Faculty Bibliography

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.

Purpose To compare standard diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging and diffusion kurtosis (DK) imaging for prostate cancer (PC) detection and characterization in a large patient cohort, with attention to the potential added value of DK imaging. Materials and Methods This retrospective institutional review board-approved study received a waiver of informed consent. Two hundred eighty-five patients with PC underwent 3.0-T phased-array coil prostate magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, including a DK imaging sequence (b values 0, 500, 1000, 1500, and 2000 sec/mm2) before prostatectomy. Maps of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and diffusional kurtosis (K) were derived by using maximal b values of 1000 and 2000 sec/mm2, respectively. Mean ADC and K were obtained from volumes of interest (VOIs) placed on each patient's dominant tumor and benign prostate tissue. Metrics were compared between benign and malignant tissue, between Gleason score (GS) /= 3 + 4 tumors, and between GS /= 4 + 3 tumors by using paired t tests, analysis of variance, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, and exact tests. Results ADC and K showed significant differences for benign versus tumor tissues, GS /= 3 + 4 tumors, and GS /= 4 + 3 tumors (P < .001 for all). ADC and K were highly correlated (r = -0.82; P < .001). Area under the ROC curve was significantly higher (P = .002) for ADC (0.921) than for K (0.902) for benign versus malignant tissue but was similar for GS /= 3 + 4 tumors (0.715-0.744) and GS /= 4 + 3 tumors (0.694-0.720) (P > .15). ADC and K were concordant for these various outcomes in 80.0%-88.6% of patients; among patients with discordant results, ADC showed better performance than K for GS /= 4 + 3 tumors (P = .016) and was similar to K for other outcomes (P > .136). Conclusion ADC and K were highly correlated, had similar diagnostic performance, and were concordant for the various outcomes in the large majority of cases. These observations did not show a clear added value of DK imaging compared with standard DW imaging for clinical PC evaluation. (c) RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

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.