CancerNetwork Members: Login | Register
Become a fan on  Facebook  Add us on  Google Plus Follow us on  Twitter Join us on LinkedIn Sign up for our Newsletters Subscribe to our RSS Feed

 

CancerNetwork SearchMedica Medline Drugs

Powered by SearchMedica

 
PUBLICATIONS
NEWS
PODCASTS
TOPICS
BLOGS
NURSES
PATIENTS
JOBS
CONFERENCES
CME
SUPPLEMENTS
 

Home » Practice Management

 

Radiologists Should Act on Appropriateness Decisions

By Richard Woodcock, MD | November 29, 2012

I recently received a letter from one of the insurers in my state. It explained that I was not in compliance with their policy regarding indications for headache imaging, nor was the study in compliance with ACR standards.

It’s not the first letter I’ve gotten in the last year from them. And my initial impression is to toss it in the trash as silly. I didn’t order the study and certainly can’t stop the next order from being written today or tomorrow. I also don’t plan on calling the patient or referring provider and informing them of this.

(MORE: Lessons for Radiology from the Service Industry)

Then I thought about it and wondered if the insurer also had a sent a letter to the patient or provider. So I looked up the patient and as it turned out they were referred by a close friend and colleague. I called and asked if he was receiving these letters too. He hadn’t seen one, he informed me. I’m going to presume the patient didn’t get one either.

I had to know what the insurer was up to, so I put in a call to our contact there. Those are just to raise your awareness, they said, in the hopes of changing behavior in the long run. Did they know I didn’t get to approve or disapprove studies? I asked. They were under the impression that I should.

That was eye opening. I don’t usually feel empowered to be part of this process, with regards to approving or disapproving of study appropriateness. A few recent things came to mind:

• Medicare just published results of a review that shows imaging is not the cause of increases in health cost

• The ACR supported the findings of the Government Accountability Office indicating self-referral was a significant cause of over-imaging and excess cost.

• Almost a quarter or physicians indicated they order more diagnostic tests than are needed due to concerns over malpractice.

Yet, the focus for health imaging policy is on the MPPR and on fraudulent billing practices. Anybody else feel like somebody is sticking their head in the sand?

I have come to feel that we have been too passive in being part of the process of performing studies. We know the most about what is needed, and could dramatically reduce the number of unneeded studies if empowered and allowed to do so.

We’ve had reasons not to be active. It exposes us to malpractice risks. We are financially incentivized not to, because cutting down on studies would cost us. Taking that responsibility also would require a lot of time from us, and that also would be costly.

But it would also mean more appropriate care, and that is what most of us got into this for. Are we willing and ready to be part of that process? I feel like the insurer is asking me that with the letter, and to the extent it makes me think, it is serving its purpose. In isolation in the present climate, it is screaming into the wind and hoping someone will hear. It is also ridiculously simplistic in its thinking. But as part of a broader policy it is fundamentally a good idea.

Is the legal system willing to insulate us from the malpractice risk involved in making appropriateness decisions? Is the insurance system, chiefly CMS, willing to clamp down on inappropriate self-referral? Are patients willing to take direction from standards and societies and not demand additional testing?

It seems pretty overwhelming and maybe insurmountable. And as it stands it is not reasonable to expect us to solely act on our own. But we need to be part of the process and ready to be included, not resistant, for the greater good and also so we aren’t run over.

Like all things, fixing a big problem starts with small steps, and until you take them, it won’t get fixed. So we need to act now, if we want things to be done properly. That is:

A: Advocate for self-referral enforcement and malpractice reforms to your local representatives and national organizations;

C: Communicate whenever possible with referring physicians, facility managers and explain that you are happy to help with choosing appropriate studies; and educate yourself about appropriateness; and

T: Take the tough steps to defer or reduce imaging where appropriate. Ask to review orders in advance and request adequate reasons for studies to be done. It’s not easy but we do need to act.
 

 

Join the Conversation

Want to join the conversation? If you're a healthcare professional, we'd like to hear your comments. Just sign in or register today to become part of our growing, online community.

  • Oldest First
  • Newest First

by Anders von Heijne | December 04, 2012 2:04 AM EST

Working as I am in European radiology where all referrals in principle has to be checked, or vetted, as they arrive in the department by a radiologist in terms of appropriateness and justification, I can only concur with the view that this is a really important part of our responsibilities. In practice, most referrals are OK and easy to accept, and the fact that their clinical context has to be good enough for the radiologist to judge the appropriateness of the exam, increases the quality of the referrals and makes our job that much easier. When you do have to question an exam, the conversation with the referring doctor enhances the radiological process, and your current and future collaboration. More often than not the discussion leads to better and more individualized exams. Sometimes the sought information can be found in prior exams and sometimes you end up changeing modality and priority.

More from Richard Woodcock, MD

Dispelling Misperceptions in Radiology

Know Your Role as Supervising Physician for Imaging Services

Consider the Pros and Cons of Patient Empowerment

Set Expectations Through Communication

Be Smart About Electronic Communications

Look Out for CMS’s Place of Service Code Changes

Radiologists Should Act on Appropriateness Decisions

Identifying the Right Equipment for the Imaging Study

Lessons for Radiology from the Service Industry






 
TOPIC INDEX

Cancer Types

 
  • Breast
  • Breast (HER2+)
  • Breast (Triple-Negative)
  • CML
  • Colorectal
  • Gastrointestinal
  • GIST
  • Genitourinary
  • Gynecologic
  • Head & Neck
  • Hematology
  • Kidney (Renal Cell)
  • Leukemia
  • Lung
  • Lymphoma
  • Melanoma
  • Multiple Myeloma
  • Ovarian
  • Prostate
  • Sarcoma

Supportive Care

More Topics

  • Bone Metastases
  • End-of-Life Care
  • Palliative Care
  • Ethics in Oncology
  • Practice Management
  • Practice & Policy


All Topics 


 
MOST POPULAR
  • Most Popular
  • Most Emailed
  • Most Recent
  • Colorectal Lesions
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • Dermatologic Adverse Events Associated With Targeted Therapies
  • Skin Lesions
  • Slide Show: Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • Dermatologic Adverse Events Associated With Targeted Therapies
  • Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: An Update on Treatment
  • Colorectal Lesions
  • ONS: Understanding Spirituality and How It Can Be Used to Help Patients
  • New AUA Guidelines for Prostate Cancer Screening
  • 50 Shades of Pink—And Why It Helps to Know the Difference
  • Genomics Studies Identify Testicular Cancer Risk Variants
  • Lower Back Pain in an Elderly Man With a History of Localized Prostate Cancer
  • FDA Approves Erlotinib (Tarceva) as First-Line Lung Cancer Therapy for Certain Patients
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
 
COMMENTS
  • Most Commented
  • Most Recent
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • Financial Toxicity, Part II: How Can We Help With the Burden of Treatment-Related Costs?
  • Patient Quality of Life Endpoints in Oncology Trials, Part II
  • Who's Coding Whom?
  • “How Do I Say This Nicely? Your Oncologist Wasn't Following Guidelines”
  • Preventing Exposure to Hazardous Drugs
  • Cancer Metabolism as a Therapeutic Target
  • Study: Cholesterol Drugs Reduced Risk of Prostate Cancer Death
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • ONS: Safe Handling of Chemotherapy
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter


 
SearchMedica Search Result

Find peer-reviewed literature and websites for practicing medical professionals

CME on Practice Management
Evidence on Practice Management
Guidelines on Practice Management
Patient Education on Practice Management
Clinical Trials on Practice Management
Practical Articles on Practice Management
Research and Reviews on Practice Management
All "Practice Management" results

CancerNetwork on Facebook

CancerNetwork | ConsultantLive | Diagnostic Imaging | Musculoskeletal Network | OBGYN.net | PediatricsConsultantLive |
Physicians Practice | Psychiatric Times | SearchMedica | Medical Resources

© 1996 - 2013 UBM Medica LLC, a UBM company
Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Advertising Information - Editorial Policy Statement - UBM Medica Network Privacy Policy