Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Concerns regarding increasing utilization of non-vascular extremity ultrasound (US) imaging led to the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) Editorial Panel separating a singular billing code into distinct comprehensive and focused examination codes with differential reimbursement. We explore this policy change's temporal association with utilization. METHODS:Using Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files, we identified all nonvascular extremity US services billed for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries between 1994 and 2017. These included generic (CPT code 76880 from 1994 to 2010), complete (code 76881 from 2011 to 2017), and limited (code 76882 from 2011 to 2017) examinations. Annual utilization per 100,000 beneficiaries was computed and stratified by billing specialty. Compound annual growth rates were calculated. RESULTS:Radiologists and podiatrists were the top 2 billing specialties for nonvascular extremity US examinations. From 1994 to 2010, radiologist services increased 6.1% annually. Following the 2011 code separation, radiologists' utilization increased 2.7% annually for complete and 12.3% for limited exams. Between 1994 and 2017, radiologists' market share decreased 72.8% to 40.4%. From 1994 to 2010, podiatrist services increased 87.1% annually. Following the code separation, podiatrists' annual utilization growth stabilized 0.4% for complete and 0.6% for limited exams. Podiatrists' market share was 9.1% in 2001, peaked at 31.3% in 2009, and declined to 14.3% in 2017. CONCLUSIONS:Prior rapid growth in extremity nonvascular US for podiatrists slowed considerably following CPT code separation in 2011. Subsequent service growth has largely been related to less costly, focused examinations performed by radiologists. Further study may help better understand how CPT coding changes alter imaging utilization more broadly.

OBJECTIVE:The Radiology Support, Communication and Alignment Network (R-SCAN) is a quality improvement program through which patients, referring clinicians, and radiologists collaborate to improve imaging appropriateness based on Choosing Wisely recommendations and ACR Appropriateness Criteria. R-SCAN was shown previously to increase the odds of obtaining an appropriate, higher patient or diagnostic value, imaging study. In the current study, we aimed to estimate the potential imaging cost savings associated with R-SCAN use for the Medicare population. MATERIAL AND METHODS/METHODS:The R-SCAN data set was used to determine the proportion of appropriate and lesser value imaging studies performed, as well as the percent change in the total number of imaging studies performed, before and after an R-SCAN educational intervention. Using a separate CMS data set, we then identified the total number of relevant imaging studies and associated total costs using a 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries in 2017. We applied R-SCAN proportions to the CMS data set to estimate the potential impact of the R-SCAN interventions across a broader Medicare population. RESULTS:We observed a substantial reduction in the costs associated with lesser value imaging in the R-SCAN cohort, totaling $260,000 over 3.5 months. When extrapolated to the Medicare population, the potential cost reductions associated with the decrease in lesser value imaging totaled $433 million yearly. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:If expanded broadly, R-SCAN interventions can result in substantial savings to the Medicare program.

To assess changing utilization of extremity angiography from 2001 to 2016, focusing on modalities and provider specialties. Medicare PSPS Master Files from 2001-2016 and POSPUF from 2016 were used to determine overall and specialty utilization of diagnostic catheter angiography (DCA), CT angiography (CTA), and MR angiography (MRA). From 2001 to 2016, extremity angiography increased from 1107 to 1590 extremities imaged per 100,000 beneficiaries, with rapid expansion of CTA (22 in 2001 to 619 in 2009; plateau of 645 in 2016), but declines in DCA (1039 to 914) and MRA (45 to 30). Over time, extremity angiography shifted from 94% DCA, 4% MRA, and 2% CTA to 58% DCA, 41% CTA, and 2% MRA. For radiologists, extremity angiography increased slightly (741 to 767) with increases in CTA (20 to 595) and large decreases in DCA (681 to 145), with MRA remaining low (40 to 27). Extremity angiography increased for cardiologists (197 to 349) and vascular surgeons (87 to 351), both overwhelmingly performing DCA. Radiologists' share of all extremity angiography shifted from 67% to 48%, with interventionalists (47%), generalists (43%), and abdominal radiologists (7.4%) providing most radiologist services in 2016. Throughout, radiologists were the dominant providers of CTA (89% to 92%) and MRA (89% to 90%). Extremity angiography utilization in Medicare beneficiaries increased nearly 50% from 2001 to 2016, largely related to CTA performed by radiologists. Of radiologists, interventionalists and generalists together render most services. Cardiologists and surgeons assumed a large share of DCA previously performed by radiologists.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To assess recent trends and characteristics in radiologist-practice separation across the United States. METHODS:Using the Medicare Physician Compare and Medicare Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File data sets, we linked all radiologists to associated group practices annually between 2014 and 2018 and assessed radiologist-practice separation over a variety of physician and group characteristics. Multivariate logistic regression modeling was used to estimate the likelihood of radiologist-practice separation. RESULTS:Of 25,228 unique radiologists associated with 4,381 unique group practices, 41.1% separated from at least one group practice between 2014 and 2018, and annual separation rates increased 38.4% over time (13.8% from 2014 to 2015 to 19.2% from 2017 to 2018). Radiologist-practice separation rates ranged from 57.4% in Utah to 26.3% in Virginia. Separation rates were 42.8% for general radiologists versus 38.2% for subspecialty radiologists. Among subspecialists, separation rates ranged from 43.0% for breast imagers to 33.5% for cardiothoracic radiologists. Early career status (odds ratio [OR] = 1.286) and late (OR = 1.554) career status were both independent positive predictors of radiologist-practice separation (both P < .001). Larger practice size (OR = 0.795), radiology-only (versus multispecialty) group (OR = 0.468), academic (versus nonacademic) practice (OR = 0.709), and abdominal (OR = 0.820), musculoskeletal (OR = 0.659), and neuroradiology (OR = 0.895) subspecialization were independent negative predictors (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS:With over 40% of radiologists separating from at least one practice in recent years, the US radiologist workforce is highly and increasingly mobile. Because reasons for separation (eg, resignation, practice acquisition) cannot be assessed using administrative data, further attention is warranted given the manifold financial, operational, and patient care implications.