The Relationship Between Medicare Outpatient Efficiency Measure OP8 and Lumbar MRI Utilization

Post-Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 Trends in Lumbar Magnetic Resonance Imaging Use for Patients with Low Back Pain at 1373 Hospitals

BACKGROUND

Lumbar Spine MRI Use for Low Back Pain (OP-8) is calculated by dividing the number of patients who received lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI-L) before receiving alternative treatments (e.g., physical therapy) by the total number of patients receiving MRI-L in the outpatient setting at a given institution. Since the passage of the Post-Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA), OP-8 scores became tied to hospital finances. This study aims to determine how MACRA has impacted OP-8 scores since its implementation. We also aim to investigate how regional designation, profit status (for-profit, government, and nonprofit), and hospital setting (critical access, non-critical access) affect OP-8 scores.

METHODS

Data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital Compare database were used to extract information on the national trends in OP-8 scores from 2014 to 2020. A multivariable linear regression model was fit to isolate the impact of hospital characteristics on OP-8 scores.

RESULTS

After a decrease from 2015 to 2016, the mean national OP-8 score plateaued, staying around 40% from 2017 through 2020. A critical access setting increased OP-8 scores by 5.41 (95% confidence interval, 3.51-6.77; P ≤ 0.001), compared with a non-critical access setting. Governmental status increased scores by 1.27 (95% confidence interval, 0.28-2.27; P = 0.012), compared with a nonprofit status.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of MACRA seems to have been unsuccessful in altering practice patterns, given the minimal change in OP-8 scores over the last 4 years. Furthermore, institutional factors are clearly correlated with a lack of adherence to magnetic resonance imaging guidelines. Given these findings, there is a need to modify health policies.

Defining and measuring imaging appropriateness in low back pain studies: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Patients with low back pain (LBP) rarely have serious underlying pathology but frequently undergo inappropriate imaging. A range of guidelines and red flag features are utilised to characterise appropriate imaging. This scoping review explores how LBP imaging appropriateness is determined and calculated in studies of primary care practice.

METHODS

This scoping review builds upon a previous meta-analysis, incorporating articles identified that were published since 2014, with an updated search to capture articles published since the original search. Electronic databases were searched, and citation lists of included papers were reviewed. Inclusion criteria were studies assessing adult LBP imaging appropriateness in a primary care setting. Twenty-three eligible studies were identified.

RESULTS

A range of red flag features were utilised to determine imaging appropriateness. Most studies considered appropriateness in a binary manner, by the presence of any red flag feature. Ten guidelines were referenced, with 7/23 (30%) included studies amending or not referencing any guideline. The method for calculating the proportion of inappropriate imaging varied. Ten per cent of the studies used the total number of patients presenting with LBP as the denominator, suggesting most studies overestimated the rate of inappropriate imaging, and did not capture where imaging is not performed for clinically suspicious LBP.

CONCLUSION

Greater clarity is needed on how we define and measure imaging appropriateness for LBP, which also accounts for the problem of failing to image when indicated. An internationally agreed methodology for imaging appropriateness studies would ultimately lead to an improvement in the care delivered to patients. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.