Search

The ACR Intersociety Committee meeting of 2022 (ISC-2022) was convened around the theme of "Recovering From The Great Resignation, Moral Injury and Other Stressors: Rebuilding Radiology for a Robust Future." Representatives from 29 radiology organizations, including all radiology subspecialties, radiation oncology, and medical physics, as well as academic and private practice radiologists, met for 3 days in early August in Park City, Utah, to search for solutions to the most pressing problems facing the specialty of radiology in 2022. Of these, the mismatch between the clinical workload and the available radiologist workforce was foremost-as many other identifiable problems flowed downstream from this, including high job turnover, lack of time for teaching and research, radiologist burnout, and moral injury., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To assess recent trends and characteristics in radiologist-practice separation across the United States., Methods: Using the Medicare Physician Compare and Medicare Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File data sets, we linked all radiologists to associated group practices annually between 2014 and 2018 and assessed radiologist-practice separation over a variety of physician and group characteristics. Multivariate logistic regression modeling was used to estimate the likelihood of radiologist-practice separation., Results: Of 25,228 unique radiologists associated with 4,381 unique group practices, 41.1% separated from at least one group practice between 2014 and 2018, and annual separation rates increased 38.4% over time (13.8% from 2014 to 2015 to 19.2% from 2017 to 2018). Radiologist-practice separation rates ranged from 57.4% in Utah to 26.3% in Virginia. Separation rates were 42.8% for general radiologists versus 38.2% for subspecialty radiologists. Among subspecialists, separation rates ranged from 43.0% for breast imagers to 33.5% for cardiothoracic radiologists. Early career status (odds ratio [OR] = 1.286) and late (OR = 1.554) career status were both independent positive predictors of radiologist-practice separation (both P < .001). Larger practice size (OR = 0.795), radiology-only (versus multispecialty) group (OR = 0.468), academic (versus nonacademic) practice (OR = 0.709), and abdominal (OR = 0.820), musculoskeletal (OR = 0.659), and neuroradiology (OR = 0.895) subspecialization were independent negative predictors (all P < .05)., Conclusions: With over 40% of radiologists separating from at least one practice in recent years, the US radiologist workforce is highly and increasingly mobile. Because reasons for separation (eg, resignation, practice acquisition) cannot be assessed using administrative data, further attention is warranted given the manifold financial, operational, and patient care implications., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The operational and financial impact of the widespread coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) curtailment of imaging services on radiology practices is unknown. We aimed to characterize recent COVID-19-related community practice noninvasive diagnostic imaging professional work declines., Methods: Using imaging metadata from nine community radiology practices across the United States between January 2019 and May 2020, we mapped work relative value unit (wRVU)-weighted stand-alone noninvasive diagnostic imaging service codes to both modality and body region. Weekly 2020 versus 2019 wRVU changes were analyzed by modality, body region, and site of service. Practice share χ 2 testing was performed., Results: Aggregate weekly wRVUs ranged from a high of 120,450 (February 2020) to a low of 55,188 (April 2020). During that -52% wRVU nadir, outpatient declines were greatest (-66%). All practices followed similar aggregate trends in the distribution of wRVUs between each 2020 versus 2019 week (P = .96-.98). As a percentage of total all-practice wRVUs, declines in CT (20,046 of 63,992; 31%) and radiography and fluoroscopy (19,196; 30%) were greatest. By body region, declines in abdomen and pelvis (16,203; 25%) and breast (12,032; 19%) imaging were greatest. Mammography (-17%) and abdominal and pelvic CT (-14%) accounted for the largest shares of total all-practice wRVU reductions. Across modality-region groups, declines were far greatest for mammography (-92%)., Conclusions: Substantial COVID-19-related diagnostic imaging work declines were similar across community practices and disproportionately impacted mammography. Decline patterns could facilitate pandemic second wave planning. Overall implications for practice workflows, practice finances, patient access, and payment policy are manifold., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic affected radiology practices in many ways. The aim of this survey was to estimate declines in imaging volumes and financial impact across different practice settings during April 2020., Methods: The survey, comprising 48 questions, was conducted among members of the ACR and the Radiology Business Management Association during May 2020. Survey questions focused on practice demographics, volumes, financials, personnel and staff adjustments, and anticipation of recovery., Results: During April 2020, nearly all radiology practices reported substantial (56.4%-63.7%) declines in imaging volumes, with outpatient imaging volumes most severely affected. Mean gross charges declined by 50.1% to 54.8% and collections declined by 46.4% to 53.9%. Percentage reductions did not correlate with practice size. The majority of respondents believed that volumes would recover but not entirely (62%-88%) and anticipated a short-term recovery, with a surge likely in the short term due to postponement of elective imaging (52%-64%). About 16% of respondents reported that radiologists in their practices tested positive for COVID-19. More than half (52.3%) reported that availability of personal protective equipment had become an issue or was inadequate. A majority (62.3%) reported that their practices had existing remote reading or teleradiology capabilities in place before the pandemic, and 22.3% developed such capabilities in response to the pandemic., Conclusions: Radiology practices across different settings experienced substantial declines in imaging volumes and collections during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in April 2020. Most are actively engaged in both short- and long-term operational adjustments., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rationale and Objectives: While subspecialty radiologists' practice patterns have received recent attention, little is known about the practice patterns of general radiologists. We aim to characterize this group (which represents most US radiologists)., Materials and Methods: US radiologists' individual work efforts were assessed using the 2017 Medicare Provider and Other Supplier Public Use File and a previously validated wRVU-weighted claims-based classification system. Using prior criteria, radiologists without >50% work efforts in a single subspecialty were deemed generalists. For this study, a >25% subspecialty work effort threshold was deemed a subspecialty "focus area," and generalists with ≥2 subspecialty focus areas were deemed "multispecialists." Practice characteristics were summarized using various parameters., Results: Among 12,438 radiologists meeting existing claims-based criteria to be deemed generalists, 85.0% had ≥2 subspecialty focus areas of >25% work effort (i.e., multispecialists), 14.6% had one focus area, and 0.4% had no focus area. The fraction of generalists meeting multispecialist criteria was similar across radiologists' years in practice (range 84.7% to 85.4%), academic vs. nonacademic status (84.9% to 86.6%), and practice size (83.3% to 87.0%). Although general radiologist multispecialization varied geographically, a majority were multispecialists in all states (range 57.6% in VT to 93.9% in WY) and percentages were not associated with state-level population density (r = 0.013; p = 0.926)., Conclusion: The large majority of US general radiologists practice as multispecialists, and nearly all have at least one subspecialty focus area. The predominance of general radiologists' multispecialty focus across various practice types and locations supports their role in facilitating patient access to a range of radiologist subspecialties., (Copyright © 2020 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess recent trends in US radiology practice consolidation., Methods: Radiologist practice characteristics were obtained from the Medicare Physician Compare database for 2014 and 2018. Radiologists were classified on the basis of their largest identifiable practice affiliations. Single-specialty radiology practices were identified using practice names. Temporal trends in practice sizes were assessed., Results: At the individual radiologist level from 2014 to 2018, the fraction of all radiologists in groups with 1 or 2 members declined from 3.2% to 2.1%, 3 to 9 members from 10.2% to 6.7%, 10 to 24 members from 18.2% to 14.1%, 25 to 49 members from 16.6% to 15.1%, and 50 to 99 members from 13.3% to 11.5%. In contrast, the fraction in groups with 100 to 499 members increased from 15.7% to 21.8% and with ≥500 members from 22.9% to 28.7%. At the practice level, the fraction of all radiologists' practices with 1 or 2 members decreased from 26.9% to 22.8%, whereas the fraction with 100 to 499 members increased from 7.6% to 10.2% and with ≥500 members from 2.5% to 4.1%. Similar shifts were present for single-specialty radiology practices and all geographic regions nationally. The 30,492 radiologists identified in 2014 were affiliated with 4,908 group practices, including 2,812 single-specialty practices. In comparison, the 32,096 radiologists identified in 2018 were affiliated with 4,193 group practices (a 14.6% decline), including 2,216 single-specialty practices (a 21.2% decline)., Conclusions: In very recent years, the US radiologist workforce has consolidated, leading to increased practice sizes and a substantial decline in the number of distinct practices, disproportionately affecting single-specialty radiology practices. The impact of this consolidation on cost, quality, and patient access merits further attention., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To assess characteristics of radiologists' clinical practice patterns by career stage., Methods: Radiologists' 2016 billed services were extracted from the Medicare Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File. Billed clinical work was weighted using work relative value units. Medical school graduation years were obtained from Medicare Physician Compare. Practice patterns were summarized by decades after residency., Results: Among 28,463 included radiologists, 32.7% were ≤10 years postresidency, 29.3% 11-20 years, 25.0% 21-30 years, 10.5% 31-40 years, 2.4% 41-50 years, 0.1% ≥51 years. Billed clinical work (normalized to a mean of 1.00 among all radiologists) ranged 0.92-1.07 from 1 to 40 years, decreasing to 0.64 for 41-50 years and 0.43 for ≥51 years. Computed tomography represented 34.7%-38.6% of billed clinical work from 1 to 30 years, decreasing slightly to 31.5% for 31-40 years. Magnetic resonance imaging represented 13.9%-14.3% from 1 to 30 years, decreasing slightly to 11.2% for 31-40 years. Ultrasonography represented 6.2%-11.6% across career stages. Nuclear medicine increased steadily from 1.7% for ≤10 years to 7.0% for 41-50 years. Mammography represented 9.9%-12.9% from 1 to 50 years. Radiography/fluoroscopy represented 15.1%-29.8% from 1 to 50 years, but 65.9% for ≥51 years., Conclusion: The national radiologist workforce declines abruptly by more than half approximately 30 years after residency. Radiologists still working at 31-40 years, however, contribute similar billed clinical work, both overall and across modalities, as earlier career radiologists. Strategies to retain later-career radiologists in the workforce could help the specialty meet growing clinical demands, mitigate burnout in earlier career colleagues, and expand robust patient access to both basic and advanced imaging services., (Copyright © 2019 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Consolidation in health care has been widely recognized as having significant impact in the United States. A related trend is the corporatization of medical professional practices by companies in capital markets. Several medical subspecialties have been identified as attractive corporatization candidates, including radiology. The purpose of the white paper is to present information about the trend of corporatization in radiology. The real, recognized, and potential influences of capital investors in radiology need to be acknowledged as evolving and important considerations. Many radiologists and practices have already realized significant change as a result of corporatization. Corporatization presents significant practical, financial, ethical, and moral implications for those in and related to radiology., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The ACR's mission statement identifies five pillars of excellence. One of its pillars is research. ACR is recognized by many as supporting one of the premier research endeavors sponsored by a professional medical society of which the ACR Clinical Research Center is the largest component. The center is comprised of four entities: ACRIN(®), RTOG(®), QRRO(®), and ACR Image Metrix™. The Clinical Research Center encompasses personnel with extensive clinical trial expertise, a state-of-the-art IT infrastructure, and an imaging and radiation oncology core laboratory. This research enterprise supports a global network of researchers in the conduct of medical imaging and radiation oncology clinical trials. This paper's focus is on the Clinical Research Center's value to the radiology and radiation oncology professions, to the practices engaged in the clinical research, and to our patients., (Copyright © 2011 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In 2006 and the first half of 2007, the rapid pace of global activity contributed to the popularity of mergers and acquisitions (M&A). In fact, the medical imaging industry has a significant history in M&A as well. Along with the expectation of continued growth in medical imaging utilization and other industry trends, radiologists may become more involved in M&A transactions. There is little in the radiology literature dealing with the logistics and pitfalls of M&A. This article is an introduction for radiologists who might consider buying or selling their practices or merging with strategic partners. Although there are significant differences in the approaches of buy or sell situations compared with mergers, they do share several concepts that are outlined. One key to success in M&A transactions is the "process" or approach, which is described with some practical guidelines. Some basic terms and suggestions are also presented for reference.

Rationale and Objectives: To measure the change in radiologists' productivity in terms of interpretation time per examination when using picture archiving and communication system (PACS) workstations in a particular private practice, Valley Radiologists, Ltd, as part of a feasibility study and subsequent business plan to implement a digital enterprise., Materials and Methods: Time to process a series of exams was measured for 18 radiologists during an uninterrupted period of a working day. Radiologists in the practice served in multiple locations. The data were analyzed in aggregate and by modality (plain film, ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging). Average time per exam, with and without PACS, was measured for each modality. Regression analysis was used to determine the independent effect of PACS on radiologist productivity., Results: The mean time to process an exam was 1.4 minutes (SE = 0.04) for plain film, 1.96 minutes (SE = 0.14) for ultrasound, 5.08 minutes (SE = 0.44) for computed tomography, and 6.83 minutes (SE = 0.31) for magnetic resonance imaging. Regression results indicate that PACS had no effect on the time taken to read a series of exams., Conclusions: When considering a PACS purchase or implementation, decrease in radiologists' time to process an examination may not be realized. In this specific practice setting, we did not find evidence that PACS workstations alone, without any other changes in workflow design, improved radiologists' interpretation time.