A National County-Level Typology of Imaging Infrastructure and the Radiologist Workforce in the United States.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Adyasha Pradhan, Sharon D'Souza, Andrew B Rosenkrantz
{"title":"A National County-Level Typology of Imaging Infrastructure and the Radiologist Workforce in the United States.","authors":"Adyasha Pradhan, Sharon D'Souza, Andrew B Rosenkrantz","doi":"10.1016/j.acra.2026.09.030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale and objectives: </strong>This study aimed to perform a national county-level analysis integrating the local presence of both imaging equipment and radiologists into a unified typology of imaging access and to evaluate its association with imaging utilization.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Radiologists were identified in the June 2026 National Plan and Provider Enumeration System using six verified taxonomy codes and assigned to counties by practice ZIP code. Imaging infrastructure combined hospital presence, Medicare computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging billing, and certified mammography facilities. Counties were classified into four groups based on local radiologist and imaging equipment presence: true imaging deserts (neither), equipment-only, radiologist-only, and fully served (both). Sensitivity definitions used diagnostic-only taxonomies, Medicare billing, and billing-volume thresholds. Medicare imaging utilization was compared across categories. Multivariable logistic regression modeled radiologist absence and true imaging desert status.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1692/3144 (53.8%) counties had no documented local radiologist. A total of 568 counties were true imaging deserts (1.9% of residents), 1124 were equipment-only (7.6%), 19 were radiologist-only (0.1%), and 1433 were fully served (90.4%). Imaging utilization was lower in true imaging deserts than fully served counties (3989 vs. 4242 per 1000, P < 0.001); this difference held across varying equipment definitions. The no-radiologist share ranged 53.8%-63.3% across three workforce definitions. At the commuting-zone level, the prevalence of no-radiologist counties decreased to 16.8% and of true imaging desert counties to 1.7%. Smaller population and lower education predicted both county-level outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Local imaging access stratifies into four county types with measurable utilization differences. Equipment-only counties and true imaging deserts may warrant different policy responses.</p>","PeriodicalId":50928,"journal":{"name":"Academic Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2026.09.030","RegionNum":2,"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

Rationale and objectives: This study aimed to perform a national county-level analysis integrating the local presence of both imaging equipment and radiologists into a unified typology of imaging access and to evaluate its association with imaging utilization.

Materials and methods: Radiologists were identified in the June 2026 National Plan and Provider Enumeration System using six verified taxonomy codes and assigned to counties by practice ZIP code. Imaging infrastructure combined hospital presence, Medicare computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging billing, and certified mammography facilities. Counties were classified into four groups based on local radiologist and imaging equipment presence: true imaging deserts (neither), equipment-only, radiologist-only, and fully served (both). Sensitivity definitions used diagnostic-only taxonomies, Medicare billing, and billing-volume thresholds. Medicare imaging utilization was compared across categories. Multivariable logistic regression modeled radiologist absence and true imaging desert status.

Results: A total of 1692/3144 (53.8%) counties had no documented local radiologist. A total of 568 counties were true imaging deserts (1.9% of residents), 1124 were equipment-only (7.6%), 19 were radiologist-only (0.1%), and 1433 were fully served (90.4%). Imaging utilization was lower in true imaging deserts than fully served counties (3989 vs. 4242 per 1000, P < 0.001); this difference held across varying equipment definitions. The no-radiologist share ranged 53.8%-63.3% across three workforce definitions. At the commuting-zone level, the prevalence of no-radiologist counties decreased to 16.8% and of true imaging desert counties to 1.7%. Smaller population and lower education predicted both county-level outcomes.

Conclusion: Local imaging access stratifies into four county types with measurable utilization differences. Equipment-only counties and true imaging deserts may warrant different policy responses.

美国国家县级影像基础设施类型学和放射科医生工作队伍。
基本原理和目的:本研究旨在进行全国县级分析,将当地成像设备和放射科医生的存在整合到统一的成像访问类型中,并评估其与成像利用的关系。材料和方法:使用六个经过验证的分类代码在2026年6月的国家计划和提供者枚举系统中确定放射科医生,并根据实践邮政编码分配给县。成像基础设施包括医院、医疗保险计算机断层扫描或磁共振成像账单和经过认证的乳房x光检查设施。根据当地放射科医生和成像设备的存在,将县分为四组:真正的成像沙漠(两者都没有)、只有设备、只有放射科医生和完全服务(两者都有)。敏感性定义使用仅诊断分类法、医疗保险计费和计费量阈值。不同类别的医疗保险成像利用率进行比较。多变量logistic回归模拟放射科医生缺席和真实影像沙漠状态。结果:3144个县中有1692个县(53.8%)没有放射科医师。总共有568个县是真正的影像沙漠(占居民的1.9%),1124个县只有设备(7.6%),19个县只有放射科医生(0.1%),1433个县得到了充分的服务(90.4%)。真实成像沙漠的成像利用率低于完全服务县(3989比4242 / 1000,P < 0.001);这种差异在不同的设备定义中存在。在三种劳动力定义中,非放射科医生的比例在53.8%-63.3%之间。在通勤区水平,无放射科医生县的患病率下降到16.8%,真正成像的沙漠县下降到1.7%。更少的人口和更低的教育水平都预示着县一级的结果。结论:局部影像获取可分为四种县域类型,利用差异可测量。只有设备的县和真正的影像沙漠可能需要不同的政策回应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Academic Radiology
Academic Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
10.40%
发文量
432
审稿时长
18 days
期刊介绍: Academic Radiology publishes original reports of clinical and laboratory investigations in diagnostic imaging, the diagnostic use of radioactive isotopes, computed tomography, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, digital subtraction angiography, image-guided interventions and related techniques. It also includes brief technical reports describing original observations, techniques, and instrumental developments; state-of-the-art reports on clinical issues, new technology and other topics of current medical importance; meta-analyses; scientific studies and opinions on radiologic education; and letters to the Editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书