Advertisement

Value of Imaging Part I:

Perspectives for the Academic Radiologist
Published:November 09, 2015DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2015.10.006
      With payers and policymakers increasingly scrutinizing the value of medical imaging, opportunities abound for radiologists and radiology health services researchers to meaningfully and rigorously demonstrate value. Part one of this two-part series on the value of imaging explores the concept of value in health care from the perspective of multiple stakeholders and discusses the opportunities and challenges for radiologists and health service researchers to demonstrate value. The current absence of meaningful national value metrics also presents an opportunity for radiologists to take the lead on the discussions of these metrics that may serve as the basis for future value-based payments. As both practitioners and investigators, radiologists should consider the perspectives of multiple stakeholders in all they do—interdisciplinary support and cooperation are essential to the success of value-focused imaging research and initiatives that improve patient outcomes. Radiology departments that align their cultures, infrastructures, and incentives to support these initiatives will greatly increase their chances of being successful in these endeavors.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Academic Radiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Duszak R.
        From good to good deal: value-focused research.
        J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012; 23: 315-316https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2011.11.025
        • Iglehart J.K.
        Health insurers and medical imaging policy—a work in progress.
        N Engl J Med. 2009; 360: 1030-1037https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMhpr0808703
        • Welch H.G.
        • Hayes K.G.
        • Frost C.
        Repeat testing among Medicare beneficiaries.
        Arch Intern Med. 2012; 17: 1745-1751
        • Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MEDPAC)
        (Available at:) (Accessed September 25, 2015)
        • Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
        (Available at:) (Accessed September 25, 2015)
        • Allen B.
        Five reasons radiologists should embrace clinical decision support for diagnostic imaging.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2014; 11: 533-534https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2014.04.016
        • Lee D.W.
        • Duszak R.
        • Hughes D.R.
        Comparative analysis of Medicare spending for medical imaging: sustained dramatic slowdown compared with other services.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013; 201: 1277-1282https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.10999
        • Dodoo M.S.
        • Duszak R.
        • Hughes D.R.
        Trends in the utilization of medical imaging from 2003 to 2011: clinical encounters offer a complementary patient-centered focus.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2013; 10: 507-512https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2013.02.023
        • Lee D.W.
        • Levy F.
        The sharp slowdown in growth of medical imaging: an early analysis suggests combination of policies was the cause.
        Health Aff (Millwood). 2012; 31: 1876-1884https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.1034
        • Levin D.C.
        • Rao V.M.
        • Parker L.
        • et al.
        Bending the curve: the recent marked slowdown in growth of noninvasive diagnostic imaging.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 196: W25-W29https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.4835
        • Government Accountability Office
        Medicare part B imaging services: rapid spending growth and shift to physician offices indicate need for CMS to consider additional management practices.
        (United States Government Accountability Office Website; Available at:) (Accessed May 29, 2015)
        • Pandharipande P.V.
        • Gazelle G.S.
        Comparative effectiveness research: what it means for radiology.
        Radiology. 2009; 253: 600-605https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2533091286
        • Burwell S.M.
        Setting value-based payment goals—HHS efforts to improve U.S. health care.
        N Engl J Med. 2015; 372: 897-899https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1500445
        • Kaplan G.S.
        Seeking perfection in healthcare.
        in: Lessons learned in changing healthcare. Longwoods Pub., Toronto2010: 145-159
        • Mangano M.
        • Bennett S.E.
        • Gunn A.J.
        • et al.
        Creating a patient-centered radiology practice through the establishment of a diagnostic radiology consultation service.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015; 205: 95-99https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.14165
        • Johnson A.J.
        • Easterling D.
        • Williams L.S.
        • et al.
        Insight from patients for radiologists: improving our reporting systems.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2009; 6: 786-794https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2009.07.010
        • Cabarrus M.
        • Naeger D.M.
        • Rybkin A.
        • et al.
        Patients prefer results from the ordering provider and access to their radiology reports.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2015; 12: 556-562https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2014.12.009
        • Bentley T.G.K.
        • Effros R.M.
        • Palar K.
        • et al.
        Waste in the U.S. Health Care System: a conceptual framework.
        Milbank Q. 2008; 86: 629-659https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2008.00537.x
        • Kruskal J.B.
        • Reedy A.
        • Pascal L.
        • et al.
        Quality initiatives: lean approach to improving performance and efficiency in a radiology department.
        Radiographics. 2012; 32: 573-587https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.322115128
        • Porter M.E.
        • Lee T.H.
        The strategy that will fix healthcare.
        Harv Bus Rev. 2013; 91: 50-70
        • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
        Counting change: measuring healthcare prices, costs and spending.
        (Available at:) (Accessed May 29, 2015)
        • Drummond M.F.
        • Sculpher M.J.
        • O'Brien B.
        • et al.
        Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes.
        Third ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford2005
        • Gold M.R.
        • Siegel J.E.
        • Russell L.B.
        • et al.
        Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine.
        Oxford University Press, New York, NY1996
        • Husereau D.
        • Drummond M.
        • Petrou S.
        • et al.
        Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS)—explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR health economic evaluations publication guidelines good reporting practices task force.
        Value Health. 2013; 16: 231-250
        • Hollingworth W.
        Radiology cost and outcomes studies: standard practice and emerging methods.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005; 185: 833-839https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.04.1780
        • Bessen T.
        • Clark R.
        • Shakib S.
        • et al.
        A multifaceted strategy for implementation of the Ottawa ankle rules in two emergency departments.
        BMJ. 2009; 339: b3056
        • Gazelle G.S.
        • Kessler L.
        • Lee D.W.
        • et al.
        A framework for assessing the value of diagnostic imaging in the era of comparative effectiveness research.
        Radiology. 2011; 261: 692-698https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11110155
        • Smith-Bindman R.
        • Aubin C.
        • Bailitz J.
        • et al.
        Ultrasonography versus computed tomography for suspected nephrolithiasis.
        N Engl J Med. 2014; 371: 1100-1110https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1404446
        • Aberle D.R.
        • Berg C.D.
        • et al.
        • National Lung Screening Trial Research Team
        The National Lung Screening Trial: overview and study design.
        Radiology. 2011; 258: 243-253https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10091808
        • Jena A.B.
        • Skinner J.S.
        • Chandra A.
        The promise and challenge of comparative effectiveness research.
        (June; Available at:) (Accessed May 29, 2015)
        • Black W.C.
        • Gareen I.F.
        • Soneji S.S.
        • et al.
        Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the National Lung Screening Trial.
        N Engl J Med. 2014; 371: 1793-1802https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1312547
        • Allen B.
        Are radiologists ready for higher value care?.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2015; 12: 427-428https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2015.03.047
        • Duszak R.
        • Burleson J.
        • Seidenwurm D.
        • et al.
        Medicare's Physician Quality Reporting System: early national radiologist experience and near-future performance projections.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2013; 10: 114-121https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2012.08.004
        • Duszak R.
        • Saunders W.M.
        Medicare's physician quality reporting initiative: incentives, physician work, and perceived impact on patient care.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2010; 7: 419-424https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2009.12.011
        • Torchiana D.F.
        • Colton D.G.
        • Rao S.K.
        • et al.
        Massachusetts General Physicians Organization's quality incentive program produces encouraging results.
        Health Aff (Millwood). 2013; 32: 1748-1756https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0377