At the peak in 2006, according to a 2008 Government Accounting Office report, Medicare spent $14.1 billion on diagnostic imaging. Since then, annual spending has steadily dropped, falling by 21 percent by 2010, based on a Neiman Policy Institute report. To date, this trend has not reversed, Levin said. - See more at: http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/reimbursement/imaging-utilization-trends-and-reimbursement?GUID=52331DD9-6AF6-4DA6-9850-104DD469DEE5&rememberme=1&ts=25072014#sthash.MPKxXUgQ.dpuf
Radiologists need to be proactive in demonstrating their value in improving clinical outcomes now that CMS is adjusting payments based on quality and not volume. “In 2013, CMS started implementing the value modifier by looking at quality and cost measures and getting composite scores in each of those areas, said Judy Burleson, senior advisor on quality metrics at the American College of Radiology (ACR). Quality is on one axis, cost on the other, with low, average and high rankings for each. The score determines the potential for positive, negative or zero impact on reimbursement for Part B services. “If you’re low cost and high quality, you’d be in the upper spectrum,” she said. The physician’s performance report is compared to other physicians reporting the same measures. “
In terms of value, the global digital X-ray market size was estimated at $4,687.2 million in 2013 and is expected to grow at a CAGR of 13.2% in the next five years.
The report, “Digital X-ray Market by Application (Mammography, Dental, Chest Imaging), Technology (Computes, Direct), Portability (Floor to ceiling mounted, Ceiling mounted, Handheld), End User, Price segments, Flat panel detectors, Software – Global Forecast to 2018,” provides a detailed overview of the major drivers, restraints, challenges, opportunities, current market trends, and strategies impacting the digital x-ray market along with the estimates and forecasts of the revenue and share analysis.
If you sell in the IT space or Diagnostic Imaging Equipment this report will tell you what is being purchased, trends, and what level of penetration has occurred. For example, over 98% of academic centers have already purchased CR and DR. They are not your low hanging fruit. To find out what is read this very detailed HIMSS report.
Neither vendors nor end users have fared well with the changes that have gone on with healthcare reform in the past few years. While meaningful use, ICD-10, health information exchanges (HIEs), regional health information organizations (RHIOs), accountable care organizations (ACOs), and other related acronyms are affecting the way healthcare operates, someone apparently forgot to tell the leadership at most PACS providers. They seem to ignore the realities of the healthcare marketplace and continue to hold fast to year-over-year quota increases that are virtually unattainable by sales.
There exists clear clinical evidence that the latest digital radiography (DR) detector portable X-ray units allow for portable exams to be performed in almost half the time previously required for computed radiography (CR) and film-based exams.
Starting January 1, 2017, physicians ordering advanced diagnostic imaging exams (CT, MRI, nuclear medicine and PET) must consult government- approved, evidence-based appropriate-use criteria, namely through a CDS system
The time to do an X-ray with digital technology is now less than two minutes per exam, compared with the 15 minutes of older, analog systems. Because of the rapid throughput intrinsic to digital imaging, a facility can replace a number of analog x-ray systems with just one or two DR and CR rooms. The long-term benefits of investing initially in a DR system are immense, and its cost of investment can be recovered within a few years.
Ron Batory, Konica Minolta’s product marketing manager for CR and conventional imaging products, says CR still is recognized as the system of choice for late digital imaging adopters, thanks to rapid technological developments and decreasing CR prices over the past few years.
This may be harbinger of a greater challenge for capital equipment sales and medical device manufacturers. Thought Leaders and the CMS are starting to demand equipment be based on CED structures (evidence development). In other words new technology must prove clinical efficacy before being sold or adopted.
“In a conversation with AuntMinnie.com, lead author Gross said the results of the study reflect a broader problem with U.S. healthcare: the adoption of new technologies that haven't been proved to improve patient outcomes. "There is a widespread belief in the American healthcare system that newer is better," Gross said, even as "there is virtually no evidence that these newer technologies are better or more effective in terms of saving lives and improving patient outcome..."