Faculty Bibliography

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.

In early 2015, Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, described the federal administration's goals for delivery of health care in the United States. Prominently featured was a conversion from volume to value through the incorporation of Alternative Payment Models. The Department of Health and Human Services laid the framework, but recognized significant knowledge gaps in how providers and institutions would develop Alternative Payment Models. To that end, the Health Care Payment Learning and Action Network was conceived. On March 25, 2015, the Health Care Payment Learning and Action Network held its first meeting, which included a broad swath of industry participants. This collaboration was considered mission critical to achieving success in the goals of advancing Alternative Payment Models. This article highlights the Health Care Payment Learning and Action Network and the framework it is proposing for Alternative Payment Models that would have meaningful implications for radiologists.

The current fee-for-service system for health care reimbursement in the United Stated is argued to encourage fragmented care delivery and a lack of accountability that predisposes to insufficient focus on quality as well as unnecessary or duplicative resource utilization. Episode payment models (EPMs) seek to improve coordination by linking payments for all services related to a patient's condition or procedure, thereby improving quality and efficiency of care. The CMS Innovation Center has implemented a broadening array of EPMs. Early models with relevance to radiologists include Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (involving 48 possible clinical conditions), Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (involving knee and hip replacement), and the Oncology Care Model (involving chemotherapy). In July 2016, CMS expanded the range of EPMs through three new models with mandatory hospital participation addressing inpatient and 90-day postdischarge care for acute myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft, and surgical hip and femur fracture treatment. Moreover, some of the EPMs include tracks that allow participating entities to qualify as an Advanced Alternative Payment Model under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA), reaping the associated reporting and payment benefits. Even though none of the available EPMs are radiology specific, the models will nevertheless likely influence reimbursements for some radiologists. Thus, radiologists should partner with hospitals and other specialties in care coordination through these episode-based initiatives, thereby having opportunities to apply their imaging expertise to help lower spending while improving quality and overall levels of health.