What's new in imaging
1 like606 views
The presentation by Bruce J. Hillman discusses the current and future landscape of medical imaging, emphasizing the critical role of innovation amidst challenges such as cost barriers and regulatory hurdles. It outlines the potential benefits of advanced imaging technologies, particularly in the context of personalized medicine and the need for strategies that align innovations with societal needs. Additionally, it highlights the biases against imaging and the implications for industry growth and healthcare delivery, urging stakeholders to focus on efficiency and value.
What's new in imaging
- 1. GE Centricity LIVE 2013 What’s New in Imaging? Bruce J. Hillman, MD Prof. of Radiology and Medical Imaging and Public Health Sciences, the University of Virginia Editor-in-Chief, Journal of the American College of Radiology Founder and Chief Scientific Officer, ACR Image Metrix #centricitylive See what’s coming - Centricity Live 2014
- 2. Disclaimer The content of this presentation represents the views of the author and presenters. GE, the GE Monogram, Centricity and Imagination at Work are trademarks of General Electric Company.
- 3. What (Will be) New in Imaging? Changing health care and imaging innovation An antagonistic milieu Barriers to innovation The demands of an industry focused on cost Changes in the payment environment and their impact on innovation The needs of imaging providers
- 4. Key Premises The success of medical imaging (almost wholly) due to important continuing innovation Imaging companies and providers have prospered The future success of medical imaging requires similar or greater innovation Robust innovation pipeline Antagonistic milieu threatens realization of the promise of future imaging innovation Future success requires innovation that conforms to our societal needs for beneficial technologies that provide good value at an affordable cost Innovators and their customers must think strategically about which innovations to pursue or to implement in their practices
- 5. The Golden Age of Medical Imaging 1970-present: Consistent stream of new and valuable technologies: US CT MR PET Interventional advances New applications of existing technologies Increased computing power and connectivity technologies
- 6. The Benefits of Imaging Improved and more reliable patient care Screening Diagnosis Staging Response Less invasiveness Marker No/minimal discomfort No/little recuperation period Capacity to repeat over time Replacement of old and outmoded procedures Treatment
- 7. Imaging Innovation Progressing Rapidly Major shifts in imaging innovation already underway: Gross anatomy/pathology to cellular and subcellular imaging Anatomic to functional imaging General functional imaging to imaging specific targeted receptors Qualitative to quantitative The linking of diagnostics to therapeutics
- 8. P4 Medicine Promoting Imaging Innovation* Predictive of individual patient risks to support better disease surveillance Preemptive diagnosis and treatment to improve outcomes Personalized diagnosis and treatment based on history and the genome Participatory care in consideration of patient preferences *aka precision medicine, aka personalized medicine aka molecular medicine
- 9. Imaging & P4 Medicine – Examples Predict susceptibility to specific diseases Genome-informed surveillance to earlier disease Predict biological aggressiveness/treatability Discern the best treatment and dose before beginning therapy Predict toxic effects Monitor response to treatment early and accurately Link surveillance, diagnosis, staging, and treatment in an efficient, convenient, patient friendly paradigm
- 10. Example P4 Innovation Advanced pre- and intra-operative visualization
- 11. Example P4 Innovation Hyperpolarized noble gas MRI lung imaging for anatomic detail and pulmonary function
- 12. Example P4 Innovation 64-CU ATSM PET to guide intensity modulated radiation therapy of hypoxic tumor regions 18-FDG 64-Cu ATSM
- 13. Imaging Phenotype to Predict Genotype Integrated databases Genomics Proteinomics Immunohistochemistry Demographics Clinical data Imaging phenotypes to predict key diagnostic and therapeutic events
- 14. Smart Systems Detection and characterization CADe to CADx Future IT systems may operate independently or with radiologist oversight of selected cases Radiologist focuses on: More complex and novel imaging Consultation and direct patient care Or switches the paradigm Value to the health system Consultation with physicians and patients Leadership and participation
- 15. The Anti-Imaging Bias The financial success of imaging has led to an anti-imaging bias among other physicians and policy-makers Imaging has replaced others’ procedures Radiologists’ incomes have risen faster than others Complaints that imaging procedures are overpaid More money for imaging providers means less for everyone else Whenever a friend succeeds, a little something in me dies. - Gore Vidal
- 16. Imaging is the “Tall Poppy” Concern that much of imaging use is “marginal” - does not improve health Marginal use: cost without benefit Index exam High cost, low benefit downstream imaging due to: False positive results Incidentalomas Pseudodisease Policies to halt the rate of rise in imaging utilization and cost
- 17. CT & MR Unit Sales – U.S. Markets Units 2000 1750 DRA CT MR 1500 1250 DRGs 1000 750 CON Clinton 500 250 0 ‘73 ‘75 ‘77 ‘79 ‘81 ‘83 ‘85 ‘87 ‘89 ‘91 ‘93 ‘95 ‘97 ‘99 ‘01 ‘03 ‘05 ‘07 ‘09* Source: NEMA 2010 *Annualized
- 18. MD-Directed Services: 2000 – 2005 70 60 Cumulative Percent Change Source: MedPAC Imaging Tests Other procedures All physician services Major procedure Evaluation & management 50 40 30 20 10 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
- 19. MD-Directed Services: 2000 – 2008 70 60 Cumulative Percent Change Source: MedPAC Imaging Tests Other procedures All physician services Major procedure Evaluation & management 50 40 30 20 10 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
- 20. It Worked Once, So… 2010 Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act Further and more severe technical fee reductions Targeted in-office imaging and non-hospital testing facilities Concern that there is still another “bone” to be found in the same hole…perhaps a whole carcass The sun don’t shine on the same dog’s tail all the time. - Sam Snead
- 21. Industry’s Perfect Storm Legislation and regulation to reduce payments 2005 Deficit Reduction Act 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Worldwide recession Lost jobs and health insurance Employers shift of financial responsibility to patients RBMs and pre-authorization Concerns over diagnostic radiation ALL LEADING TO Reduced imaging utilization Fewer new imaging providers Less reinvestment by current providers DIMINISHED SALES OF DEVICES and GREATER CAUTION IN PURSUING INNOVATION
- 22. Innovation in the U.S. Declining capital markets Reduced venture capitalist spending due to recent losses Especially affects “more adventurous firms” Major implications for job growth Tightened immigration policies 1995-2005: 40% of new companies started by immigrants or their children Immigrants with 2X the patent rate of people born in the U.S Heavy-handed university patent policies Diminished commercialization of grantfunded discoveries - Schumpeter – Fixing the Capitalist Machine, The Economist, Sept. 29, 2012
- 23. Era of Caution in Imaging Innovation Static grant funding for idea generation Fear over new reimbursement attacks Uncertainty over world financial markets Uncertainty about how medical services might be paid for in the future The strategic question is: Be a real innovator with mission to improve patients’ health versus A “me too” company with diminished expectations
- 24. Barriers to Successful Innovation Research and development The fish ladders FDA approval CMS and private coverage Demonstration to patients, providers, and society of: Benefit Value Affordability
- 25. The Costs of Innovation Innovation development and assessment translates to time and money Direct costs of development and testing Opportunity costs 3-7 years typical for important new devices >$100M >10 years for new drug, contrast agent, radiopharmaceutical >1B “Dry holes”
- 26. Fish Ladders – FDA Considerations of “safety and efficacy” Underfunded - FDA actions taking longer than regulatory rules allow Insufficient guidance on what is required for new types of technology Political disarray Whistle blowers Fear of approving advanced technologies with possible hidden risks
- 27. Fish Ladders – FDA Jae Choi; Janus Head Consulting Source: Clinical Device Group, Inc.
- 28. Medical Devices: Minor Innovations Number of 510k clearances vs. time From 1996 to 2011 Jae Choi; Janus Head Consulting Choi et al; Source: Data from FDA
- 29. Minor Innovations: Specific Types of Devices Number of 510k clearances vs. time for Cardiovascular, CNS, and Radiology From 1996 to 2011 Jae Choi; Janus Head Consulting Choi et al; Source: Data from FDA
- 30. Medical Devices: Major Innovations Number of PMA approvals vs. time for Cardiovascular, CNS, and Radiology From 1980 to 2011 Jae Choi; Janus Head Consulting Choi et al; Source: Data from FDA
- 31. Fish Ladders – CMS Medicare coverage essential to success Private payers follow Medicare Coverage for “medical necessity” Innovation provides a benefit to patients Evidence that the innovation is finding a niche in practice Local vs. national coverage decisions Coverage with evidence development Limited coverage for sites collecting data in deemed trials/registries The boys all took a flier at the Holy Grail now and then, though none of them had any idea where the Holy Grail really was, and I don't think any of them actually expected to find it, or would have known what to do with it if he had run across it. - Mark Twain
- 32. Measuring Benefit Improved health a difficult task for imaging innovations Imaging a single link in the Dx/Rx chain The organizational structure for rigorous trials is overwhelmed Attributing a health benefit to a diagnostic test takes: Big numbers Big time Big money
- 33. Out with the Old, In with the Old Accountable care organizations (ACOs) Managed care light from your friendly managed care provider Deemed providers assume responsibility for a regional population Provide inpatient and outpatient care, as well as preventative and early detection services ACOs assume risk - fixed payment per beneficiary plus profit-sharing Competition over cost and quality ACOs alter incentives to restrict care Services like medical imaging become cost centers Rationed resource overseen by: RBMs or decision support software Utilization review Metrics to assess completeness and quality of care Correct aberrant incentives to provide “the right amount of care”
- 34. The Future of Fee-for Service Payment Shift to bundled payments won’t happen overnight Continued attacks to make imaging less profitable Future attacks on technical fees The anti-imaging bias Persistent erroneous belief that imaging use and cost continue to rise Undocumented belief that imaging codes are overpaid Need for federal cost savings It worked before! Professional fees - Congressional and private insurance efforts to achieve savings from “efficiencies” in interpreting contiguous exams on the same patient performed on the same day Progressive empowerment of radiology benefits management (RBMs) firms
- 35. The Transition Period A Foot in Both Camps Fee-for-service incentives: Volume is king Streamline workflows to increase capacity for new work ACO incentives: Value is king Streamline workflows to:* Focus on outcomes Redefine productivity beyond RVU production Become leaders on medical staffs and in the community Become “visible” to patients and referring physicians Establish the role of imaging in new delivery systems Inefficiencies in workflow put practices at risk *From ACR’s Imaging 3.0
- 36. The Inefficiencies of Modern PACS Workstations: A Pilot Study1 GE Healthcare hired ACR Image Metrix to evaluate customers’ perceptions of inefficiencies associated with modern workstations to: Support marketing efforts Generate hypotheses for larger studies in the future Inform current and future innovation Survey-based pilot study: 5 radiologists 4 academics, 1 community hospital All with different subspecialties 7-39 years experience (m = 24.4) 20-100 exams/day depending on subspecialty and modality 40-45 minute phone interviews of pre-written survey Assessment of current problems Projection of severity of inefficiency 1-4 point scale (not at all – a whole lot) Estimation of time wasted 1- ©2013 Radiologists’ Burden of Inefficiency Using Conventional Imaging Workstations white paper. Research conducted by ACR Image Metrix, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in partnership with GE Healthcare.
- 37. Selected Time “Sinks” of PACS Workstations1 Survey Item Mean Decreased Productivity Rating Mean Estimated Wasted Minutes per Day Problems communicating with HIS and RIS 3.0 33 Dedication to one modality 2.4 22 Creating timely, relevant reports Navigation among studies to facilitate consultation 1.8 22 2.6 14 Variability in tools/options 2.4 13 Accessing information from other sites 2.0 13 Comparing time points 2.4 12 1- ©2013 Radiologists’ Burden of Inefficiency Using Conventional Imaging Workstations white paper. Research conducted by ACR Image Metrix, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in partnership with GE Healthcare.
- 38. Expectations of Innovation1 Feature All tools necessary for all exams on one workstation One-click access to medical records Learns to display images by individual preferences Including selected images in reports Advanced post-processing tools – value to clinicians Advanced post-processing tools – value to radiologists 1- ©2013 Radiologists’ Burden of Inefficiency Using Conventional Imaging Workstations white paper. Research conducted by ACR Image Metrix, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in partnership with GE Healthcare. Expected Improvement 3.4 3.2 2.6 2.4 2.4 1.8
- 39. Summary Result1 Even allowing: Rough estimates by a small number of radiologists Not all radiologists experienced all inefficiencies Some overlap and duplication There is a remarkable convergence of opinion about: Existence of important inefficiencies Considerable wasted effort that could be applied to: Volume Value Summing mean estimates of wasted time for all inefficiencies = 2 hours, 53 minutes per day 1- ©2013 Radiologists’ Burden of Inefficiency Using Conventional Imaging Workstations white paper. Research conducted by ACR Image Metrix, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in partnership with GE Healthcare.
- 40. GE Healthcare & Economics Research Additional survey studies to assess GE customers’ needs Time/motion workflow studies to compare innovations with their own and others’ existing technologies Research to demonstrate the value of imaging to: Customers’ bottom line Society Reducing overall healthcare expenditures
- 41. Acceptance and Dissemination Future innovations must overcome 4 hurdles Benefits to patients Improved care and/or health Less discomfort/invasiveness Higher efficiency/convenience/painless Attractiveness to providers Efficient Fits into the context of their practices Easily learned Profitable Value: a reasonable ratio of cost/benefit in the context of existing options Affordability to society
- 42. Summary Innovators Think strategically about which technologies can cross “the 4 hurdles” Stage research to maximize information at the lowest cost Consult customers early and often Track secular changes that may impact the value of future technologies Be ruthless in go/no go decisions Providers Track technologies during development and testing Weigh the potential of implementation for improving efficiency Evaluate the relative advantages of early versus later adoption Consider local payment approaches and ACO trajectory Assess the impact of an innovation on perceptions of patients, physicians, and the health system
- 43. bjh8a@virginia.edu The best we can do is size up our chances, calculate the risks involved, estimate our ability to deal with them, and then make our plans with confidence - Henry Ford #centricitylive See what’s coming - Centricity Live 2014