Analysis of Radiologist Noninvasive Diagnostic Imaging Workload by Place of Service

Purpose: We conducted an analysis of radiologist noninvasive diagnostic imaging (NDI) workloads in 2011 by place of service (POS). POS were categorized as inpatient facilities, outpatient facilities, emergency departments (EDs), and private offices. Our approach was based on a 2011 study by Levin et al in which they analyzed radiologist workloads from 2006-2011. We aim to use this analysis to optimize our methodology for the application of an updated study, allowing for an analysis of trends in radiologist workloads from 2011-2021 with the new Medicare data available.

Methods/Materials: This is an analytical retrospective study utilizing claims from 2011 in the Medicare Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary. Specialty codes were used to identify radiologists, and POS codes identified services done in outpatient facilities, inpatient facilities, private offices, and EDs. Procedures performed outside the POS codes for these four categories were defined as “other”. The applicable total professional component RVUs were assigned to each NDI Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code, and RVU rates per 1,000 Medicare beneficiaries were calculated. CPT codes pertaining to invasive procedures and radiation therapy were excluded.

Results: Our analysis showed that the majority of NDI workload occurred in outpatient facilities (37.2%), followed by inpatient facilities, EDs, and offices (30.9%, 16.5%, and 15.1% respectively). These results were in line with the analysis done by Levin et al. In their paper, distribution was highest in outpatient facilities (38.1%), followed by inpatient facilities, offices, and EDs (27.2%, 19.0%, and 15.4% respectively).

Conclusions: In conclusion, our comprehensive analysis of NDI workload distribution was consistent with the findings reported by Levin et al. Our results underscore the predominant utilization of outpatient facilities, closely followed by inpatient facilities, with EDs and offices having the two lowest utilization rates. The alignment of our results with the prior study by Levin et al corroborates the robustness of our methodology. With this, we plan to conduct an updated analysis of workload trends from 2011-2021, including the impact of the global pandemic.