Highlights
- •Increasing U.S. healthcare costs have been a focus of reform efforts over the past few decades.
- •Imaging studies, including breast cancer screening studies, are potential targets for cost savings and have drawn substantial attention.
- •A paradigm shift from a fee-for-service to a value-based payment system and price transparency have been promoted as cost reduction tools.
- •Radiologists need to take a proactive approach to these economic concerns by being an active participant in the reform efforts.
Abstract
Rapidly increasing U.S. healthcare spending has been a hot topic over the past few
decades. Imaging studies, including screening mammography, are possible targets for
cost savings. Radiologists need to be more proactive and take charge by actively participating
in the cost reduction conversation, improving the quality of care, providing patients
with accurate cost estimates and educating patients along with clinicians on the value
we have provided and can provide in the future.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Clinical ImagingAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Consumer-directed health care: the uncertain future of price transparency initiatives.Am J Med. 2019; 132: 783-784
- The cost-estimation department: a step toward cost transparency in radiology.J Am Coll Radiol. 2019; 16: 194-195
- Aggregate cost of mammography screening in the United States: comparison of current practice and advocated guidelines.Ann Intern Med. 2014; 160: 145
- Screening for breast cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement.Ann Intern Med. 2016; 164: 279-296
- Glossary.https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/fee-for-service/;Date accessed: April 20, 2020
- Report of the ACR’s economics committee on value-based payment models.J Am Coll Radiol. 2017; 14: 6-14
- The patient burden of screening mammography recall.J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2014; 23: S11-S19
- Mammography quality standards act. 21CFR900.12.2019
- ACR BI-RADS mammography.in: ACR BI-RADS atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA2013
- Harmonizing breast cancer screening recommendations: metrics and accountability.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018; 210: 241-245
- 2017 breast cancer surveillance consortium reports on interpretive performance at screening and diagnostic mammography: welcome new data, but not as benchmarks for practice.Radiology. 2017; 283: 7-9
- The value of outpatient imaging-based cancer screening episodes.J Gen Intern Med. 2018; 33: 1571-1573
- Expanding radiology’s role in a value-based health economy.J Am Coll Radiol. 2017; 14: 622-624
- Direct communication between radiologists and patients following imaging examinations. Should radiologists rethink their patient care?.Eur Radiol. 2019; 29: 224-231
- Artificial intelligence in breast imaging: potentials and limitations.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019; 212: 293-299
- How much is that head CT? Price transparency and variability in radiology.J Am Coll Radiol. 2015; 12: 453-457
- Nationwide price variability for an elective, outpatient imaging procedure.J Am Coll Radiol. 2015; 12: 444-452
- Private insurers’ payments for routine physician office visits vary substantially across the United States.Health Aff (Millwood). 2013; 32: 1583-1590
- Health care price transparency and communication: implications for radiologists and patients in an era of expanding shared decision making.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017; 209: 959-964
- The health care value transparency movement and its implications for radiology.J Am Coll Radiol. 2015; 12: 51-58
- Public transparency web sites for radiology practices: prevalence of price, clinical quality, and service quality information.Clin Imaging. 2016; 40: 531-534
- Stalled federal efforts to end surprise billing-the role of private equity.N Engl J Med. 2020; 382: 1189-1191
- Out-of-network bills for privately insured patients undergoing elective surgery with in-network primary surgeons and facilities.JAMA. 2020; 323: 538-547
- Impact of second-opinion interpretation of breast imaging studies in patients not currently diagnosed with breast cancer.J Am Coll Radiol. 2018; 15: 980-7 e1
- Breast imaging second opinions impact surgical management.Ann Surg Oncol. 2015; 22: 2359-2364
- Second-opinion review of breast imaging at a cancer center: is it worthwhile?.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017; 208: 1386-1391
- Changes in surgical management resulting from case review at a breast cancer multidisciplinary tumor board.Cancer. 2006; 107: 2346-2351
- The influence of radiology image consultation in the surgical management of breast cancer patients.Ann Surg Oncol. 2015; 22: 3383-3388
- Who’s the doctor? Patients’ perceptions of the role of the breast radiologist: a lesson for all radiologists.Br J Radiol. 2012; 85: e1184-e1189
Article Info
Publication History
Published online: May 15, 2020
Accepted:
May 13,
2020
Received in revised form:
April 23,
2020
Received:
February 10,
2020
Identification
Copyright
© 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
