%, respectively. Conclusion The positive predictive value of the Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System was low and varied widely across centers. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Milot in this issue.