The cost of healthcare, especially advanced imaging studies, has been under scrutiny for several years now, leading to countless discussions about what is and is not essential to patient care. In a new commentary published by Academic Radiology, the author argues that image reinterpretation by a subspecialist radiologist can provide significant value and should not be viewed as wasteful or unnecessary.  

“Typically, patients referred to the tertiary centers have already had imaging performed that led to the diagnosis and initiation of the referral,” wrote author Mahmoud Al-Hawary, MD, with the department of radiology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “However, these examinations are often protocoled and interpreted by general radiologists who lack sufficient experience in imaging these uncommon tumors. This often leads to incomplete reporting of the pertinent imaging findings needed to accurately stage the tumor.”

Al-Hawary highlighted the example of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, an aggressive cancer with an overall five-year survival rate of just 8.2 percent. Patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma are often referred to tertiary centers where subspecialists can reinterpret their exams; those patients need every bit of that additional care. The value provided by the subspecialist radiologist is clear.

Reinterpretation of imaging studies by experienced subspecialists can provide value in other ways as well, Al-Hawary added. They can ensure that there is no alternate diagnosis, for instance, and help healthcare providers “avoid redundancies and unnecessary appointments.”

Al-Hawary added that subspecialists should be “appropriately compensated for the time they spend interpreting these often challenging and time-consuming examinations.”

“The full dictated report will be a permanent part of the patient's medical record and can be referenced at any time when question about management arise during patient care,” he wrote. “The effort and time spent in the reinterpretation is identical to any other examinations performed at the referral center and logic would require that the radiologists be compensated equally for their efforts.”