Acknowledging and fixing the flawed capital cost data that CMS is using to justify proposed cuts in CT and MRI reimbursement is the responsibility of all radiology professionals writes Ezequiel Silva III, MD, in the latest issue of Radiology Business Journal

CMS proposes paying hospitals the same amount for a head CT exam as for a skull radiograph in 2014.

When Peoria, Illinois-based OSF HealthCare transitioned from analog to digital imaging, one aspect of the radiology continuum proved challenging: quality assurance. “We had a fairly robust, paper-based QA process when we were film and paper,” recalls Tom Cox, director of radiology at OSF Saint Francis Medical Center (SFMC). “When we went to PACS and went paperless, however, we virtually stopped getting feedback from the radiologists on quality. We knew we needed something to replace the paper process.”

Radiologists and hospital administrators are finding common ground when it comes to one significant conundrum, according to Richard Duszak, MD, CEO of the ACR’s Harvey Neiman Health Policy Institute. “We are moving from a system where we got paid for doing procedures to one where we will get paid for taking care of patients,” Duszak said in a presentation at the 2013 conference of AHRA: The Association for Medical Imaging Management, held July 28-31 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. “The big word is value, and it’s going to be a real challenge for physicians and hospital administrators.”

The Minneapolis-based outpatient imaging center network Center for Diagnostic Imaging (CDI) has expanded its regional presence in Massachusetts with the acquisition of The MRI Centers of New England

The CMS final rule on 2014 Medicare rates for the Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) cuts advanced imaging reimbursement through changing the cost-to-charge ratios for CT and MR services

Royal Philips has received 510(k) clearance from the FDA to market its AlluraClarity live image guidance system in the United States.

Two years ago, a friend of Missouri state Rep Caleb Jones (R) sustained a shoulder injury while playing with his child. While a physician suggested that an MRI exam might be in order, the man’s health-insurance provider would not cover the cost of the study and instructed him to seek care from a sports-medicine practice. Forced to jump through multiple hoops to address his injury, the man endured prolonged pain and frustration before learning that he had not just bruised his shoulder; he had sustained a fracture—with which he had been walking around for two weeks.