Originally posted by ophtho1122
I've heard complaints from surgeons at my school that sometimes the Radiologists make more on a surgical patient than the surgeon due to higher reimbursements for RADS. I believe this trend will definitely reverse in the near future. I also think the misuse/overuse of radiological studies will be curtailed in the future leading to lower Rads salaries. It's crazy when you see one study done only to have the Radiologist equivocate on the findings leading to an even more expensive study being ran, and yet another after that to confirm what was believed to be the diagnosis in the first place. That's the way to make money in Rads; start off with the most unreliable study you can order, equivocate, then work your way up to the most expensive study, racking up major bucks along the way, then look like the hero when you finally confirm the diagnosis.
The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you don't consider that radiologists don't order the studies; other doctors do, many indicated, many not. Radiologists for the most part don't control who gets what study. The surgeons in your school almost certainly don't even know how much the radiologsists make and just have the "grass is greener on the other side mentality". In my hospital, the surgeons make much more that the radiologists. Also, those surgeons are not considering that there is a cap on the the number and amount of imaging reimbursements for imaging studies for inpatients in a hospital, and probably more than half of the studies they order all too frequently every day will never be reimbursed and are essentially done for free. Radiology departments often either make little or literally lose money on inpatients because of the caps. Outpatients are the ones that bring money.
The practice of defensive medicine is what's causing the majority of the problem with medical costs, and imaging costs are only a small, but growing fraction. If you get a CT scan every other day for every pancreatitis patient fearing that THEY MAY DEVELOP a pseudocyst, if you get a head CT for every patient who falls down in the hospital regardless of symptoms or whether they hit their head or not, if neurologists and surgeons consulted by ER docs are only willing to even see the patients after a full expensive imaging workup, if you get an MRI for every patient with back pain, if you get a shoulder MRI for every geriatric patient with DJD of the shoulder, if you get a CT pulmonary angiogram for every dyspneic patient without a wheeze, even those with a negative D-dimer, etc., well what do you expect? Of course costs are going higher.
In a study done as a internal quality control measure at UCSF, it was shown that the rate of pulmonary embolism in patients getting chest CT to "r/o PE" was less than those who got a CT for other unrelated clinical indications!! In my hospital, the rate of positivity for PE in patients sent for "r/o PE" was a mere 1.5%!, but those who got the study in a technical development project without clinical suspicion of PE, 2% had incidental subsegmental PE. Talk about some physician's "index of clinical suspicion" and laugh out loud.
Interesting enough, this month there was an article published in JACR which noted that yearly imaging utilization increase was 3.6% by radiologists and 37% by cardiologists, the largest increase in imaging utilization. Also, nonradiologist physicians who own or have shares in their imaging equipment (e.g. vascular surgeons, neurologists, orthopedists, cardiologists, etc.) utilize imaging 1.7 -10 times more than physicians who do not own imaging equipment and send patients to radiologists. So, the story is much more complicated than what you think. Based on these studies, a lot of healthcare dollars can be saved if the Stark law is actually enforced, preventing physicians from self-referral.
Also, another complicating problem is getting the inappropriate radiological test in the first place. Yesterday, I got a call from an internist who insisted on an MRI of the kidneys in an 18 y/o with a bout of acute pyelo and recurrent upper UTI!!! This patient hadn't even got the basic workup. Not even a simple inexpensive VCUG to look for reflux (the most common cause of upper UTI in this age group)!!! I totally trashed and embarrassed him, but in the real world out in practice, I probably could not have refused the study or do what I did. Many docs think MRI is better than CT which is better than radiographs. Simply not true. The best test is the test appropriate for the clinical indication, not the most expensive or even the least expensive one. The radiologists in most instances cannot refuse a unindicated study (though it's sometimes done in university settings) because of medicolegal issues, even if it is clearly not indicated and even if they know they won't get paid a dime for it. At our hospital, less than a third of radiology studies for inpatients get paid for by third party payors just because physicians order too many/frequent studies for each patient. I see bogus studies and wrong studies everyday, I would say at least a quarter of all studies we do everyday, certainly contributing to increased costs. Again defensive medicine, lack of knowledge on part of some physicians, and lack of confidence in some physicians to just follow patients clinically on problems that can be followed complicate matters. Incompetent radiologists recommending other confirmatory studies are also practicing defensive medicine too just like everyone else, complicating the matter. They, too, are protecting their asses, just like the surgeon or internist who got that bogus study to cover their respective asses in the first place. Defensive medicine is so prevalent in healthcare that the poor medical students and interns sometimes confuse it with "good" medicine.
Remember, imaging is just another test. It is just one element of the patient's diagnostic workup, granted it is becoming a more and more central part of medical diagnosis. Just like every other test, the physician primarily taking care of the patient should be able to collect the various consultation reports and patient workup data (including radiology findings) to synthesize an overall diagnosis and management plan. Prior probabilities, test sensitivities, and specificities are all important concepts that should be implicitly utilized on a day-to-day basis rather than sticking to one piece of information. All too often, especially junior attendings and physicians-in-training rely on a single test that may not give the whole answer.
The next issue is that a lot a of docs in many specialties have come to believe that radiological tests are definitive studies.
NO, MANY OF THEM ARE NOT. And within the spectrum of any imaging finding, there are variations, normal variations that mimic disease, multiple etiologies causing the same finding (e.g. bronchoalveolar carcinoma and bronchopneumonia are identical on imaging), artifacts mimicking real pathology, and varying degrees of confidence whether a finding is really present to begin with. There are multiple books in radiology with the theme "Atlases of normal imaging variants that mimic disease". And remember the fact that there are "radiological differential diagnoses" for almost every imaging finding you can imagine, some of them very long lists with multiple etiologies for the same finding. Failure to provide an adequate history also does not help at all to narrow the wide differential. Most radiologists are actually pretty good in narrowing their differential diagnosis or providing a specific diagnosis if they have some clinical info available. In our hospital, we have an electronic medical record so we routinely look at the patients' charts and labs when reading scans. But if this is not possible or feasible, a little relevant clinical info will go a long way in helping patients. Getting a CT of the chest, abdomen, pelvis and putting "pain" or "r/o pathology" as the clinical history is ridiculous. The docs giving these useless and misguiding histories should go to jail if you ask me. Not too often we even get frankly incorrect histories about problems that the patient does not even have, because of ignorance of the docs or because they were just too lazy and some idiot secretary chose to put the easy generic history of "headache" instead of "right seventh nerve palsy". The MRI study was incorrectly protocolled because of the incorrect/inadequate history and the patient's parotid cancer was not seen. Most nonradiologists don't know that there are "very different" ways of doing the same radiology study, esp. CT and MRI and if you don't give an adequate history, an incomplete/suboptimal/useless study will be done and interpreted. You are doing yourself and your patient a major disfavor by being lazy or cocky and not putting that extra line or two of relevant clinical info on the request sheet or computer request.
Finally, the reigning days of general radiology are over. No radiologist can be an expert in even a quarter of radiology. Those that do everything and read everthing, are jacks of all trades and masters of none. They will often waffle and fail to commit because they just can't know everthing. Having been denied relevant clinical info by the requesting physician makes the situation much worse. There will always be a need for general radiologists, just like general IM and general surgeons, but I think subspecialist radiologists are the ones who should be consulted for difficult cases. Just like the IM and general surgery fellowship trained subspecialists. There about nine different subspecialties and fellowships within radiology, about half with subspecialty board examinations. I would not want your average general radiologist reading my brain or shoulder MRI.
Sorry for the long reply