Journal of the American College of Radiology
Volume 5, Issue 3 , Pages 182-188, March 2008

Musculoskeletal Imaging: Medicare Use, Costs, and Potential for Cost Substitution

A preliminary version of this study was presented at the Radiological Society of North America, 2002.

  • Laurence Parker, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author and reprints: Laurence Parker, PhD, Thomas Jefferson University, Department of Radiology, 132 S. 10th Street, Ste 1089, Philadelphia, PA 19107
  • ,
  • Levon N. Nazarian, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
  • ,
  • John A. Carrino, MD, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
  • ,
  • William B. Morrison, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
  • ,
  • Gregory Grimaldi, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Northshore Hospital, Manhasset, New York.
  • ,
  • Andrea J. Frangos, MS

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
  • ,
  • David C. Levin, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
  • ,
  • Vijay M. Rao, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Purpose

The current study explores the substitution of ultrasound (US) for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders by describing the recent use and costs of MSK imaging in the Medicare population, projecting these trends from 2006 to 2020, and estimating cost-savings involved in substituting MSK US for MSK MRI, when appropriate.

Methods

The study used government-published data sets and de-identified Radiology Information System records exempt from institutional review board approval. From 1 year’s MSK MRI records (n = 3,621), the proportion of cases in which US could be substituted for MRI was estimated. The use rates for 4 modalities of MSK imaging and average costs were determined from government Medicare data sets from 1996 to 2005. Regression analysis was used to project use rates from 2006 to 2020. The effect on costs of substitution was calculated.

Results

For the Medicare population, although there has been a moderate overall increase (25.7%) in MSK imaging, MSK MRI has increased 353.5% from 1996 to 2005. Projected MSK imaging costs in 2020 are $3.6 billion, of which $2.0 billion will be for MRI. A study of 3,621 MSK MRI reports indicates that 45.4% of primary diagnoses and 30.6% of all diagnoses could have been made with MSK US. The substitution of MSK US for MSK MRI, when appropriate, would lead to savings of more than $6.9 billion in the period from 2006 to 2020.

Conclusion

MRI MSK use has grown substantially from 1996 to 2005. The substitution of MSK US, when appropriate, would lead to large cost-savings for Medicare.

Key Words: Health care use, health care costs, musculoskeletal imaging, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 30.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Funded in part by the American College of Radiology and the National Coalition for Quality Diagnostic Imaging Services.

PII: S1546-1440(07)00404-8

doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2007.07.016

Journal of the American College of Radiology
Volume 5, Issue 3 , Pages 182-188, March 2008