A panel of four radiologists made a case for the efficacy of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) at a Tuesday morning RSNA 2019 session, by presenting calculation models, examples of findings using CEA models, and research supporting the CEA concept.
The lead presenter, Dr. Pari Pandharipande, director of the MGH Institute for Technology Assessment, and abdominal radiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, stressed that CEAs are not for use at the patient level. Instead, CEA is a tool for physicians to advise policymakers on the sweet spot between costs and outcome benefits.
“The (CEA) models show the potential,” said Dr. Stella Kang, director, Comparative Effectiveness and Outcomes Research, and assistant professor of radiology, Department of Population Health, NYU Langone Health. “Innovation has really improved our ability to detect abnormalities, but has also increased our costs a lot. Everyone is talking about value these days.”
Another panel member, Dr. Kathryn Lowry, assistant professor, Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, presented a case study published in September in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, (on which she was lead author), comparing CEA of digital breast tomosynthesis in the U.S. as compared to digital mammography.
The final speaker, Dr. Andrew Rosenkrantz, director of public policy and professor of radiology and urology, NYU School of Medicine, offered a different take on assessing radiology value. He argued that because the radiologist does not order imaging exams and because they don’t necessarily influence the downstream decisions based on the exams, imaging value can be challenging to measure.
To read the entire article by John W. Mitchell, Senior Correspondent, visit https://www.dotmed.com/news/story/49439?p_begin=0