Radiologists Should Worry About Medical Device Tax, Too
Published on the Jan. 10, 2013, DiagnosticImaging.com website
By Whitney L.J. Howell
On January 1, the long-debated and much-opposed medical device tax went into effect. To date, medical device manufacturers have clearly stated their opposition, but industry leaders portend practicing radiologists also have reason to be concerned.
Barely a week old, this measure levies a 2.3 percent tax on all medical devices. The law calls for manufacturers to pay for the tax added to the sale price of the device, but many worry the cost will not only trickle down to providers, but will also, ultimately, stymy the progression of patient care by hindering research and development efforts.
“As radiologists, most of us chose the specialty because it’s a field that incentivizes technological innovation that can make enormous differences in patient care,” said Geraldine McGinty, MD, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Economics Commission. “Payment or health care policies that would, in any way, negatively impact innovation are things that make us feel uncomfortable.”
The device tax will inevitably impact practitioners’ bottom lines, she said. The actual dollar amount is yet unknown, but manufacturers will be forced to pass some of the tax increase on to their customers. The price hike will likely be an unwelcome addition to existing imaging reimbursement cuts and the difficulties radiologists already face with collecting payments from patients. Equipment purchasing decisions could become more complicated or could be postponed, she said.
In addition to individual monetary concerns, radiologists should also worry about what the medical device tax could mean for their ability to provide the most up-to-date patient care. According to the Medical Imaging and Technological Alliance (MITA), this initiative is a job-killer because it makes outsourcing jobs overseas more attractive. But research and development efforts will also be a casualty, said MITA Executive Director Gail Rodriguez.
According to a recent MITA survey, 29 percent of manufacturers anticipate slicing into their research and development budgets as a way to cover the anticipated $287 million associated with the device tax. This change could leave providers without new technological innovations for treating patients, MITA said.
To read the remainder of the story at its original location: http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/practice-management/content/article/113619/2122393
JAMA: Imaging Use Up in HMOs; Industry Leaders Disagree
Published on the June 14, 2012, DiagnosticImaging.com website
By Whitney L.J. Howell
Changes to Medicare reimbursement and other financial incentives designed to control the use of diagnostic imaging services aren’t working as expected, even in clinical settings without a fee-for-service payment model, according to a study published earlier this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association. However, not all industry leaders agree that imaging utilization is on the rise.
A retrospective study of up to 2 million electronic health records from 1996 to 2010 from six health systems with health maintenance organizations (HMOs) revealed the number of diagnostic imaging studies performed increased between nearly 8 percent to 57 percent during that time period.
The findings, compiled by researchers at the University of California-San Francisco (UCSF), showed the number of ultrasounds doubled, CTs tripled, and MRIs quadrupled during those 15 years. These results indicate that financial disincentives, such as lowered reimbursement or added cost to the patient, aren’t enough to eliminate unnecessary testing, as once was the hope, researchers said.
“Some people are just unrealistically enamored with diagnostic tests. There’s a perception that there’s no harm to these tests, so we can do them and think about the results later,” Rebecca Smith-Bindman, MD, UCSF radiology and biomedical imaging professor and lead study author, said in an interview. “The pictures are extraordinary, and some patients receive enormous benefits from having these tests. But others receive no help at all — they face high radiation doses, false positives, and more unnecessary downstream testing.”
Fear of facing malpractice suits and of missing a malignancy also pushes providers to order diagnostic studies for which there is no true medical indication, she said. If these problems were resolved, she said, radiologists and referring physicians could likely avoid 30 percent to 50 percent of diagnostic studies.
Even an industry-wide shift to an accountable care organization (ACO) or bundled payment model is unlikely to be enough to drive down imaging utilization, she said. Instead, medical imaging should invest in comparative effectiveness studies to better understand when imaging is appropriate. Industry leaders can, then, use that information to create clinical guidelines.
However, several groups, including the American College of Radiology (ACR), the Medical Imaging and Technology Alliance (MITA), and the Access to Medical Imaging Coalition (AMIC) said the study’s findings actually supported existing evidence that imaging use is decreasing.
To read the remainder of the article at its original location: http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/low-dose/content/article/113619/2083399
Who am I?
I’m a seasoned reporter, writer, freelancer and public relations specialist with a master’s degree in international print journalism from The American University in Washington, D.C.
I launched my journalism career as a stringer for UPI on Sept. 11, 2001, on Capitol Hill. That day led to a two-year stint as a daily political reporter in Montgomery County, Md. As a staff writer for the Association of American Medical Colleges, a public relations specialist for the Duke University Medical Center and the public relations director for the UNC-Chapel Hill School of Nursing, I’ve earned in-depth experience in covering health care, including academic medicine, health care reform, women’s health, pediatrics, radiology, and Medicare.
-
Archives
- October 2019 (3)
- May 2018 (2)
- October 2017 (2)
- November 2016 (5)
- October 2016 (1)
- September 2016 (8)
- August 2016 (6)
- July 2016 (1)
- June 2016 (5)
- May 2016 (8)
- April 2016 (14)
- March 2016 (2)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
Whitney Palmer 