Current State of Private Practice and Academic Interventional Radiology: Differences in Practice Structure, Case Mix, and Productivity

PURPOSE

To investigate whether private practice interventional radiology (IR) groups self-report higher overall productivity given differing case mix and more diagnostic radiology interpretation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 60-question survey was distributed to 3,159 self-identified US IR physicians via the Society of Interventional Radiologists member search engine, with 357 responses (11.3% response rate). Of these responses, there were 258 unique practices from 34 US states.

RESULTS

Out of 84 IR group responses, private practice IR (PPIR) physicians reported a minimal trend for higher annual work relative value units (wRVUs) per clinical full-time equivalent compared with academic IR physicians (8,000 versus 7,140, P = .202), but this did not reach statistical significance. PPIR groups reported fewer median weekly hours (50 versus 52), more frequent call (every 6 versus every 5 days), and significantly higher median tenured compensation ($573,000 versus $451,000, P = .000). Out of 179 responses, academic practices reported significantly higher case percentages of interventional oncology and complex hepatobiliary intervention (P <.001), and private practices reported significantly higher percentages of musculoskeletal intervention (P < .001) with a nonsignificant trend for stroke or neurologic intervention (P = .010). Private practices reported more wRVUs from the interpretation of diagnostic imaging, at 26% of total wRVU production compared with 7% of total wRVU production for academic practices (P < .001; n = 131).

CONCLUSIONS

Self-reported data from private and academic IR groups suggest minimally higher wRVUs per clinical full-time equivalent among PPIRs with lower weekly work hours, more frequent call, differing case mix, and significantly higher tenured compensation among PPIR groups.

Cost and Morbidity Analysis of Chest Port Insertion: Interventional Radiology Suite Versus Operating Room

PURPOSE

To compare complications and cost, from a hospital perspective, of chest port insertions performed in an interventional radiology (IR) suite versus in surgery in an operating room (OR).

METHODS

This study was approved by an institutional review board and is HIPAA compliant. Medical records were retrospectively searched on consecutive chest port placement procedures, in the IR suite and the OR, between October 22, 2010 and February 26, 2013, to determine patients' demographic information and chest port-related complications and/or infections. A total of 478 charts were reviewed (age range: 21-85 years; 309 women, 169 men). Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors associated with an increased complication rate. Cost data on 149 consecutive Medicare outpatients (100 treated in the IR suite; 49 treated in the OR) who had isolated chest port insertions between March 2012 and February 2013 were obtained for both the operative services and pharmacy. Nonparametric tests for heterogeneity were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis method.

RESULTS

Early complications occurred in 9.2% (22 of 239) of the IR patients versus 13.4% (32 of 239) of the OR patients. Of the 478 implanted chest ports, 9 placed in IR and 18 placed in surgery required early removal. Infections from the ports placed in IR versus the OR were 0.25 versus 0.18 infections per 1000 catheters, respectively. Overall mean costs for chest port insertion were significantly higher in the OR, for both room and pharmacy costs (P < .0001). Overall average cost to place chest ports in an OR setting was almost twice that of placement in the IR suite.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital costs to place a chest port were significantly lower in the IR suite than in the OR, whereas radiology and surgery patients did not show a significantly different rate of complications and/or infections.