Use of Public Data to Target Variation in Providers’ Use of CT and MR Imaging among Medicare Beneficiaries

Published Online:Feb 5 2015https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.15141964

Abstract

Using public data, we can better identify potential geographic and procedure targets for improving providers’ use of diagnostic CT and MR imaging.

Purpose

To examine geographic variation in providers’ use of diagnostic imaging to identify potential targets for quality improvement initiatives after adjusting for imaging referral across hospital referral regions (HRRs).

Materials and Methods

Using two Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services datasets, the authors included all claims for beneficiaries enrolled in the Medicare fee-for-service program. Diagnostic imaging procedures were selected on the basis of common procedure coding system codes, excluding interventional procedures. The authors assessed providers’ use of imaging for each HRR after creating an imaging referral index (IRI) to adjust for imaging referral rates across HRRs. Relative risk statistics were used to assess geographic variation. The authors calculated two imaging measures for computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging: IRI-adjusted utilization intensity (number of examinations per 1000 beneficiaries) and total payments (in dollars, after deducting deductibles and coinsurances) in each HRR. High-impact regions were defined as those in the highest deciles for both imaging intensity and payment.

Results

For 34 million Medicare beneficiaries, 124 million unique diagnostic imaging services (totaling $5.6 billion) were performed in 2012. The average adjusted CT utilization intensity ranged from 330.4 studies per 1000 beneficiaries in the lowest decile to 684.0 in the highest decile (relative risk, 2.1); adjusted MR imaging utilization intensity varied from 105.7 studies per 1000 beneficiaries to 256.3 (relative risk, 2.4). The most common CT and MR imaging procedures were head CT and lumbar spine MR imaging.

Conclusion

With use of public data, the authors identified a wide variation in imaging use across the United States. Potential targets for future imaging quality improvement initiatives include head CT and lumbar spine MR imaging.

^© RSNA, 2015

References

1. Tempany CM, McNeil BJ. Advances in biomedical imaging. JAMA 2001;285(5):562–567. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
2. Hendee WR, Becker GJ, Borgstede JP, et al. Addressing overutilization in medical imaging. Radiology 2010;257(1):240–245. Link, Google Scholar
3. Sodickson A, Baeyens PF, Andriole KP, et al. Recurrent CT, cumulative radiation exposure, and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from CT of adults. Radiology 2009;251(1):175–184. Link, Google Scholar
4. Redberg R, Smith-Bindman R. We are giving ourselves cancer. New York Times. January 30, 2014: A27. Google Scholar
5. Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, et al. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med 2009;169(22):2078–2086. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
6. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007;357(22):2277–2284. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
7. Cardis E, Vrijheid M, Blettner M, et al. Risk of cancer after low doses of ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study in 15 countries. BMJ 2005;331(7508):77. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
8. Black WC. Advances in radiology and the real versus apparent effects of early diagnosis. Eur J Radiol 1998;27(2):116–122. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
9. Welch HG. Overdiagnosed: making people sick in the pursuit of health. Boston, Mass: Beacon, 2011. Google Scholar
10. Cassel CK, Guest JA. Choosing wisely: helping physicians and patients make smart decisions about their care. JAMA 2012;307(17):1801–1802. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
11. 113th Congress. Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014. HR Rep 4302. http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4302. Accessed May 5, 2014. Google Scholar
12. Rosenkrantz AB. Regional variation in Medicare imaging utilization and expenditures: 2007–2011 trends and comparison with other health services. J Am Coll Radiol 2014;11(1):45–50. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
13. Bhargavan M, Sunshine JH. Utilization of radiology services in the United States: levels and trends in modalities, regions, and populations. Radiology 2005;234(3):824–832. Link, Google Scholar
14. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare provider utilization and payment data. https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/Medicare-Provider-Charge-Data/. Accessed May 5, 2014. Google Scholar
15. Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice. The Dartmouth atlas of health care. http://www.dartmouthatlas.org. Accessed May 5, 2014. Google Scholar
16. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare data for geographic variation public use file: a methodological overview December 2013 update. http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/Medicare-Geographic-Variation. Accessed May 20, 2014. Google Scholar
17. Chou R, Fu R, Carrino JA, Deyo RA. Imaging strategies for low-back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2009;373(9662):463–472. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
18. Ip IK, Gershanik EF, Schneider LI, et al. Impact of IT-enabled intervention on MRI use for back pain. Am J Med 2014;127(6):512, e1. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
19. Birkmeyer JD, Reames BN, McCulloch P, Carr AJ, Campbell WB, Wennberg JE. Understanding of regional variation in the use of surgery. Lancet 2013;382(9898):1121–1129. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
20. Goodney PP, Holman K, Henke PK, et al. Regional intensity of vascular care and lower extremity amputation rates. J Vasc Surg 2013;57(6):1471–1479, e1–e3; discussion 1479–1480. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
21. Matlock DD, Peterson PN, Heidenreich PA, et al. Regional variation in the use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for primary prevention: results from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2011;4(1):114–121. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
22. Song Y, Skinner J, Bynum J, Sutherland J, Wennberg JE, Fisher ES. Regional variations in diagnostic practices. N Engl J Med 2010;363(1):45–53. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
23. Brink JA, Amis ES Jr. Image wisely: a campaign to increase awareness about adult radiation protection. Radiology 2010;257(3):601–602. Link, Google Scholar
24. Levin DC, Bree RL, Rao VM, Johnson J. A prior authorization program of a radiology benefits management company and how it has affected utilization of advanced diagnostic imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 2010;7(1):33–38. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
25. Mitchell JM, Lagalia RR. Controlling the escalating use of advanced imaging: the role of radiology benefit management programs. Med Care Res Rev 2009;66(3):339–351. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
26. Ip IK, Schneider L, Seltzer S, et al. Impact of provider-led, technology-enabled radiology management program on imaging. Am J Med 2013;126(8):687–692. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
27. Wasser EJ, Prevedello LM, Sodickson A, Mar W, Khorasani R. Impact of a real-time computerized duplicate alert system on the utilization of computed tomography. JAMA Intern Med 2013;173(11):1024–1026. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
28. Raja AS, Ip IK, Prevedello LM, et al. Effect of computerized clinical decision support on the use and yield of CT pulmonary angiography in the emergency department. Radiology 2012;262(2):468–474. Link, Google Scholar
29. Rosenthal DI, Weilburg JB, Schultz T, et al. Radiology order entry with decision support: initial clinical experience. J Am Coll Radiol 2006;3(10):799–806. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
30. Sistrom CL, Dang PA, Weilburg JB, Dreyer KJ, Rosenthal DI, Thrall JH. Effect of computerized order entry with integrated decision support on the growth of outpatient procedure volumes: seven-year time series analysis. Radiology 2009;251(1):147–155. Link, Google Scholar
31. Blackmore CC, Mecklenburg RS, Kaplan GS. Effectiveness of clinical decision support in controlling inappropriate imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 2011;8(1):19–25. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
32. Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), Department of Health and Human Services. Health information technology: standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria for electronic health record technology, 2014 edition; revisions to the permanent certification program for health information technology. Final rule. Fed Regist 2012;77(171):54163–54292. Medline, Google Scholar

Article History

Received August 15, 2014; revision requested October 1; revision received November 3; final version accepted December 9.
Published online: Feb 05 2015
Published in print: June 2015

Vol. 275, No. 3

Abbreviations

Abbreviations:
HRR	hospital referral region
IRI	imaging referral index

Metrics

Altmetric Score

PDF download