Determining Variable Costs in the Acute Urolithiasis Cycle of Care Through Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize full cycle of care costs for managing an acute ureteral stone using time-driven activity-based costing. METHODS: We defined all phases of care for patients presenting with an acute ureteral stone and built an overarching process map. Maps for sub-processes were constructed through interviews with providers and direct observation of clinical spaces. This facilitated calculation of cost per minute for all aspects of care delivery, which were multiplied by associated process times. These were added to consumable costs to determine cost for each specific step and later aggregated to determine total cost for each sub-process. We compared costs of eight common clinical pathways for acute stone management, defining total cycle of care cost as the sum of all sub-processes that comprised each pathway. RESULTS: Cost per sub-process included $920 for emergency department (ED) care, $1665 for operative stent placement, $2368 for percutaneous nephrostomy tube placement, $106 for urology clinic consultation, $238 for preoperative center visit, $4057 for ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy (URS), $2923 for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, $169 for clinic stent removal, $197 for abdominal x-ray, and $166 for ultrasound. The lowest cost pathway ($1388) was for medical expulsive therapy, whereas the most expensive pathway ($8002) entailed a repeat ED visit prompting temporizing stent placement and interval URS. CONCLUSION: We found a high degree of cost variation between care pathways common to management of acute ureteral stone episodes. Reliable cost accounting data and an understanding of variability in clinical pathway costs can inform value-based care redesign as payors move away from pure fee-for-service reimbursement.

Clinical and Payer-Based Analysis of Value of Dual-Energy Computed Tomography for Workup of Incidental Abdominal Findings.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a clinical and payer-based analysis of the value of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) for workup of incidental abdominal findings. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospectively designed, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study approved by our institutional review board. Sixty-nine examinations in 69 patients (45 men, 24 women; mean age, 57.7 years) who underwent single-phase postcontrast abdominal DECT studies between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2017, were included. Two radiologists, blinded to study objective and design, reviewed all cases and identified incidental abdominal findings needing further imaging. All incidental findings were reviewed by 2 other investigators, who determined whether an imaging-based diagnosis could be made using DECT virtual noncontrast images and iodine maps. Additional studies and associated payer-reimbursement amounts avoided by use of DECT were estimated. All imaging costs were estimated based on the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursement amounts. RESULTS: Thirty-four incidental findings (renal mass, n = 20; adrenal nodule, n = 8; pancreatic cystic lesions, n = 3; others, n = 3) were identified in 19 (27.5%) of 69 patients. Dual-energy computed tomography characterized 27 incidental findings in 15 patients and accounted for cost savings of 15 additional imaging examinations (abdominal magnetic resonance imaging, n = 11; abdominal computed tomography, n = 4). Based on Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursement amounts, we estimated that, by abolishing the need for additional imaging use, DECT saved US $84.95 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Dual-energy computed tomography can provide an imaging-based diagnosis of incidental abdominal findings, otherwise incompletely characterized on routine abdominal computed tomography, in approximately 21% of patients. In select patients, the monetary savings from abolishing additional imaging may reduce payer costs associated with use of DECT.

Understanding the Constipation Conundrum: Predictors of Obtaining an Abdominal Radiograph During the Emergency Department Evaluation of Pediatric Constipation.

OBJECTIVES: Many children with constipation who are evaluated in emergency departments (EDs) receive an abdominal radiograph (AR) despite evidence-based guidelines discouraging imaging. The objectives of this study were to identify predictors associated with obtaining an AR and to determine if ARs were associated with a longer length of stay (LOS) among children with constipation evaluated in the ED. METHODS: A review of billing and electronic health records was conducted in an academic pediatric ED for children ages 0 to 17 years who had a primary discharge diagnosis of constipation from July 2013 to June 2014. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors for obtaining an AR. Differences in mean LOS were analyzed using linear regression. RESULTS: In total, 326 children met inclusion criteria, and 60% of the children received an AR. In logistic regression, significant predictors included age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.1/year of age, P = 0.004), presenting with abdominal pain as chief complaint compared with constipation (OR = 4.4, P < 0.0001), and history of emesis (OR = 2.8, P = 0.001) after controlling for provider type and previous constipation medication use. In linear regression, the adjusted mean LOS for those with an AR was 163 minutes compared with 117 minutes for those without after controlling for age, provider type, and history of constipation medication use (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal radiographs were used frequently in the ED diagnosis and management of constipation, particularly in older children and those with abdominal pain and emesis. Abdominal radiographs were associated with increased LOS.

Cost Implications of Oral Contrast Administration in the Emergency Department: A Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Analysis.

PURPOSE: To quantify the monetary and time costs associated with oral contrast administration in the emergency department (ED) for patients with nontraumatic abdominal pain and to evaluate the cost savings associated with an institutional policy change in the criteria for oral contrast administration. METHODS: A HIPAA-complaint, institutional review board-approved time-driven activity-based costing analysis was performed using both prospective time studies and retrospective data obtained from a quaternary care center. Retrospective data spanned a 1-year period (January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016). A process map was generated. Examination volume-related data, labor costs, and material costs were determined and applied to a base-case model. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were conducted. Multivariate analysis was used to estimate the cost savings associated with a policy change eliminating oral contrast for patients with body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2, no prior abdominal surgery within 30 days preceding CT, and no inflammatory bowel disease. RESULTS: The baseline oral contrast utilization rate was 86% (4,541 of 5,263). The annual base-case cost estimate for oral contrast administration was $82,552. In multivariate analyses, this ranged from $13,685 to $315,393. The model was most sensitive to the volume of CTs requiring oral contrast. Applying parameters from the new policy change reduced the annual cost by 52% (cost saving: $35,836.57). Impact of oral contrast on time to discharge was highly variable and dependent on the contrast agent utilized. CONCLUSION: Costs associated with oral contrast in the ED are modest and should be balanced with its potential diagnostic benefits. Our criteria reduced oral contrast utilization by 52%.

Reduced Imaging Radiation Exposure and Costs Associated with Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Therapy in Crohn's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging may increase cancer risk of Crohn's disease (CD) patients, who are already at increased risk of certain cancers. AIM: To compare imaging radiation exposure and associated costs in CD patients during the year pre- and post-initiation of anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents or corticosteroids. METHODS: Adults were identified from a large US claims database between 1/1/2005 and 12/31/2009 with ≥ 1 abdominal imaging scan and 12 months of enrollment before and after initiating therapy with anti-TNF or corticosteroids. Imaging utilization, radiation exposure, and healthcare costs pre- and post-initiation were examined. RESULTS: Anti-TNF-treated patients had significantly fewer imaging examinations the year prior to initiation than corticosteroid-treated patients. Cumulative radiation doses before initiation were significantly higher for corticosteroid patients compared to anti-TNF patients (22.3 vs. 17.7 millisieverts, P = 0.0083). After therapy initiation, anti-TNF-treated patients had significantly fewer imaging examinations (2.9 vs. 5.2, P < 0.0001) and less radiation exposure (7.4 vs. 15.4 millisieverts, P <0.0001) than corticosteroid-treated patients in the follow-up period. Reductions in imaging costs adjusted for 1000 patient-years after initiation of therapy were - $275,090 and - $121,960 (P = 0.0359) for anti-TNF versus corticosteroid patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrated that patients treated with anti-TNF agents have fewer imaging examinations, less radiation exposure, and lower healthcare costs associated with imaging than patients treated with corticosteroids. These benefits do not account for additional long-term benefits that may be gained from reduced radiation exposure.

Utility of Immediate Postoperative Upper Gastrointestinal Contrast Study in Bariatric Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Routine use of postoperative upper gastrointestinal (UGI) contrast studies after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is controversial. We sought to determine the usefulness of routine UGI contrast studies during postoperative day (POD) 1 in patients who underwent bariatric surgery. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent SG or RYGB between January 1, 2016, and October 31, 2017. Demographics, surgical data, and immediate surgical adverse effects were collected. We compared patients who underwent routine UGI contrast studies on POD 1 versus patients who did not. RESULTS: A total of 284 patients were analyzed; 197 (69.4%) patients underwent RYGB, while 87 (30.6%) underwent SG. Routine UGI contrast study was performed in 96 (48.7%) patients in the RYGB group versus 31 (35.6%) in the SG group. The overall adverse effect rate was 2 (0.7%); postoperative UGI contrast study was negative in both cases. Mean (SD) length of stay (LOS) for patients who underwent UGI contrast study versus those who did not was similar in the RYGB group (1.8 [1.6] days vs 1.8 [0.9] days, respectively) and the SG group (2 [1.18] days vs 1.9 [0.9] days). The average cost of a postoperative UGI contrast study was $600, resulting in an additional overall cost of $76,800. CONCLUSION: Use of routine UGI contrast studies after bariatric procedures does not appear to add clinical value for the detection of leaks. Furthermore, systematic use of postoperative UGI contrast studies neither seem to reduce LOS, nor appear to increase procedure costs.

Double Scan CT Rates: An Opportunity for Facility-Based Radiologist Measures in the Quality Payment Program.

PURPOSE: The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) provides CMS flexibility to evaluate radiologists using hospital outpatient quality measures in place of conventional physician measures. We explore radiologist characteristics associated with variation in performance in two such measures: abdomen and chest CT "double scan" rates (percentage of total examinations performed both with and without intravenous contrast). METHODS: Radiologists' claims for abdomen and chest CT examinations in a facility setting were identified using 2014 Medicare Physician and Other Supplier data. Individual radiologist double scan rates were computed. Associations were explored between rates and radiologist characteristics extracted from the CMS public data sets using multivariable regression with cross-validation. RESULTS: Radiologists' double scan rates averaged 5.9% ± 10.0% (0.0% for 52.8% of radiologists) for abdomen CT (19,867 radiologists) and 1.0% ± 4.7% (0.0% for 91.3% of radiologists) for chest CT (18,684). At multivariable analysis, abdomen rates were best predicted by geography (lowest in Northeast, greatest in West), practice size (greatest for small practices), and specialty practice pattern (lowest for general radiologists; greatest for nuclear medicine physicians). Agreement for double scan rates among radiologists within the same practice was moderate, though slightly higher for chest (intraclass correlation = 0.70) than abdomen (0.59). CONCLUSION: Radiologists' facility double scan rates vary systematically based on an array of professional characteristics. MACRA grants CMS the authority to use these measures for evaluating radiologists, thereby aligning Medicare's hospital and physician performance programs and better incentivizing population radiation dose and cost reduction. Greater variation in abdomen CT double scan rates, compared with ubiquitously excellent chest CT performance, supports a particular role for abdomen rates in distinguishing disparities in radiologist performance.

Reuse and reduce: abdominal CT, lumbar spine MRI, and a potential 1.2 to 3.4 billion dollars in cost savings.

PURPOSE: To determine how much money could potentially be saved by re-evaluating a patient's prior recent abdominal CT for lumbar spine pathology instead of ordering a lumbar spine MRI. METHODS: Abdominal CT studies, from all consecutive patients who had an abdominal CT within 12 months prior to a lumbar spine MRI obtained between 11/1/15 and 5/30/16, were retrospectively reviewed in a blinded fashion for the presence of any significant lumbar spine abnormalities. CT studies that accurately reflected all normal and abnormal findings when compared to the standard of reference, the prospectively interpreted lumbar spine MR imaging reports, were used to indicate which lumbar spine MRI studies potentially could have been avoided and to calculate the potential cost savings. RESULTS: Of the 81 abdominal CT studies that met the inclusion criteria of this study, 62% (50/81) were TP, 28% (23/81) were TN, 5% (4/81) were FP, and 5% (4/81) were FN studies. 90% (73/81) of the lumbar spine MRI studies could potentially have been avoided during the 7 months of this study. The predicted savings by reviewing the abdominal CT for lumbar spine abnormalities prior to ordering a lumbar spine MRI are an estimated 1.2-3.4 billion dollars per year. CONCLUSION: Recent abdominal CT studies should be reviewed for lumbar spine pathology prior to a patient undergoing lumbar spine MRI. Avoiding unnecessary lumbar spine MRI studies could potentially save the U.S. healthcare system an estimated 1.2-3.4 billion dollars per year.

Eliminating routine upper gastrointestinal contrast studies after sleeve gastrectomy decreases length of stay and hospitalization costs.

BACKGROUND: Recent series have shown the lack of value of routine upper gastrointestinal (UGI) contrast studies on postoperative day 1 or 2 for the detection of gastric leak (GL) after sleeve gastrectomy (SG). Despite this finding, many centers still perform routine early UGI contrast studies after SG. No series has evaluated the impact of eliminating this examination on the overall management of patients undergoing SG. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of UGI contrast studies on SG management. SETTING: University hospital, France, public practice. METHODS: This study was an ambispective study of a cohort of patients who underwent primary SG between January 2014 and December 2014 (n = 267). Two consecutive groups were compared: patients with routine UGI contrast studies on postoperative day 1 (UGI+group, n = 154) and patients without routine UGI contrast studies (UGI-group, n = 113). The efficacy endpoint of the study was the overall impact of not performing routine UGI contrast studies (length of hospital stay, radiological data, rehospitalization data, and economic assessment). RESULTS: The overall complication rate was 9.3% and no deaths were observed. The GL rate was 1.5%. The mean hospital stay was 1.8 days (2.1 days versus 1.5 days; P = .57). Routine UGI contrast studies did not detect any cases of GL or gastric stenosis. After UGI contrast studies, 56 patients complained of events related to UGI contrast studies (36.4%). A total of 27 computed tomography scans were performed during the first 3 postoperative months (16 in the UGI+group (10.4%) versus 11 in the UGI-group (9.7%); P = .52). Twelve patients were rehospitalized (7 and 5; P = .6). The median length of rehospitalization was 7 days (7 and 5 days; P = .6). Overall cost per patient during SG hospitalization was $5,219 in the UGI+group and $3,678 in the UGI-group (P = .01). CONCLUSION: Eliminating routine UGI contrast studies was associated with decreased length of hospital stay and cost of SG procedures. Larger series are required to show that not performing routine UGI contrast studies has no impact on the postoperative complication rate and the management of these complications.

Effect of Fixed-Volume and Weight-Based Dosing Regimens on the Cost and Volume of Administered Iodinated Contrast Material at Abdominal CT.

PURPOSE: To determine the magnitude of subject-level and population-level cost savings that could be realized by moving from fixed-volume low-osmolality iodinated contrast material administration to an effective weight-based dosing regimen for contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic CT. METHODS: HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board-exempt retrospective cohort study of 6,737 subjects undergoing contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic CT from 2014 to 2015. Subject height, weight, lean body weight (LBW), and body surface area (BSA) were determined. Twenty-six volume- and weight-based dosing strategies with literature support were compared with a fixed-volume strategy used at the study institution: 125 mL 300 mgI/mL for routine CT, 125 mL 370 mgI/mL for multiphasic CT (single-energy, 120 kVp). The predicted population- and subject-level effects on cost and contrast material utilization were calculated for each strategy and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Most subjects underwent routine CT (91% [6,127/6,737]). Converting to lesser-volume higher-concentration contrast material had the greatest effect on cost; a fixed-volume 100 mL 370 mgI/mL strategy resulted in $132,577 in population-level savings with preserved iodine dose at routine CT (37,500 versus 37,000 mgI). All weight-based iodine-content dosing strategies (mgI/kg) with the same maximum contrast material volume (125 mL) were predicted to contribute mean savings compared with the existing fixed-volume algorithm ($4,053-$116,076/strategy in the overall study population, $1-$17/strategy per patient). Similar trends were observed in all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Large cost and material savings can be realized at abdominopelvic CT by adopting a weight-based dosing strategy and lowering the maximum volume of administered contrast material.

Medicare Policy Initiatives and the Relative Utilization of "Double-Scan" CT.

PURPOSE: Commonly called "double scans" by the media, combined pre- and postcontrast thoracic and abdominal CT examinations have been the focus of recent CMS policy initiatives. The aim of this study was to examine trends in the relative utilization of double-scan CT before and after 2006 legislation mandating relevant Medicare reporting initiatives. METHODS: Medicare Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files from 2001 through 2012 were used to identify claims for thoracic and abdominal CT examinations. Double-scan rates by billing physician specialty and place of service were analyzed over time. Rates of double-scan CT between radiologists and nonradiologists were compared using t tests. RESULTS: From 2001 to 2006, double-scan rates for thoracic and abdominal CT examinations declined by 1.7% and 7.5% for radiologists, respectively (from 6.0% to 5.9% and from 22.6% to 20.9%) but increased by 15.8% and 23.6% for nonradiologists (from 5.7% to 6.6% and from 28.8% to 35.6%). From 2006 through 2012, double-scan rates declined by 42.3% and 35.2% (from 5.9% to 3.4% and from 20.9% to 13.5%) for radiologists but only by 31.8% and 8.1% (from 6.6% to 4.5% and from 35.6% to 32.7%) for nonradiologists. Double-scan rates were significantly lower for radiologists than nonradiologists for all years for abdominal CT (P < .001) and for all years after 2006 legislation for thoracic CT (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in thoracic and abdominal CT double-scan rates followed legislation mandating CMS initiatives designed to reduce costs and radiation. For nonradiologists, double-scan rates were consistently higher and declined more slowly than those for radiologists. Medicare policy initiatives directed toward imaging utilization seem to influence behavior differently for radiologists compared with nonradiologists.

Torso Computed Tomography Can Be Bypassed after Thorough Trauma Bay Examination of Patients Who Fall from Standing.

Reliance on CT imaging in the evaluation of low-impact blunt trauma is a major source of radiation exposure, cost, and resource utilization. This study sought to determine if torso (chest and abdomen) CT could be avoided in patients with ground level falls. This was a retrospective chart review of patients admitted to the trauma service between January 2013 and April 2014. The mechanism of injury was ground level fall or fall from sitting. Patient demographics, physical examination (PE) findings, imaging results, length of stay, and complications were reviewed. History and physical data were based on chief resident or attending documentation. A significant thoracic injury was defined as a hemothorax, a pneumothorax, greater than three rib fractures, or aortic injury. A significant abdominal injury was defined as a solid organ injury, an intra-abdominal hematoma, a hollow viscus injury, aortic injury, or a urologic injury. The trauma service evaluated 156 patients. Nine patients were excluded for intubation or Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) < 13. Of the 147 remaining, mean age was 69 years, mean GCS was 14.8. A chest CT was obtained in 111 (76%). Eight (7%) had a significant thoracic injury. All patients with significant thoracic injury had positive examination findings. No patient with a normal PE was found to have a significant thoracic injury (negative predictive value of 100%). An abdominal CT was obtained in 86 (59%). Five (6%) were found to have a significant abdominal injury. All patients who had a significant radiographic injury had an abnormal PE (negative predictive value of 100%). In conclusion, thorough history and physical in the trauma bay allow the clinician to obtain selective torso CT imaging. Routine torso CT warrants re-evaluation in low-impact injury mechanisms as there appears to be little benefit compared with the resource utilization and expense.

Using Medical Claims for Policy Effectiveness Surveillance: Reimbursement and Utilization of Abdomen/Pelvis Computed Tomography Scans.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify changes in private insurance payments for and utilization of abdominal/pelvic computed tomography scans (CTs) after 2011 changes in CPT coding and Medicare reimbursement rates, which were designed to reduce costs stemming from misvalued procedures. DATA SOURCES: TruvenHealth Analytics MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database. STUDY DESIGN: We used difference-in-differences models to compare combined CTs of the abdomen/pelvis to CTs of the abdomen or pelvis only. Our main outcomes were inflation-adjusted log payments per procedure, daily utilization rates, and total annual payments. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: Claims data were extracted for all abdominal/pelvic CTs performed in 2009-2011 within noncapitated, employer-sponsored private plans. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Adjusted payments per combined CTs of the abdomen/pelvis dropped by 23.8 percent (p < .0001), and their adjusted daily utilization rate accelerated by 0.36 percent (p = .034) per month after January 2011. Utilization rate of abdominal-only or pelvic-only CTs dropped by 5.0 percent (p < .0001). Total annual payments for combined CTs of the abdomen/pelvis decreased in 2011 despite the increased utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Private insurance payments for combined CTs of the abdomen/pelvis declined and utilization accelerated significantly after 2011 policy changes. While growth in total annual payments was contained in 2011, it may not be sustained if 2011 utilization trends persist.

Duplication of radiology imaging studies in the emergency department: what is the cost?

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the rate of preventable duplication of imaging studies in the Emergency Department. Previously, to estimate potential savings from the Health Information Exchange, figures used to be based on expert opinion, as the actual rate of redundant imaging is unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively quantified the frequency of duplicate CT scans in tertiary care and community hospital emergency departments (ED) through a short questionnaire at the time the studies were ordered. RESULTS: During the study period, 9246 CT scans were performed with a preventable duplicate rate of 0.42%. Both sites had equivalent rates of preventable duplicates. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: We used two EDs to quantify the rate of preventable duplicate CT scans ordered. Our results demonstrate that only 0.4% of CT scans performed in our EDs are preventable duplicates. Our rate of preventable duplicate studies was much lower than what experts and emergency practitioners suspected, which suggests that potential cost savings from elimination of preventable duplicates may also be much lower than currently estimated.

Plain abdominal radiography in acute abdominal pain--is it really necessary?

The aims of this study are to audit the ordering of abdominal radiographs (AXR) in the emergency department (ED) and evaluate the current practices, knowledge and attitudes of emergency physicians with regard to ordering AXRs in patients presenting with acute abdominal pain. A retrospective study was undertaken at an ED of a tertiary hospital in Tasmania using clinical notes on patient presenting with acute abdominal pain who underwent an AXR. The study also included a short questionnaire, which assessed emergency physicians' knowledge of current imaging guidelines and clinical practice when ordering an AXR. During the study period, 108 patients satisfied the selection criteria, and the AXR was reported as normal in 76 % (n = 82; p value <0.05), non-specific in 12 % (n = 13; p value <0.05) and abnormal in 12 % (n = 13; p value <0.05) of patients. Of those patients, 25 % (n = 27) of the AXRs did not meet indications listed in the Diagnostic Imaging Pathways published by the Western Australia Department of Health and were found not to benefit patient care. Of the 19 doctors who completed the survey, only 16 % (n = 3) were aware of any clinical guidelines for imaging in this setting. Current guidelines should be followed when ordering imaging for patients with acute abdominal pain to minimise unnecessary patient radiation exposure, avoid delays in diagnosis and definitive patient management, reduce costs and therefore increase efficiency in ED.

Financial impact of Medicare code bundling of CT of the abdomen and pelvis.

OBJECTIVE: On January 1, 2011, the Current Procedural Terminology version 4 codes for CT of the abdomen and CT of the pelvis were bundled together. The relative value units attached to the new single codes were lower than the sum of the relative value units accruing to the two separate codes. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of this new policy on Medicare part B reimbursements for these studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The nationwide 2001-2011 Medicare part B data files were used to select the codes for CT of the abdomen and pelvis before and after bundling occurred in 2011. Procedure volumes were ascertained, and utilization rates per 1000 Medicare beneficiaries were calculated. Aggregate Medicare reimbursements were determined, and Medicare specialty codes were used to determine the reimbursements to radiologists. RESULTS: In 2011, use of CT of the two body regions remained approximately the same as in 2010 (before bundling), but because the two codes were bundled into one in 2011, the actual rate per 1000 decreased from 277.1 to 148.1. Medicare reimbursements for CT of the abdomen and pelvis had risen steadily from 2001 to 2005 but remained relatively stable thereafter through 2010. However, in 2011 reimbursements decreased from $971.5 million the previous year to $687.0 million--a drop of $284.5 million (29%) in a single year. Radiologists experienced $218.6 million of this decrease. CONCLUSION: Code bundling of CT of the abdomen and CT of the pelvis resulted in a large reduction in reimbursements for imaging.

Limitations of screening for occult cancer in patients with idiopathic venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic venous thrombosis (IVT) is associated with occult malignancy in 10% of patients. The Trousseau study investigated whether extensive screening using abdominal and chest computed tomography (CT) scans and mammography in women would decrease mortality, compared with limited screening. Here, the costs and test characteristics of these screening strategies are presented, including true- and false-positive findings, sensitivity and specificity. METHODS: All investigations performed because of a suspicion of malignancy in the limited or extensive screening groups were collected. Costs were calculated using Dutch healthcare tariffs. RESULTS: A total of 342 and 288 patients with IVT were included in the extensive and the limited screening group, respectively. The prevalences of malignancy and mortality were comparable between these two groups, as were the abnormal findings during routine screening. In 30% of the extensively screened patients, the CT scans or mammography showed abnormalities necessitating further diagnostic work-up; this yielded six malignancies and resulted in a positive predictive value of 6.6%, sensitivity of 33% and specificity of 70%. Mean costs per patient were €165.17 for the routine and €530.92 for the extensive screening. CONCLUSION: Screening using CT scans and mammography results in extra costs due to the high percentage of false-positive findings for which a further diagnostic work-up is indicated.

Is it worth looking? Abdominal imaging after pancreatic cancer resection: a national study.

INTRODUCTION: Abdominal imaging is often performed after pancreatic cancer resection. We attempted to quantify the volume and estimate the cost of complex imaging after pancreatectomy nationwide, and to determine whether their frequent use confers benefit. METHODS: Patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent resection were identified in Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare (1991-2005). Claims for abdominal imaging ≤5 years after resection were analyzed. Patients receiving annual CT scans were identified. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. To assess frequency of annual CT scanning in patients with superior survival, the top decile was further analyzed. RESULTS: Eleven thousand eight hundred fifty studies were performed on 2,217 patients. Ten thousand five hundred forty-two (89%) were CT scans. The median number of scans doubled from three in 1991 to six in 2005 (p < 0.0001). Among patients with sufficient survival to allow for analysis, 51.3% received annual CT scans, while only 32.4% of top-performing patients received annual scans. Univariate analysis of the 10% of patients with superior survival did not reveal any significant benefit associated with annual imaging. CONCLUSION: Utilization of complex imaging after pancreatic cancer resection has increased substantially among Medicare beneficiaries, driven primarily by an increasing number of CT scans. Our study demonstrated no significant survival benefit among patients who received scans on a routine basis.

Standard computed tomography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis is sensitive and cost-effective for the detection of fractures of the shoulder girdle.

Computed tomography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis (CTCAP) has become the mainstay of diagnosis in stable blunt trauma patients. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether standard CTCAP has adequate sensitivity to identify fractures of the scapula, clavicle, and humeral head to replace routine radiographs of the shoulder. A retrospective chart review was carried out from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2007, at Morristown Memorial Hospital. Inclusion criteria were all shoulder fracture patients in our trauma registry who underwent both a CTCAP and plain radiographs of the injured shoulder. Data were collected for patient age, sex, Injury Severity Score, mechanism of injury, and fracture location. Sensitivity was calculated for each diagnostic modality as well as hospital costs and radiation dose of plain radiographs. A total of 374 charts were reviewed and 98 patients were included in the study with a total of 117 fractures. The sensitivity of trauma CTCAP for scapula fractures was 100 per cent, clavicle fractures 98 per cent, and humeral head fractures 100 per cent. The sensitivity of the shoulder series for scapula fractures was 60 per cent, clavicle fractures 85 per cent, and humeral head fractures 100 per cent. The plain radiographs added $298 in hospital charges and 0.191 mSv of radiation per patient. CTCAP is a sensitive tool for identifying fractures in the shoulder girdle. Therefore, CTCAP can replace the routine radiographs of the shoulder resulting in less total radiation exposure of the trauma patients. This also would lead to lower healthcare cost and better diagnostic workflow.