You are here



As radiology practices and departments throughout the country work to reduce radiation dose during CT examinations, the authors of a new study published in the Journal of the American College of Radiology wrote about the success they found in reducing dose by following three specific steps.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a new guidance Monday detailing the agency’s initial thoughts and recommendations related to the 3D printing of medical devices.

Basing research and best practices on evidence is nothing new. But for radiologists to best represent their professions to federal lawmakers and regulators, their advocacy should be evidence-based, argued Emory University’s Rich Duszak, MD, professor and vice chair for health policy and practice at the school’s Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences at RSNA 2017 in Chicago.

David Levin, MD, professor and chairman emeritus of the radiology department at Jefferson Medical College and Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia, asked a simple question with his Nov. 26 presentation at RSNA 2017: Will the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) and the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) kill your radiology practice?

Specialists agree that having either a family history of breast cancer or dense breast tissue puts patients at a greater risk of developing breast cancer. Where disagreement persists, however, is what exactly to do with that information. Some experts believe that providers should implement risk-based mammographic screening for breast cancer, but according to a new study published in the American Journal of Roentgenology, such a system could delay the detection and treatment of a large number of cancers.


Recent Headlines

A Yawning Void

As Ezequiel Silva III, MD, makes perfectly clear in his guest editorial in this issue, the entire continuum of radiology delivery services is inches away from getting slammed—again. The root of radiology’s latest problem is in a 2007 report¹ (based on data of an even earlier vintage) from RTI International, LLC, that recommends separate cost centers for MRI and CT.

The In-office Ancillary-services Exception: Time to Ground the Skyrocket?

Some battles are destined to be fought over and over again. The fight to eliminate the IOASE is one such skirmish; it refuses to go away, after more than a decade of debate.

Washington 2013: Imaging at the Grindhouse

Imaging has been through a long legislative and regulatory grind since the first big blow was struck with the DRA, and there is little to indicate that much will change on that front in 2013, according to Ted Burnes, MPA, director of RADPAC, the political-action committee of the ACR®. With Maurine Dennis, MPH, MBA, a consultant for the RBMA, Burnes copresented “Radiology Economics and RADPAC Update” on May 22, 2013, at the RBMA Radiology Summit in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

The MAC–CMS Disconnect

As we previously reported,¹ last fall, CMS published its supposedly final guidance² on place-of-service requirements for the professional and technical components of diagnostic tests. Transmittal 2563 (later replaced by Transmittals 2613 and 2679) revised the instructions contained in chapter 13 of the CMS manual system for Medicare claims processing. The most recent transmittal became effective on April 1, 2013. On April 25, CMS issued a frequently asked question (FAQ)3 set to respond to additional concerns about the place-of-service instructions. Among other clarifications in the FAQ list, CMS reported that it will be developing a national enrollment policy for telehealth and telemedicine services.

Anatomy of a Pay Cut My initial reaction was to flinch and move on, like a punch-drunk fighter, when I heard about the 90% assumed equipment-utilization rate in the omnibus bill intended to avert the fiscal cliff. Instead, I bear witness to the latest in a series of cuts to the technical and professional components of radiology reimbursement.
Navigating the Regulatory Landscape: The 8 Top Legal Issues of 2012 Idle hands are said to be the devil’s workshop; in 2012, government regulators proved the same to be true of hands that are busy, as evidenced by the new and modified rules that they churned out to address perceived problems in the delivery of radiology services. Many of these rules—brought forth by DHHS agencies—were unhelpful to radiology practices striving to keep their heads above water. In fairness, though, one or two rules were of the opposite character.
Putting Lung-cancer Screening Through the Actuarial Wringer

An article by Milliman actuaries¹ in the April 2012 issue of Health Affairs details an interesting accounting exercise that is likely to cause private insurers to take notice. Using a method employed to evaluate new insurance features, the researchers created an actuarial model designed to estimate the cost (and cost benefit) of lung-cancer