Federal Out-of-Network Balance Billing Legislation: Context and Implications for Radiology Practices.

Out-of-network (OON) balance billing, commonly known as surprise billing but better described as a surprise gap in health insurance coverage, occurs when an individual with private health insurance (vs a public insurer such as Medicare) is administered unanticipated care from a physician who is not in their health plan's network. Such unexpected OON care may result in substantial out-of-pocket costs for patients. Although ending surprise billing is patient centric, patient protective, and noncontroversial, passing federal legislation was challenging given its ability to disrupt insurer-physician good-faith negotiations and thus impact in-network rates. Like past proposals, the recently passed No Surprises Act takes patients out of the middle of insurer-physician OON reimbursement disputes, limiting patients' expense to standard in-network cost-sharing amounts. The new law, based on arbitration, attempts to protect good-faith negotiations between physicians and insurance companies and encourages network contracting. Radiology practices, even those that are fully in network or that never practiced surprise billing, could nonetheless be affected. Ongoing rulemaking processes will have meaningful roles in determining how the law is made operational. Physician and stakeholder advocacy has been and will continue to be crucial to the ongoing evolution of this process. © RSNA, 2021.

The Surprise Insurance Gap: History, Context, and Proposed Solutions.

Affordability of care is a major concern for many in the United States. Part of the affordability of care issue is unanticipated medical bills. A 2018 poll found that unexpected medical costs were the public's greatest affordability concern, ahead of prescription drug costs and even food or rent or mortgage. An important cause of unexpected medical bills is the surprise insurance network gap. The term "surprise billing" is commonly used to describe this problem of unanticipated out-of-network (OON) care, though this is a misnomer because it is actually a "surprise insurance gap." This gap can have significant consequences for patients and families. Hospital-based specialties like radiology have been implicated in the issue. Part of solving this problem includes determining an appropriate reimbursement for physicians who provide unanticipated OON care to patients. The two most commonly proposed methods to determine insurance company reimbursement to providers for OON services are use of a benchmark value and alternative dispute resolution. There is risk in trying to "price set" with a benchmark value. Establishing a predetermined value for services to mitigate against unexpected bills could have unintended and significant consequences, including disrupting good-faith negotiations between insurance companies and providers and impacting access to care. The data indicate that an alternative dispute resolution process can protect patients, lower the frequency of unexpected OON bills, and reduce costs.

Can Aspirin Minimize Stroke Risk and New Lesion Formation in Multiple Sclerosis?

Even with increasing data implicating the venous side of the vascular tree of the brain in MS, no diagnostic or treatment protocol has addressed the risk of acute stroke in MS and no systematic study has documented the incidence or prevalence of acute strokein MS patients. Approximately 795,000 strokes occur in the U.S. each year-every 40 s, someone has a stroke and every 4 min, a person dies from a stroke. However, no large, prospective, multi-center study has investigated acute stroke incidence in MS patients either in the U.S. or internationally, leaving a gap in our understanding of the association between stroke and MS. Additionally, data on acute stroke in MS as determined by age, gender or ethnicity are unknown. To compound this further, the diagnosis and definition of acute stroke in MS remains poorly understood. A survey of published literature shows a few anecdotal reports of acute stroke occurring among MS patients, but most studies do not address the fundamental association between acute stroke and MS. Symptoms of acute stroke and MS can overlap and the lack of clear clinical/radiological criteria that alert the patient or clinician to the development of acute stroke in an MS patient compound the dilemma, even leading to the administration of IV alteplase in cases that are later diagnosed as either MS or having an "MS flare." Clinical trials that use aspirin in multiple sclerosis are urgently needed.

Hypervascular liver lesions.

Hypervascular hepatocellular lesions include both benign and malignant etiologies. In the benign category, focal nodular hyperplasia and adenoma are typically hypervascular. In addition, some regenerative nodules in cirrhosis may be hypervascular. Malignant hypervascular primary hepatocellular lesions include hepatocellular carcinoma, fibrolamellar carcinoma, and peripheral cholangiocarcinoma. Vascular liver lesions often appear hypervascular because they tend to follow the enhancement of the blood pool; these include hemangiomas, arteriovenous malformations, angiosarcomas, and peliosis. While most gastrointestinal malignancies that metastasize to the liver will appear hypovascular on arterial and portal-venous phase imaging, certain cancers such as metastatic neuroendocrine tumors (including pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, carcinoid, and gastrointestinal stromal tumors) tend to produce hypervascular metastases due to the greater recruitment of arterial blood supply. Finally, rare hepatic lesions such as glomus tumor and inflammatory pseudotumor may have a hypervascular appearance.

Pharmacomechanical thrombolysis and early stent placement for iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate an approach to the treatment of iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT) that included pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis with reteplase and the Helix mechanical thrombectomy device, followed by early stent placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: During 3-year period, 23 symptomatic limbs in 18 patients with iliofemoral DVT were treated with reteplase catheter-directed thrombolysis. After an initial infusion of 8 to 16 hours, any residual acute thrombus over a long segment (> 10 cm) was treated by maceration with use of the Helix thrombectomy device. Residual short-segment (< 10 cm) iliac vein thrombus and/or stenosis were treated with stent placement. Technical success, clinical success, complications, thrombolytic infusion time, total thrombolytic agent dose, fibrinogen level changes, and late limb status were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Technical success was achieved in 23 of 23 limbs (100%). Clinical success was achieved in 22 of 23 limbs (96%). Complete or partial thrombolysis was observed in 19 of 23 limbs (83%). Major bleeding was observed in one patient (6%) and necessitated blood transfusion. Mean per-limb thrombolytic infusion time and total dose were 19.6 hours +/- 8.1 and 13.8 U +/- 5.3 reteplase, respectively. Mean serum fibrinogen nadir and percentage drop in serum fibrinogen were 282 mg/dL +/- 167 and 47% +/- 24%, respectively. Late (mean, 19.8 +/- 11.6 months) modified Venous Disability Scores were 0 (none) for six limbs, 1 (mild) for 10 limbs, 2 (moderate) for two limbs, and 3 (severe) for no limbs. CONCLUSION: In a preliminary experience, pharmacomechanical catheter-directed iliofemoral DVT thrombolysis with early stent placement was safe and effective.

Endovascular recanalization of the thrombosed filter-bearing inferior vena cava.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the authors' preliminary experience with use of endovascular methods to treat inferior vena cava (IVC) thrombosis in patients with IVC filters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Catheter-directed thrombolysis, balloon maceration, mechanical thrombectomy, and stent placement were used to treat 10 patients with thrombosis of filter-bearing IVCs causing symptoms in 18 limbs. Procedural challenges, technical and clinical success, complications, postprocedural filter status, and postprocedural pulmonary embolism (PE) prophylaxis were monitored. RESULTS: Technical and clinical success were achieved in 15 of 18 (83%) and 14 of 18 symptomatic limbs (78%), respectively. Major bleeding (muscular hematoma) occurred in one patient (10%). Postprocedural PE prophylaxis included anticoagulation (n = 8) and placement of a new filter into a newly placed Wallstent (n = 1). During clinical follow-up, no clinically detectable PE was observed. Data pertaining to late limb status were available at a median of 19 months (range 1-46 months) follow-up in seven patients: three patients were asymptomatic, two patients had ambulatory edema only, one patient had constant mild edema, and one patient had constant severe edema. Postprocedural filter stability was radiographically documented at a median of 255 days (range, 4-1021 d) of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Endovascular recanalization of the occluded IVC is feasible even in the presence of an IVC filter.

Lower extremity venous thrombolysis with adjunctive mechanical thrombectomy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the use of adjunctive mechanical thrombectomy (MT) with pharmacologic catheter-directed lower extremity venous thrombolysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Catheter-directed thrombolysis with adjunctive MT was used to treat 28 symptomatic limbs in 20 patients (22 procedures) with lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) between August 1997 and July 2001. Procedural success, major bleeding, thrombolytic infusion time, and total thrombolytic agent dose were recorded. RESULTS: Procedural success was achieved in 23 of 28 limbs (82%). Fifteen patients (18 limbs) received iliac vein stents. Major bleeding was observed after three of 22 procedures (14%) and resulted in transfusion in two patients and endometrial ablation in the third patient. Mean per-limb infusion time was 16.8 hours +/- 12.8. Mean per-limb total doses were lower than those reported in published studies of DVT thrombolysis: 2.67 million U +/- 1.60 urokinase, 18.4 mg +/- 10.7 tissue plasminogen activator, and 13.8 U +/- 6.9 reteplase. Venographic analysis demonstrated minimal thrombus removal (26.0% +/- 24.1) when using MT alone, compared with substantial thrombus removal (62.0% +/- 24.9) when using MT after pharmacologic thrombolytic agents had been administered (P =.006). CONCLUSION: The use of adjunctive MT to augment pharmacologic catheter-directed DVT thrombolysis provides comparable procedural success and may reduce the required thrombolytic dose and infusion duration.