{"title":"Share of Diagnostic Imaging Interpretation: Radiology and Other Specialties","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.05.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>The aim of this study was to examine radiology’s and other specialties’ market shares for diagnostic imaging interpretation for Medicare fee-for-service claims by modality, body region, and place of service.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>In this cross-sectional study of Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary data for 2022, the authors examined the proportion of diagnostic imaging interpretation by specialty. All claims for CT, MR, nuclear medicine (NM), ultrasound, and radiography and fluoroscopy (XR) were included. Claims were aggregated into 52 specialty groups using Medicare specialty codes. The market share for each specialty group was computed by modality, body region, and place of service.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>For Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, there were 122,851,716 imaging studies, of which 88,559,272 (72.1%) were interpreted by radiologists. This percentage varied by modality: 97.3% for CT, 91.0% for MR, 76.6% for XR, 50.9% for NM, and 33.9% for ultrasound. Radiologists interpreted a lower percentage of cardiac (67.6% for CT, 42.2% for MR, 11.8% for NM, and 0.4% for ultrasound) than noncardiac studies (97.6% for CT, 91.4% for MR, 95.6% for NM, and 53.0% for ultrasound). Among noncardiac studies, radiologists interpreted nearly all in the outpatient hospital, inpatient, and emergency department (99.5% for CT, 99.4% for MR, 98.9% for NM, 79.3% for ultrasound, and 97.9% for XR) compared with the office setting (84.4% for CT, 78.7% for MR, 85.4% for NM, 29.2% for ultrasound, and 43.1% for XR).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Radiologists perform the dominant share of CT and MR interpretation and more so for noncardiac imaging and imaging performed in outpatient hospital, inpatient, and emergency department places of service.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1546144024004538/pdfft?md5=4413ba9832cb881a85846791ab576a45&pid=1-s2.0-S1546144024004538-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American College of Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1546144024004538","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
The aim of this study was to examine radiology’s and other specialties’ market shares for diagnostic imaging interpretation for Medicare fee-for-service claims by modality, body region, and place of service.
Methods
In this cross-sectional study of Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary data for 2022, the authors examined the proportion of diagnostic imaging interpretation by specialty. All claims for CT, MR, nuclear medicine (NM), ultrasound, and radiography and fluoroscopy (XR) were included. Claims were aggregated into 52 specialty groups using Medicare specialty codes. The market share for each specialty group was computed by modality, body region, and place of service.
Results
For Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, there were 122,851,716 imaging studies, of which 88,559,272 (72.1%) were interpreted by radiologists. This percentage varied by modality: 97.3% for CT, 91.0% for MR, 76.6% for XR, 50.9% for NM, and 33.9% for ultrasound. Radiologists interpreted a lower percentage of cardiac (67.6% for CT, 42.2% for MR, 11.8% for NM, and 0.4% for ultrasound) than noncardiac studies (97.6% for CT, 91.4% for MR, 95.6% for NM, and 53.0% for ultrasound). Among noncardiac studies, radiologists interpreted nearly all in the outpatient hospital, inpatient, and emergency department (99.5% for CT, 99.4% for MR, 98.9% for NM, 79.3% for ultrasound, and 97.9% for XR) compared with the office setting (84.4% for CT, 78.7% for MR, 85.4% for NM, 29.2% for ultrasound, and 43.1% for XR).
Conclusions
Radiologists perform the dominant share of CT and MR interpretation and more so for noncardiac imaging and imaging performed in outpatient hospital, inpatient, and emergency department places of service.
期刊介绍:
The official journal of the American College of Radiology, JACR informs its readers of timely, pertinent, and important topics affecting the practice of diagnostic radiologists, interventional radiologists, medical physicists, and radiation oncologists. In so doing, JACR improves their practices and helps optimize their role in the health care system. By providing a forum for informative, well-written articles on health policy, clinical practice, practice management, data science, and education, JACR engages readers in a dialogue that ultimately benefits patient care.