In-office magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) equipment ownership and MRI volume among medicare patients in orthopedic practices

What Does a Shoulder MRI Cost the Consumer?

BACKGROUND

More than 100 MRIs per 1000 inhabitants are performed in the United States annually, more than almost every other country. Little is known regarding the cost of obtaining an MRI and factors associated with differences in cost.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

By surveying all hospital-owned and independent imaging centers in Iowa, we wished to determine (1) the cost to the consumer of obtaining a noncontrast shoulder MRI, (2) the frequency and magnitude of discounts provided, and (3) factors associated with differences in cost including location (hospital-owned or independent) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services designation (rural, urban, and critical access).

METHODS

There were 71 hospitals and 26 independent imaging centers that offered MRI services in Iowa. Each site was contacted via telephone and posed a scripted request for the cost of the technical component of a noncontrast shoulder MRI. Radiologists' reading fees were not considered. Statistical analysis was performed using standard methods and significance was defined as a probability less than 0.05.

RESULTS

The mean technical component cost to consumers for an MRI was USD 1874 ± USD 694 (range, USD 500-USD 4000). Discounts were offered by 49% of imaging centers, with a mean savings of 21%. Factors associated with increased cost include hospital-owned imaging centers (USD 2062 ± USD 664 versus USD 1400 ± USD 441 at independent imaging centers; p < 0.001; mean difference, USD 662; 95% CI, USD 351-USD 893) and rural imaging centers, unless designated as a critical access hospital (USD 2213 ± USD 668 versus USD 1794 ± USD 680; p = 0.0202; mean difference, USD 419; 95% CI, USD 66-USD 772).

CONCLUSIONS

In Iowa, the cost to the consumer of a shoulder MRI is significantly less at independent imaging centers compared with hospital-owned centers. Referring physicians and healthcare consumers should be aware that there may be substantial price discrepancies between centers that provide advanced imaging services.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, Economic and decision analysis.

PATTERNS OF ONSITE MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING EQUIPMENT AMONG ORTHOPEDIC PRACTICES

BACKGROUND

Despite ongoing policy debate, little is known about the growth in orthopedic surgery practices with onsite magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) capacity, or practice characteristics associated with the acquisition of in-office MRI equipment.

METHODS

In July 2012, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) member practices received a web-based survey requesting general information about their practice, such as number practice providers authorized to order MRIs, the type of onsite MRI capacity present (if any), and the date of acquisition for the MRI equipment. Survey responses were augmented with county-level measures of practice area characteristics as of the year of first onsite MRI acquisition (or 2012 for practices without an onsite MRI).

RESULTS

The survey obtained usable responses from 740 orthopedic practices, which were geographically representative of AAOS member practices. Forty percent (298) reported onsite MRI capacity. Onsite MRI acquisition occurred at a steady pace over 2000-2012, with no dramatic increase occurring in any particular year over that period. Multivariate logistic regression indicated that practice size (number of providers) was the most important factor affecting the likelihood of onsite MRI acquisition. There was no association between onsite MRI acquisition and any of the county-level practice area characteristics included in the analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Orthopedic practices acquiring onsite MRI equipment on average are much larger than practices without onsite MRI capacity. Larger practices may be more likely to attain the economies of scale necessary to absorb the fixed costs associated with onsite MRI acquisition.