My initial reaction was to flinch and move on, like a punch-drunk fighter, when I heard about the 90% assumed equipment-utilization rate in the omnibus bill intended to avert the fiscal cliff. Instead, I bear witness to the latest in a series of cuts to the technical and professional components of radiology reimbursement.

Idle hands are said to be the devil’s workshop; in 2012, government regulators proved the same to be true of hands that are busy, as evidenced by the new and modified rules that they churned out to address perceived problems in the delivery of radiology services. Many of these rules—brought forth by DHHS agencies—were unhelpful to radiology practices striving to keep their heads above water. In fairness, though, one or two rules were of the opposite character.

An article by Milliman actuaries¹ in the April 2012 issue of Health Affairs details an interesting accounting exercise that is likely to cause private insurers to take notice. Using a method employed to evaluate new insurance features, the researchers created an actuarial model designed to estimate the cost (and cost benefit) of lung-cancer