Generalist versus Subspecialist Workforce Characteristics of Invasive Procedures Performed by Radiologists

Abstract

Purpose To explore subspecialty workforce considerations surrounding invasive procedures performed by radiologists. Materials and Methods The 2015 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File was used to identify all invasive procedures (Current Procedural Terminology code range, 10000-69999) billed by radiologists for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Radiologists were categorized by subspecialty according to the majority of their billable work-relative value units (wRVUs). Those without a single subspecialty majority work effort were deemed generalists. Procedures were categorized into three tiers of complexity (high, ≥4.0 wRVUs; mid, 1.6-3.9 wRVUs; low, ≤1.5 wRVUs). Total and tiered generalist versus subspecialist workforce composition was assessed. Results Just 25 unique services comprised more than 75% of invasive procedures performed by radiologists. Of radiologists who performed procedures, 57.5% were generalists, 15.8% were interventionalists, and 26.8% were other subspecialists. Of the radiologists who performed low-, mid-, and high-complexity procedures, generalists accounted for 46.3%, 30.9%, and 23.1%, respectively; interventionalists accounted for 35.4%, 30.9%, and 75.2%, respectively; and other subspecialists accounted for 18.3%, 14.6%, and 1.7%, respectively. Generalists were the dominant providers of six of the top 10 low-complexity and seven of the top 10 midcomplexity procedures. Interventionalists were the dominant providers of all top 10 high-complexity procedures. Nationally, over twice as many U.S. counties had local access to generalists (869 counties) for invasive procedures versus interventionalists (347 counties) or other subspecialists (380 counties). Conclusion Among radiologists, generalists perform far more procedures in more geographic locations and are more likely to serve patients with less complex service needs than are interventionalists or other subspecialists. Practices and professional societies must remain vigilant to ensure that the subspecialty evolution in radiology does not exacerbate patient access disparities. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Utilization and Comparative Effectiveness of Uterine Artery Embolization versus Hysterectomy for Severe Postpartum Hemorrhage: A National Inpatient Sample Study

“…In the United States, the overwhelming majority of births are attended to by obstetricians (44,45) who represent 41,654 of the 892,752 physicians practicing in the United States (46). In contrast, only approximately 3,000 physicians nationwide self-identify as interventional radiologists (47), and such interventionalists are locally based in only 347 of the 3,142 counties across the United States (48). As such, there would likely be benefits to establishing pathways in which patients could be rapidly transferred to regional centers of excellence.…”

Trends that Impact IR’s Future

“…This same trend will appear as subspecialization initially centered in a few medical centers, but the treatments they develop, perform, and perfect over time will spread to benefit all practitioners including "generalists" around the world [12,13]. The speed of subspecialization and dissemination of its advances will depend on the local availability of resources, time, and equipment to allow them to be implemented on a clinically practical level.…”

What is a modern Interventional Radiologist in Australia and New Zealand?

“…Current subspecialist numbers are insufficient to meet the demand of smaller hospitals, and many hospitals do not have an IR trained in Tier B procedures, or enough to offer an on‐call service. This is also compounded in regional and remote centres where access to such a service may require transfer for many hours or by plane to a metropolitan centre . We must also consider DRs who currently perform advanced interventional procedures and have so for many years.…”