Concerns about the economics of mammography and how radiologists can respond


      • 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.


      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.


      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 access
      One-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 to Clinical Imaging
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Adashi E.Y.
        • Tang K.S.
        Consumer-directed health care: the uncertain future of price transparency initiatives.
        Am J Med. 2019; 132: 783-784
        • Otero H.J.
        • Cardillo F.
        • Duffy E.
        • Kaplan S.L.
        The cost-estimation department: a step toward cost transparency in radiology.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2019; 16: 194-195
        • O’Donoghue C.
        • Eklund M.
        • Ozanne E.M.
        • Esserman L.J.
        Aggregate cost of mammography screening in the United States: comparison of current practice and advocated guidelines.
        Ann Intern Med. 2014; 160: 145
        • Siu A.L.
        • Force USPST
        Screening for breast cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement.
        Ann Intern Med. 2016; 164: 279-296
        • U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
        • Boland G.W.
        • Glenn L.
        • Goldberg-Stein S.
        • Jha S.
        • Mangano M.
        • Patel S.
        • et al.
        Report of the ACR’s economics committee on value-based payment models.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2017; 14: 6-14
        • Alcusky M.
        • Philpotts L.
        • Bonafede M.
        • Clarke J.
        • Skoufalos A.
        The patient burden of screening mammography recall.
        J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2014; 23: S11-S19
        • U.S. Food and Drug Administration
        Mammography quality standards act. 21CFR900.12.
        • Sickles E.
        • D’Orsi C.J.
        • Bassett L.W.
        • et al.
        ACR BI-RADS mammography.
        in: ACR BI-RADS atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA2013
        • Lee C.S.
        • Moy L.
        • Friedewald S.M.
        • Sickles E.A.
        • Monticciolo D.L.
        Harmonizing breast cancer screening recommendations: metrics and accountability.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018; 210: 241-245
        • D’Orsi C.J.
        • Sickles E.A.
        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
        • Liao J.M.
        • Basu A.
        • Lee C.I.
        The value of outpatient imaging-based cancer screening episodes.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2018; 33: 1571-1573
        • Dako F.
        • Schreyer K.
        • Burshteyn M.
        • Cohen G.
        • Belden C.
        Expanding radiology’s role in a value-based health economy.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2017; 14: 622-624
        • Gutzeit A.
        • Heiland R.
        • Sudarski S.
        • Froehlich J.M.
        • Hergan K.
        • Meissnitzer M.
        • et al.
        Direct communication between radiologists and patients following imaging examinations. Should radiologists rethink their patient care?.
        Eur Radiol. 2019; 29: 224-231
        • Mendelson E.B.
        Artificial intelligence in breast imaging: potentials and limitations.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019; 212: 293-299
        • Paul A.B.
        • Oklu R.
        • Saini S.
        • Prabhakar A.M.
        How much is that head CT? Price transparency and variability in radiology.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2015; 12: 453-457
        • Pasalic D.
        • Lingineni R.K.
        • Cloft H.J.
        • Kallmes D.F.
        Nationwide price variability for an elective, outpatient imaging procedure.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2015; 12: 444-452
        • Baker L.
        • Bundorf M.K.
        • Royalty A.
        Private insurers’ payments for routine physician office visits vary substantially across the United States.
        Health Aff (Millwood). 2013; 32: 1583-1590
        • Sadigh G.
        • Carlos R.C.
        • Krupinski E.A.
        • Meltzer C.C.
        • Duszak Jr., R.
        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
        • Durand D.J.
        • Narayan A.K.
        • Rybicki F.J.
        • Burleson J.
        • Nagy P.
        • McGinty G.
        • et al.
        The health care value transparency movement and its implications for radiology.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2015; 12: 51-58
        • Rosenkrantz A.B.
        • Doshi A.M.
        Public transparency web sites for radiology practices: prevalence of price, clinical quality, and service quality information.
        Clin Imaging. 2016; 40: 531-534
        • Fuse Brown E.C.
        Stalled federal efforts to end surprise billing-the role of private equity.
        N Engl J Med. 2020; 382: 1189-1191
        • Chhabra K.R.
        • Sheetz K.H.
        • Nuliyalu U.
        • Dekhne M.S.
        • Ryan A.M.
        • Dimick J.B.
        Out-of-network bills for privately insured patients undergoing elective surgery with in-network primary surgeons and facilities.
        JAMA. 2020; 323: 538-547
        • Chang Sen L.Q.
        • Mayo R.C.
        • Lesslie M.D.
        • Yang W.T.
        • Leung J.W.T.
        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
        • Spivey T.L.
        • Carlson K.A.
        • Janssen I.
        • Witt T.R.
        • Jokich P.
        • Madrigrano A.
        Breast imaging second opinions impact surgical management.
        Ann Surg Oncol. 2015; 22: 2359-2364
        • Coffey K.
        • D’Alessio D.
        • Keating D.M.
        • Morris E.A.
        Second-opinion review of breast imaging at a cancer center: is it worthwhile?.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017; 208: 1386-1391
        • Newman E.A.
        • Guest A.B.
        • Helvie M.A.
        • Roubidoux M.A.
        • Chang A.E.
        • Kleer C.G.
        • et al.
        Changes in surgical management resulting from case review at a breast cancer multidisciplinary tumor board.
        Cancer. 2006; 107: 2346-2351
        • Mallory M.A.
        • Losk K.
        • Lin N.U.
        • Sagara Y.
        • Birdwell R.L.
        • Cutone L.
        • et al.
        The influence of radiology image consultation in the surgical management of breast cancer patients.
        Ann Surg Oncol. 2015; 22: 3383-3388
        • O’Mahony N.
        • McCarthy E.
        • McDermott R.
        • O’Keeffe S.
        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