HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

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

Practice Costs in Diagnostic Radiology¹

¹ From the Research Department, American College of Radiology, 1891 Preston White Dr, Reston, VA 20191 (J.H.S., J.H.B.); and the Society of Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology, Fairfax, Va (M.R.M.). Received April 25, 2000; revision requested June 9; revision received July 7; accepted July 25. Address correspondence to J.H.S. (e-mail: jonathans@acr.org).

PURPOSE: To report on practice costs and their variation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 1996 and 1997, practices were surveyed, and data on costs and other operational characteristics were obtained from approximately 170 practices. Several components of practice costs (eg, physician-related costs, administrative and business costs) were calculated separately for different group types (eg, academic, private hospital-only), each on four bases: per full-time equivalent (FTE) radiologist, per relevant procedure, per relevant relative value unit (RVU), and as a percentage of revenue.

RESULTS: Median total practice costs per FTE radiologist ranged from approximately $90,000 to $190,000, depending on group type. Per procedure, the median ranged from $9 to $21; and as a percentage of revenue, it ranged from 27% to 41%. Median technical costs were approximately $36 per technical RVU in private hospital-and-office groups. Within any category of group, for every cost category, there was substantial variation among groups.

CONCLUSION: The sizable variation implies that means or medians should not be regarded as norms. Nonetheless, the data on 75th and 25th percentile costs can show a radiology group where savings and inadequate resources, respectively, are relatively likely to be found. Physician-related costs are best measured per FTE. Technical costs and administrative and business costs are best measured per RVU or for categories of groups defined by having similar percentages of nonhospital services.

Index terms: Economics, medical • Radiology and radiologists • Radiology and radiologists, socioeconomic issues

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. T. Gray, W. Hollingworth, C. C. Blackmore, M. A. Alotis, B. I. Martin, S. D. Sullivan, R. A. Deyo, and J. G. Jarvik Conventional Radiography, Rapid MR Imaging, and Conventional MR Imaging for Low Back Pain: Activity-based Costs and Reimbursement Radiology, June 1, 2003; 227(3): 669 - 680. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]