Willingness to Pay for CT Colonography: A Survey of Patient Preferences.

OBJECTIVE: CT colonography (CTC) has received mixed reviews both in the radiology literature and in clinical practice. CTC is less invasive than optical colonoscopy (OC), is better for identifying polyps, and does not require sedation. However, its cost-effectiveness has been called into question, and there is a residual need for OC if the CTC findings are positive. Some radiologists are hesitant to perform CTC because of the time-intensive nature of its interpretation. Results of willingness-to-pay surveys can be informative about preferences and value placed on intangibles. The purpose of this study was to use such a survey to elicit the preferences of radiologists about CTC versus OC. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A vignette was presented in which the insurer covered OC at no charge but required out-of-pocket payment for CTC. The strengths and weaknesses of OC and CTC were listed. The respondents were asked how much they would be willing to pay for CTC; for CTC with perfect sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy; and for CTC that required no bowel preparation. RESULTS: Twenty-eight of 42 radiologists preferred OC to CTC. One radiologist was indifferent. Four radiologists would reverse their preference and choose CTC if it had 100% sensitivity. Sixteen radiologists said they would prefer CTC if it had 100% specificity. If CTC eliminated the need for bowel preparation, 57% would prefer it to OC. Thirty-one (74%) radiologists preferred perfect sensitivity to perfect specificity. CONCLUSION: Despite the less invasive nature of CTC, most radiologists who responded to the survey preferred OC for colorectal cancer screening, mostly because of the definitive nature of OC due to the capability of immediate biopsy of suspicious lesions and the lack of requirement for a second round of bowel preparation.

Workload of radiologists in United States in 2006-2007 and trends since 1991-1992.

PURPOSE: To determine radiologists' workloads in 2006-2007, as measured by both procedures per full-time equivalent (FTE) radiologist and relative value units (RVUs) per FTE radiologist, and to discover trends since 1991-1992. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Non-individually identifiable data from the American College of Radiology (ACR) 2007 Survey of Radiologists were compared with data from previous ACR surveys; all surveys were weighted to make them nationally representative. Under National Institutes of Health rules for protection of human subjects, studies based on anonymized surveys do not require approval by an institutional review board. Workload according to individual practice characteristics, such as type (eg, academic, private, multispecialty) and setting, was tested for statistically significant differences from the average for all radiologists. Time trends and the independent effect on workload of practice characteristics were measured with regression analyses. Changes in average procedure complexity were calculated in physician work RVUs per Medicare procedure. RESULTS: In 2006-2007, the average annual workload per FTE radiologist was 14,900 procedures, an increase of 7% since 2002-2003 and 34.0% since 1991-1992. Annual RVUs per FTE radiologist were 10 200, an increase of 10% since 2002-2003 and 70.3% since 1991-1992. Academic practices performed about one-third fewer procedures per FTE radiologist than others. In most types of practice, radiologists in a 75th-percentile practice performed at least 65% more procedures annually than radiologists in a 25th-percentile practice. Regression analysis showed that practices that used external off-hours teleradiology services performed 27% more procedures than otherwise similar practices that did not use these services. CONCLUSION: Radiologists' workload continued to increase in recent years. Because there is much unexplained variation, averages or medians should not be used as norms. However, such statistics can help practices to understand how they compare with other, similar practices. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/2522081895/DC1.

The reasons that many radiology practices don't use off-hours services.

PURPOSE: To compare radiology practices that use external, internal, and no off-hours services. METHODS: From August 2005 to June 2006, 300 nonspecialty hospitals randomly selected from the AHA Guide 2005 Edition were contacted by telephone, e-mail, and mail, with attempts made to speak to the chiefs of radiology. A total of 115 responses were obtained (a 38.3% response rate), with 64 from radiology practices that used external off-hours services, 13 from practices with internal services, and 38 from practices with no services. The demographics of the practices in the 3 categories were compared, and answers to category-specific survey questions were tabulated. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Radiology practices using internal off-hours services were significantly larger (mean size, 19.9 full-time radiologists) than those using external off-hours services (mean size, 8.2 full-time radiologists) and those not using any off-hours service (mean size, 10.7 full-time radiologists). A sufficient number of radiologists or residents covering nights had the highest reported importance in the decision not to adopt an external service. Cost and quality concerns were also cited. The consistency of interpreting radiologists known to a practice had the highest importance in the decision to use an internal rather than an external off-hours service. Frequent reasons cited for radiologists to take regular internal off-hours employment were financial incentives provided and a preference for off-hours shifts. CONCLUSIONS: As long as there are sufficient numbers of radiologists and residents to handle the volume of interpretations, many practices will not use external off-hours services. Such services could help increase their adoption by offering lower cost and proven quality.

A survey of radiology practices' use of after-hours radiology services.

PURPOSE: The study's purpose was to identify the characteristics of and the motives behind radiologists' use of after-hours services. METHODS: From August of 2005 to June of 2006, 300 nonspecialty hospitals randomly selected from the 2005 American Hospital Association Directory of Hospitals were contacted by phone, e-mail, and mail, with an attempt made to speak to the chiefs of radiology. We obtained 115 responses, a 38.3% response rate, including 64 from practices that used an external after-hours service. These 64 are the subject of this study. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistical analyses. RESULTS: Practices gave convenience as the most important reason they use after-hours services, with value for recruiting ranked second and shortage of radiologists for off-hours coverage ranked third. Three-fourths of practices said they receive 5% or less of their reads from these services. Two-thirds of practices paid the service approximately as much as they collected or more. Approximately 40% of respondents used an after-hours service located internationally. Of these, 56% said that the radiologists reading internationally were either all Americans or mostly Americans and 40% did not know the proportion of foreigners. Regardless, in-state licensure of all interpreting teleradiologists is essentially universal. CONCLUSION: Most radiology groups using after-hours services do so for convenience rather than shortage of staff to provide coverage. Most practices send a small percentage of their studies to the services. Although overseas-located services are commonly used, there is little evidence of other than American radiologists or American-trained radiologists at these services.