Literature DB >> 17412184

Preauthorization of CT and MRI examinations: assessment of a managed care preauthorization program based on the ACR Appropriateness Criteria and the Royal College of Radiology guidelines.

Arye Blachar1, Sigal Tal, Anat Mandel, Ilya Novikov, Gabriel Polliack, Jacob Sosna, Yehuda Freedman, Laurian Copel, Joshua Shemer.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) utilization patterns before and after the implementation of a preauthorization program based on the ACR Appropriateness Criteria((R)) and the guidelines of the Royal College of Radiologists.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All CT and MRI requests received at the preauthorization center and CT and MRI examinations actually performed were identified by our health care service's centralized computerized database between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2003. The obligatory preauthorization of CT and MRI requests was established for CT in September 2001 and for MRI in February 2002. All ambulatory CT and MRI examination requests sent for approval during the study period by most of our health care physicians were included in the study. The preauthorization program model is presented, and multiple parameters were evaluated from January 2000 to December 2003, before and after preauthorization was established.
RESULTS: Before preauthorization was required, the CT and MRI utilization rates were constantly increasing by 20% and 5% per year for CT and MRI, respectively. After preauthorization was implemented, CT and MRI annual performance rates decreased from 25.9 and 7 examinations per 1,000, respectively, in 2000 to 17.3 and 5.6 examinations per 1,000, respectively, in 2003. The decreases in the utilization of MRI and CT imaging between 2001 and 2003 were 9% (12,129 compared with 11,070 MRI examinations) and 33% (81,223 compared with 57,204 CT examinations), respectively, resulting in substantial, statistically significant cost savings. The deferral rate ranged from 7.5% to 12.2% (mean = 9.8%) for CT and 13.9% to 21.4% (mean = 17%) for MRI. Deferred cases in CT were most commonly in neuroradiology, musculoskeletal radiology, and CT angiography (ranges of deferred cases 9% to 12%, 11% to 12%, and 10% to 12%, respectively). Deferred cases in MRI were most commonly in abdominal and chest radiology (ranges of deferred cases 32% to 37% and 20% to 31%, respectively). Computed tomography was more commonly utilized inappropriately by pediatric professions, and MRI was more commonly utilized inappropriately by medical subspecialty professions.
CONCLUSION: Preauthorization of CT and MRI requests results in a substantial decrease in utilization of these modalities with reduction in imaging costs.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17412184     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2006.04.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol        ISSN: 1546-1440            Impact factor:   5.532


  11 in total

Review 1.  Cancer risks associated with external radiation from diagnostic imaging procedures.

Authors:  Martha S Linet; Thomas L Slovis; Donald L Miller; Ruth Kleinerman; Choonsik Lee; Preetha Rajaraman; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2012-02-03       Impact factor: 508.702

2.  Radiologists' responses to inadequate referrals.

Authors:  Kristin Bakke Lysdahl; Bjørn Morten Hofmann; Ansgar Espeland
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Too much of a good thing is wonderful? A conceptual analysis of excessive examinations and diagnostic futility in diagnostic radiology.

Authors:  Bjørn Hofmann
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2010-05

4.  Do family physicians request ultrasound scans appropriately?

Authors:  Bret A Landry; David Barnes; Valerie Keough; Adrienne Watson; Judy Rowe; Amy Mallory; Mohamed Abdolell
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 3.275

5.  Impact of restricting diagnostic imaging reimbursement for uncomplicated low back pain in Ontario: a population-based interrupted time series analysis.

Authors:  Benjamin Fine; Susan E Schultz; Lawrence White; David Henry
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2017-10-13

6.  Health care administrative burdens: Centering patient experiences.

Authors:  Pamela Herd; Donald Moynihan
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2021-09-13       Impact factor: 3.734

7.  Organizational boundaries of medical practice: the case of physician ownership of ancillary services.

Authors:  John E Schneider; Robert L Ohsfeldt; Cara M Scheibling; Sarah A Jeffers
Journal:  Health Econ Rev       Date:  2012-04-05

8.  Quality care and safety know no borders.

Authors:  Jp Borgstede; Pa Wilcox
Journal:  Biomed Imaging Interv J       Date:  2007-07-01

9.  Appropriateness of physicians' lumbosacral MRI requests in private and public centers in Tehran, Iran.

Authors:  Navid Mohammadi; Ferial Farahmand; Homayoun Hadizadeh Kharazi; Hossein Mojdehipanah; Hossein Karampour; Marzieh Nojomi
Journal:  Med J Islam Repub Iran       Date:  2016-09-17

10.  The case for orthopaedic medicine in Israel.

Authors:  Aharon S Finestone; Simon Vulfsons; Charles Milgrom; Amnon Lahad; Shlomo Moshe; Gabriel Agar; Dan Greenberg
Journal:  Isr J Health Policy Res       Date:  2013-11-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.