Report of the ACR's Economics Committee on Value-Based Payment Models.

A major outcome of the current health care reform process is the move away from unrestricted fee-for-service payment models toward those that are based on the delivery of better patient value and outcomes. The authors' purpose, therefore, is to critically evaluate and define those components of the overall imaging enterprise that deliver meaningful value to both patients and referrers and to determine how these components might be measured and quantified. These metrics might then be used to lobby providers and payers for sustainable payment solutions for radiologists and radiology services. The authors evaluated radiology operations and services using the framework of the imaging value chain, which divides radiology service into a number of discrete value-added activities, which ultimately deliver the primary product, most often the actionable report for diagnostic imaging or an effective outcome for interventional radiology. These value activities include scheduling and imaging appropriateness and stewardship, patient preparation, protocol design, modality operations, reporting, report communication, and clinical follow-up (eg, mammography reminder letters). Two further categories are hospital or health care organization citizenship and examination outcome. Each is discussed in turn, with specific activities highlighted.

International Perspectives on Radiology in Preventive Screening.

Several years ago, the International Economics Committee of the ACR began a study of comparisons among nations regarding the practice of radiology. This article is the second in a series. The purpose here is to compare the use across countries of imaging modalities in the screening algorithms of a variety of common diseases. In conjunction with the initial study, this will allow radiologists to understand in greater detail how health system practices differ among a selected set of nations. In this study, a standardized survey was administered to committee members from 10 countries in the developed and developing world. As with the prior study, there were both striking differences and similarities, even among a small cohort of nations that are all (except India) members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. For example, breast cancer screening with mammography involves similar radiographic techniques for screening evaluations and has similarly high levels of insurance coverage, but the recommended ages at initial screening and end of screening differ. Other diseases, such as lung cancer and abdominal aortic aneurysm, have variable, but overall lower, levels of estimated participation among surveyed countries and significantly lower insurance coverage. Although this data set relies on survey data from individual practitioners, it provides an important perspective of the role of radiology in screening programs. Given the increasing pressure from domestic and foreign governments to reign in health care costs, the comparative differences in screening programs, and especially their use of (often costly) imaging techniques, may be a harbinger for future health policy decisions in the United States and abroad.

Professional efficiencies for diagnostic imaging services rendered by different physicians: analysis of recent medicare multiple procedure payment reduction policy.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to quantify potential physician work efficiencies and appropriate multiple procedure payment reductions for different same-session diagnostic imaging studies interpreted by different physicians in the same group practice. METHODS: Medicare Resource-Based Relative Value Scale data were analyzed to determine the relative contributions of various preservice, intraservice, and postservice physician diagnostic imaging work activities. An expert panel quantified potential duplications in professional work activities when separate examinations were performed during the same session by different physicians within the same group practice. Maximum potential work duplications for various imaging modalities were calculated and compared with those used as the basis of CMS payment policy. RESULTS: No potential intraservice work duplication was identified when different examination interpretations were rendered by different physicians in the same group practice. When multiple interpretations within the same modality were rendered by different physicians, maximum potential duplicated preservice and postservice activities ranged from 5% (radiography, fluoroscopy, and nuclear medicine) to 13.6% (CT). Maximum mean potential duplicated work relative value units ranged from 0.0049 (radiography and fluoroscopy) to 0.0413 (CT). This equates to overall potential total work reductions ranging from 1.39% (nuclear medicine) to 2.73% (CT). Across all modalities, this corresponds to maximum Medicare professional component physician fee reductions of 1.23 ± 0.38% (range, 0.95%-1.87%) for services within the same modality, much less than an order of magnitude smaller than those implemented by CMS. For services from different modalities, potential duplications were too small to quantify. CONCLUSIONS: Although potential efficiencies exist in physician preservice and postservice work when same-session, same-modality imaging services are rendered by different physicians in the same group practice, these are relatively minuscule and have been grossly overestimated by current CMS payment policy. Greater transparency and methodologic rigor in government payment policy development are warranted.

Reimbursement trends for outpatient interventional radiology procedures: comparison of hospital and freestanding physician office sites of service.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare trends in reimbursement rates between hospital outpatient departments and freestanding physician offices for commonly performed interventional radiology procedures from 2006 through 2010. METHODS: Using final rules data from the 2006 and 2008 Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System for Medicare and Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, reimbursement rates were calculated for a sample of procedures commonly performed by interventional radiologists in the outpatient setting. Hospital and freestanding reimbursement rates for 2006, 2008, and 2010 (projected) were adjusted for inflation to 2008 dollars and weighted by relative procedure frequency using Medicare Part B claims data. Reimbursements for the entire sample of procedures were compared year to year, by site of service, and by payment system. Individual procedure reimbursements were also trended. RESULTS: In 2006, reimbursements for the entire procedure sample were 6% less in hospital outpatient departments than in freestanding offices. In 2008 and 2010, they are projected to be 3% and 23% greater, respectively, in hospital outpatient departments than in freestanding offices. Over the 4-year interval, reimbursements are projected to fall by 36% in freestanding offices and by 16% in hospital outpatient departments. Reimbursements to hospitals for facility costs are projected to decrease by 14%. Reimbursements to physicians for work done in hospital outpatient departments are projected to decrease by 23%. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial reductions in calculated outpatient interventional radiology practice expenses being phased in between 2006 and 2010 under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule seem to be dramatically reducing reimbursements for interventional procedures performed on outpatients, especially in freestanding offices. The impact of these practice expense reductions on interventional radiology seems to far outweigh that of the Deficit Reduction Act and other recent Medicare reimbursement changes.