Turf Wars in Radiology: Should It Be Radiologists or Cardiologists Who Do Cardiac Imaging?

Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging Services are Significant Sources of Medicare Revenue for Highly Reimbursed Nonradiologist Providers

INTRODUCTION

Nonradiologist providers increasingly perform diagnostic imaging examinations and imaging-guided interventions traditionally performed by radiologists, which have raised concerns regarding appropriate utilization and self-referral. The purpose of this study was to assess the contribution of imaging studies to Medicare reimbursements for highly compensated nonradiologist providers in specialties often performing imaging studies.

METHODS

The Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Database was queried for provider information regarding overall reimbursement for providers in anesthesiology, cardiology, emergency medicine, neurology, obstetrics and gynecology, orthopedic surgery, neurology, and vascular surgery. Information regarding imaging studies reported and payment amounts were extracted for the 25 highest-reimbursed providers. Data were analyzed for relative contribution of imaging payments to overall medical Medicare payments.

RESULTS

Significant differences between numbers of imaging studies, types of imaging, and payment amounts were noted based on provider specialty (p < 0.001). Highest-reimbursed cardiologists received the greatest percentage of Medicare payments from imaging (18.3%) followed by vascular surgery (11.6%), obstetrics and gynecology (10.9%), orthopedic surgery (9.6%), emergency medicine (8.7%), neurology (7.8%), and anesthesiology (3.2%) providers. Mean imaging payments amongst highly reimbursed nonradiologists were greatest for cardiology ($578,265), vascular surgery ($363,912), and orthopedic surgery ($113,634). Amongst highly reimbursed specialists, most common nonradiologist imaging payments were from ultrasound (45%) and cardiac nuclear medicine studies (40%).

CONCLUSIONS

Nonradiologist performed imaging payments comprised substantial proportions of overall Medicare reimbursement for highly reimbursed physicians in several specialties, especially cardiology, vascular surgery, and orthopedic surgery. Further investigation is needed to better understand the wider economic implications of nonradiologist imaging study performance and self-referral beyond the Medicare population.

Day of Week, Site of Service, and Patient Complexity Disparities in Musculoskeletal MRI Interpretations by Radiologists Versus Nonradiologists

OBJECTIVE

Although most musculoskeletal MRI examinations are interpreted by radiologists, some nonradiologists provide interpretations as well. We aimed to study day of week (weekday vs weekend), site of service, and patient complexity differences between radiologists and nonradiologists interpreting lower extremity MRI examinations on Medicare beneficiaries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using fee-for-service carrier claims for a 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries nationally from 2012 through 2014, we identified all lower extremity joint MRI examinations. Services were classified by physician specialty, day of week, and site of service. Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) values were calculated for all patients. Chi-square statistical testing was performed.

RESULTS

Of all 125,800 billed lower extremity joint MRI examinations, 118,295 (94.0%) were performed on weekdays and 7505 (6.0%) on weekends. Of the weekday examinations, radiologists interpreted 85,991 (83.3%) and nonradiologists 17,260 (16.7%). Of the weekend examinations, radiologists interpreted 6212 (92.8%) and nonradiologists 485 (7.2%). Of examinations performed in inpatient hospital and emergency department settings, radiologists interpreted 6499 (99.2%) and nonradiologists 51 (0.8%). Of the examinations on the most clinically complex patients (CCI ≥ 3), radiologists interpreted 4228 (90.2%) and nonradiologists 461 (9.8%). All interspecialty differences were statistically significant (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In the Medicare population, radiologists interpret most lower extremity joint MRI examinations. Compared with nonradiologists, radiologists disproportionately provide services on weekends, in the highest acuity settings, and on the most clinically complex patients. To promote patient access and minimize disparities, future pay-for-performance metrics should consider temporal, acuity, and complexity parameters.

Do imaging studies performed in physician offices increase downstream utilization?: an empiric analysis of cardiac stress testing with imaging

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to compare patterns of downstream testing and procedures after stress testing with imaging performed at physician offices versus at hospital-outpatient facilities

BACKGROUND

Stress testing with imaging has grown dramatically in recent years, but whether the location of where the test is performed correlates with different patterns for subsequent cardiac testing and procedures is unknown

METHODS

We identified 82,178 adults with private health insurance from 2005 to 2007 who underwent ambulatory myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) or stress echocardiography (SE). Subsequent MPI, SE, cardiac catheterization or revascularization within 6 months was compared between physician office and hospital outpatient settings.

RESULTS

Overall, 85.1% of MPI and 84.9% of SE were performed in physician offices. The proportion of patients who underwent subsequent MPI, SE, or cardiac catheterization was not statistically different between physician office and hospital outpatient settings for MPI (14.2% vs. 13.9%, p=0.44) or SE (7.9% vs. 8.6%, p=0.21). However, patients with physician office imaging had slightly higher rates of repeat MPI within 6 months compared with hospital-outpatient imaging for both index MPI (3.5% vs. 2.0%, p<0.001) and SE (3.4% vs. 2.1%, p<0.001), and slightly lower rates of cardiac catheterization after index MPI (11.4% vs. 12.2%, p=0.04) and SE (4.5% vs. 7.0%, p<0.001). Differences in 6-month utilization were observed across the 5 healthcare markets after index MPI but not after index SE CONCLUSIONS: Physician office imaging is associated with slightly higher repeat MPI and fewer cardiac catheterizations than hospital outpatient imaging, but no overall difference in the proportion of patients undergoing additional further testing or procedures. Although regional variation exists, especially for MPI, the relationship between physician office location of stress testing with imaging and greater downstream resource utilization appears modest.

Cardiac imaging training in radiology residency programs: a survey of radiology chief residents

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Comprehensive training in cardiac imaging during radiology residency is imperative if radiologists are to maintain a significant role in this rapidly growing field. In this study, radiology chief residents were surveyed to assess the current status of cardiac imaging training in radiology residency programs. The responses to this survey may be helpful in understanding current trends in cardiac imaging training and how such training can be improved in the future.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Chief residents at accredited radiology residency programs were sent an e-mail with a link to a 17-question Web-based survey. The survey assessed the organization of cardiac imaging training in each residency program, imaging modalities incorporated into cardiac imaging training, the role of residents on cardiac imaging rotations, and attitudes of residents about their cardiac imaging training and the future of cardiac imaging.

RESULTS

Responses were obtained from 52 of 112 (46%) programs. Seventy-one percent had at least one dedicated cardiac imaging rotation during their residencies. Fifty-two percent and 62% of respondents reported <5 hours of cardiac imaging-related case conferences and didactic lectures per year, respectively. Most had cardiac computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging incorporated into their cardiac imaging training. Although 92% felt that cardiac imaging training is important, only 17% felt that they currently received adequate training in cardiac imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of residency programs represented in this survey had at least one dedicated cardiac imaging rotation for their residents. Most of these programs had few cardiac imaging-related conferences and lectures per year. Although most chief residents believed that cardiac imaging training is important, only a minority felt that they currently received adequate training in cardiac imaging.

The 2006 ACR Forum: Cardiovascular Imaging: Learning From the Past, Strategies for the Future

This paper summarizes the 2006 ACR Forum, which explored the history of the relationship between radiology and cardiovascular imaging and sought to explore strategies by which radiology could cope with similar challenges in the future. Key topics include: competition between radiology and other medical specialties, the importance of cardiac imaging, the relative merits of cardiologists and radiologists as cardiovascular imagers, and specific recommendations for radiology leaders in the areas of education, research, clinical practice, and policy.