Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Moorefield, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Sunshine, J. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Moorefield, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Sunshine, J. H.

Radiology, Vol 187, 317-326, Copyright © 1993 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

The radiology relative value scale: its development and implications

JM Moorefield, DW MacEwan and JH Sunshine
American College of Radiology, Reston, VA 22091.

In a proactive response to federal government cost-containment pressures, the radiology profession, under the leadership of the American College of Radiology (ACR), in 1988 developed a relative value scale (RVS) for radiologic procedures. Like earlier radiology RVSs, its relative values reflected the physician work and practice costs involved in each procedure. The RVS was constructed by using (a) three types of data (magnitude estimation, charges, and practice costs) obtained by means of surveys and (b) expert consensus panels involving participants from all fields and many organizations in radiology. The RVS was accepted, essentially in toto, by Medicare. Subsequently, the RVS has required much work to correct errors by Medicare and the insurers that administer it, to improve procedure codes, and to develop codes and relative values for new procedures. By moving proactively, radiology preserved fee-for-service against a major threat, reduced payment cuts from those that seemed to be impending, and gained a unique degree of control over its payments. However, the new payment system is complex and does not reward efficacy, cost-effectiveness, or quality.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
K. Muchantef and H. P. Forman
Cost Accounting in Radiology: New Directions and Importance for Policy
Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2005; 185(6): 1404 - 1407.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
C. C. Blackmore, W. N. Zelman, and N. D. Glick
Resource Cost Analysis of Cervical Spine Trauma Radiography
Radiology, September 1, 2001; 220(3): 581 - 587.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
D. M. Yousem, D. J. Eschelman, K. L. Sullivan, and D. C. Levin
Academic and Clinical Productivity: Relative Value Units Do Not Tell the Whole Story
Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2001; 176(6): 1598 - 1600.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
J. H. Sunshine and J. H. Burkhardt
Radiology Groups' Workload in Relative Value Units and Factors Affecting It
Radiology, March 1, 2000; 214(3): 815 - 822.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
D. J. Eschelman, K. L. Sullivan, L. Parker, and D. C. Levin
The Relationship of Clinical and Academic Productivity in a University Hospital Radiology Department
Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2000; 174(1): 27 - 31.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1993 by the Radiological Society of North America.