Search

Purpose: To assess the attitudes of interventional radiologists (IRs) and diagnostic radiologists (DRs) toward exclusive contracts and independently practicing IRs who may request privileges at a hospital where an exclusive contract exists with a different group of radiologists., Materials and Methods: A total of 22,400 survey instruments were distributed to 4,490 IRs and 17,910 DRs in the United States. Statistical evaluation included multivariate ordinal logistic regression analysis with calculation of the odds ratios and forest plots., Results: Completed surveys were received from 525 (11.69%) IRs and 401 (2.23%) DRs. Given the low response rate of DRs, data analysis was focused on IRs. Early-career IRs and those in outpatient practices had a more positive attitude toward independent IRs who requested admitting and/or procedural privileges. A supermajority of both IRs and DRs who responded to the survey agreed that the importance of IR to hospital and health system contracts will increase., Conclusions: This survey identified many interrelated and complex variables that significantly affected the attitudes of IRs in various practice settings toward independent IRs requesting hospital admitting and/or procedural privileges. It will benefit independent IRs seeking admitting privileges to better understand some of the factors that impact the potential willingness of the radiology groups and other IRs with exclusive hospital contracts to work toward mutually beneficial practice paradigms, especially as more clinically oriented IRs complete their training in the new, integrated residency programs., (Copyright © 2023 SIR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: The use of nonphysician practitioners (NPPs) in the emergency department (ED) continues to expand, yet little is known about associations between NPPs and ED imaging use., Objective: To investigate whether the state share of ED visits for which an NPP was the clinician of record is associated with imaging studies ordered, given that state NPP share is associated with state-level NPP scopes of practice., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study compared diagnostic imaging ordering patterns associated with ED visits based on 2005-2020 Medicare claims for a nationally representative 5% sample of fee-for-service beneficiaries. For all 50 states and the District of Columbia, the state NPP share of ED visits by year was used to represent state-specific practice patterns for NPPs and physicians and how those patterns have evolved over time. The analysis controlled for patient demographic characteristics, Charlson Comorbidity Index scores, ED visit severity, year, and principal diagnosis., Exposures: The share of ED visits in each state in each year (state share) for which an NPP was the evaluation and management clinician., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were the number and modality of imaging studies associated with ED visits. Analyses were by logistic regression and generalized linear model with γ-distribution and log-link function., Results: Among 16 922 274 ED visits, 60.0% involved women, and patients' mean (SD) age was 70.3 (16.1) years. The share of all ED visits with an NPP as the clinician increased from 6.1% in 2005 to 16.6% in 2020. Compared with no NPPs, the presence of NPPs in the ED was associated with 5.3% (95% CI, 5.1%-5.5%) more imaging studies per ED visit, including a 3.4% (95% CI, 3.2%-3.5%) greater likelihood of any imaging order per ED visit and 2.2% (95% CI, 2.0%-2.3%) more imaging studies ordered per visit involving imaging., Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, use of NPPs in the ED was associated with higher imaging use compared with the use of only physicians in the ED. Although expanded use of NPPs in the ED may improve patient access, the costs and radiation exposure associated with more imaging warrants additional study.

Many practice groups are considering adopting new practice models, primarily to secure their practices by adapting to new payment models, government compliance and regulation, and increasing IT and infrastructure costs. As we move toward value-based care and capitation, the value equation (value = quality/cost) will lead us to also compete on cost to improve value. No matter what payment models ultimately dominate, we need to be prepared to lead in a value-based care environment. Measures of value will either be defined by radiologists or imposed by outside entities. It is critical to our continued success that practices and practice leaders continue to fully and strongly support the ACR to avoid the possibility of a decline in membership that may accompany a lack of practice engagement. Consolidation appears inevitable, but with the help of the ACR, radiologists should have a vibrant future if investments are made now in determining appropriate radiology-specific value measures that are meaningful in consolidated health care environments., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)