Value of Imaging Part I: Perspectives for the Academic Radiologist

Economic evaluation of breast MRI in screening - a systematic review and basic approach to cost-effectiveness analyses

Background

Economic evaluations have become an accepted methodology for decision makers to allocate resources in healthcare systems. Particularly in screening, where short-term costs are associated with long-term benefits, and adverse effects of screening intermingle, cost-effectiveness analyses provide a means to estimate the economic value of screening.

Purpose

To introduce the methodology of economic evaluations and to review the existing evidence on cost-effectiveness of MR-based breast cancer screening.

Materials and methods

The various concepts and techniques of economic evaluations critical to the interpretation of cost-effectiveness analyses are briefly introduced. In a systematic review of the literature, economic evaluations from the years 2000-2022 are reviewed.

Results

Despite a considerable heterogeneity in the reported input variables, outcome categories and methodological approaches, cost-effectiveness analyses report favorably on the economic value of breast MRI screening for different risk groups, including both short- and long-term costs and outcomes.

Conclusion

Economic evaluations indicate a strongly favorable economic value of breast MRI screening for women at high risk and for women with dense breast tissue.

Value-Based Healthcare and Radiology: How can Value be Measured?

The concept of value-based healthcare (VBH) emerges as a response to traditional models of healthcare system management. More specifically, in radiology, the transition from volume to value has been discussed by its main associations, having as the main concern regarding the role of the specialty in a more integrated healthcare context.

Through a qualitative study, this work aims to analyse and evaluate how this new concept can be implemented in radiology by identifying obstacles and mapping the technical and procedural improvements necessary for its correct implementation in the national context of healthcare provision. Through interviews with different elements of the healthcare sector (from doctors to industry partners and researchers), it was possible to draw a set of metrics for measuring the value of radiology, alongside the implementation of a VBH strategy.

As the main conclusion, the implementation of a strategic agenda for the creation of value in radiology at the national level should be based on the reduction of variability and the identification of best practices in terms of adequacy, quality, safety and efficiency, aiming to satisfy the needs of requesting doctors and patients.

Automated Protocoling for MRI Exams-Challenges and Solutions

Automated protocoling for MRI examinations is an amendable target for workflow automation with artificial intelligence. However, there are still challenges to overcome for a successful and robust approach. These challenges are outlined and analyzed in this work. Through a literature review, we analyzed limitations of currently published approaches for automated protocoling. Then, we assessed these limitations quantitatively based on data from a private radiology practice. For this, we assessed the information content provided by the clinical indication by computing the overlap coefficients for the sets of ICD-10-coded admitting diagnoses of different MRI protocols. Additionally, we assessed the heterogeneity of protocol trees from three different MRI scanners based on the overlap coefficient, on MRI protocol and sequence level. Additionally, we applied sequence name standardization to demonstrate its effect on the heterogeneity assessment, i.e., the overlap coefficient, of different protocol trees. The overlap coefficient for the set of ICD-10-coded admitting diagnoses for different protocols ranges from 0.14 to 0.56 for brain/head MRI exams and 0.04 to 0.57 for spine exams. The overlap coefficient across the set of sequences used at two different scanners increases when applying sequence name standardization (from 0.81/0.86 to 0.93). Automated protocoling for MRI examinations has the potential to reduce the workload for radiologists. However, an automated protocoling approach cannot be solely based on admitting diagnosis as it does not provide sufficient information. Moreover, sequence name standardization increases the overlap coefficient across the set of sequences used at different scanners and therefore facilitates transfer learning.

Computed tomography technologist notes in PACS to radiologists: what are they telling us and how does it increase value?

PURPOSE

In the clinical workflow of radiology services, a critical connection exists between technologists and radiologists, yet there is often limited communication between this key link in the chain of patient imaging. Our aim was to quantify and detail the communication between CT technologists and radiologists in our tertiary oncology practice.

METHODS

Using the note function in our EMR, as standard operating procedure, CT technologists are instructed to place pertinent notes for the radiologist relevant to any portion of the patient encounter. Note categories pertain to quality and/or safety: patient limitations (e.g., patient unable to raise arm), protocol confirmation (e.g., rectal contrast given), critical finding communication, scan range considerations, IV issues, reduction in eGFR, oral contrast issues, allergy information, general feedback, equipment malfunction, and radiologist approval information. The percentage of notes within each category were recorded upon review of contiguous abdominal CT scans in July 2018 with the primary outcome measure of overall note volume compared to baseline in July 2016 after which time technologists were educated on the importance of notes and were requested to increase use of this tool. Notes were regularly reviewed to identify practice improvement opportunities.

RESULTS

Compared to baseline 2 years earlier (8860 CT scans, 812 technologist notes), there was a 32% increase in technologist note volume (10,948 CT scans, 1330 technologist notes), representing an increase of notes from 9.2% of exams to 12.1% of exams (p < .001) and there were 14 related practice improvements.

CONCLUSION

After communicating the importance of CT technologist notes and requesting increased notation frequency, technologist note volume significantly increased and 14 specific case examples of related practice improvement demonstrate the electronic medical record note function to be a robust tool in the management of patient imaging.

Financial implications of CT-guided lung biopsy in a tertiary centre: a radiologists' perspective

AIM

To evaluate the financial costs of performing computed tomography (CT)-guided lung biopsies in a large tertiary centre to help guide service development.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Local financial data were collected to create a balance sheet, considering all expenses as well as revenue sources associated with the procedure. Data were based on accurate pricing and income data and evaluated on a per-procedure basis, with consideration of additional costs arising from post-procedural complications. Revenue data were estimated based on reimbursement information. A small coding quality audit was also performed to check if reimbursement claims were filed correctly.

RESULTS

This study demonstrated a healthy income generated from CT-guided lung biopsy procedures with a profit margin of 50%. Notably different financial impact was observed when comparing the same procedure undertaken on an outpatient as opposed to inpatient basis with inpatient procedures generating a net loss of - £2,146.79 a year. Overall, the activity generated a profit of £157,015.25, after accounting for loss generated by inpatient activity.

CONCLUSION

This analysis furthered understanding of the financial impact from performing CT-guided lung biopsy and will enable better planning and expansion of the service in the future, with emphasis around day-case and ambulatory service development, the positive intended consequence being an improved patient pathway.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: An Overview of Key Concepts, Recommendations, Controversies, and Pitfalls

The field of radiology has witnessed a burst of technological advances that improve diagnostic quality, reduce harm to patients, support clinical needs, and better serve larger more diverse patient populations. One of the critical challenges with these advances is proving that value outweighs the cost. The use of cutting-edge technology is often expensive, and the reality is that our society cannot afford all the screening and diagnostic tests that are being developed. At the societal level, we need tools to help us decide which health programs should be funded. Therefore, decision makers are increasingly looking toward scientific methods to compare health technologies in order to improve allocation of resources. One of such methods is cost-effectiveness analysis. In this article, we review key features of cost-effectiveness analysis and its specific issues as they relate to radiology.

Abbreviated MRI of the Breast: Does It Provide Value?

MRI of the breast is the most sensitive test for breast cancer detection and outperforms conventional imaging with mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, or ultrasound. However, the long scan time and relatively high costs limit its widespread use. Hence, it is currently only routinely implemented in the screening of women at an increased risk of breast cancer. To overcome these limitations, abbreviated dynamic contrast‐enhanced (DCE)‐MRI protocols have been introduced that substantially shorten image acquisition and interpretation time while maintaining a high diagnostic accuracy. Efforts to develop abbreviated MRI protocols reflect the increasing scrutiny of the disproportionate contribution of radiology to the rising overall healthcare expenditures. Healthcare policy makers are now focusing on curbing the use of advanced imaging examinations such as MRI while continuing to promote the quality and appropriateness of imaging. An important cornerstone of value‐based healthcare defines value as the patient's outcome over costs. Therefore, the concept of a fast, abbreviated MRI exam is very appealing, given its high diagnostic accuracy coupled with the possibility of a marked reduction in the cost of an MRI examination. Given recent concerns about gadolinium‐based contrast agents, unenhanced MRI techniques such as diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI) are also being investigated for breast cancer diagnosis. Although further larger prospective studies, standardized imaging protocol, and reproducibility studies are necessary, initial results with abbreviated MRI protocols suggest that it seems feasible to offer screening breast DCE‐MRI to a broader population. This article aims to give an overview of abbreviated and fast breast MRI protocols, their utility for breast cancer detection, and their emerging role in the new value‐based healthcare paradigm that has replaced the fee‐for‐service model.

Level of Evidence: 1

Technical Efficacy: Stage 2

J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:e85–e100.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Radiology: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) have become more prevalent in radiology. However, the lack of standard methodology may lead to conflicting conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of an imaging modality and hinder CEA-based policy recommendations. This study reviews recent CEAs to identify areas of methodological variation, explore their impact on interpretation, and discuss optimal strategies for performing CEAs in radiology.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review for cost-utility analyses in radiology from 2013 to 2017. Cost and quality-of-life methods were analyzed and compared using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist.

RESULTS

Eighty cost-utility studies met our inclusion criteria. A payer perspective was the most common (70%) and hospital perspective the least common (5%). Fourteen studies (17.5%) did not report perspective, and 12 (15%) reported a perspective inconsistent with their performed analysis. Cost inclusion varied greatly between studies; adverse effects of imaging (20.5%) and hospitalization (34.6%) were the least frequently included direct costs. Studies that measured their own utilities most commonly used the EuroQol-5D and Short Form-6D questionnaires; however, most studies (80%) cited utilities from previous literature. Seventy-two studies (90%) used willingness-to-pay thresholds, and 30 used cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (41.7%).

CONCLUSION

We observed statistically significant methodological variation indicating the need for a standardized, accurate means of performing and presenting CEAs within radiology. We make several recommendations to address key problems regarding study perspective, cost inclusion, and use of willingness-to-pay thresholds. Further work is required to ensure comparability and transparency between studies such that policymakers are properly informed when utilizing CEA results.

The Role of Radiology in the Diagnostic Process: Information, Communication, and Teamwork

OBJECTIVE

The diagnostic radiology process represents a partnership between clinical and radiology teams. As such, breakdowns in interpersonal interactions and communication can result in patient harm.

CONCLUSION

We explore the role of radiology in the diagnostic process, focusing on key concepts of information and communication, as well as key interpersonal interactions of teamwork, collaboration, and collegiality, all based on trust. We propose 10 principles to facilitate effective information flow in the diagnostic process.

Costing in Radiology and Health Care: Rationale, Relativity, Rudiments, and Realities

Costs direct decisions that influence the effectiveness of radiology in the care of patients on a daily basis. Yet many radiologists struggle to harness the power of cost measurement and cost management as a critical path toward establishing their value in patient care. When radiologists cannot articulate their value, they risk losing control over how imaging is delivered and supported. In the United States, recent payment trends directing value-based payments for bundles of care advance the imperative for radiology providers to articulate their value. This begins with the development of an understanding of the providers' own costs, as well as the complex interrelationships and imaging-associated costs of other participants across the imaging value chain. Controlling the costs of imaging necessitates understanding them at a procedural level and quantifying the costs of delivering specific imaging services. Effective product-level costing is dependent on a bottom-up approach, which is supported through recent innovations in time-dependent activity-based costing. Once the costs are understood, they can be managed. Within the high fixed cost and high overhead cost environment of health care provider organizations, stakeholders must understand the implications of misaligned top-down cost management approaches that can both paradoxically shift effort from low-cost workers to much costlier professionals and allocate overhead costs counterproductively. Radiology's engagement across a broad spectrum of care provides an excellent opportunity for radiology providers to take a leading role within the health care organizations to enhance value and margin through principled and effective cost management. Following a discussion of the rationale for measuring costs, this review contextualizes costs from the perspectives of a variety of stakeholders (relativity), discusses core concepts in how costs are classified (rudiments), presents common and improved methods for measuring costs in health care, and discusses how cost management strategies can either improve or hinder high-value health care (realities). ^© RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Radiology Consultation in the Era of Precision Oncology: A Review of Consultation Models and Services in the Tertiary Setting

The purpose of the article is to describe the various radiology consultation models in the Era of Precision Medicine. Since the inception of our specialty, radiologists have served as consultants to physicians of various disciplines. A variety of radiology consultation services have been described in the literature, including clinical decision support, patient-centric, subspecialty interpretation, and/or some combination of these. In oncology care in particular, case complexity often merits open dialogue with clinical providers. To explore the utility and impact of radiology consultation services in the academic setting, this article will further describe existing consultation models and the circumstances that precipitated their development. The hybrid model successful at our tertiary cancer center is discussed. In addition, the contributions of a consultant radiologist in breast cancer care are reviewed as the archetype of radiology consultation services provided to oncology practitioners.