Financial Impact of Emergency Department Ultrasound
Authors: Soremekun Olanrewaju A. , Noble Vicki E. , Liteplo Andrew S. , Brown David F. M. , Zane Richard D. 
Published: June 2009

AbstractObjectives:  There is limited information on the financial implications of an emergency department ultrasound (ED US) program. The authors sought to perform a fiscal analysis of an integrated ED US program.Methods:  A retrospective review of billing data was performed for fiscal year (FY) 2007 for an urban academic ED with an ED US program. The ED had an annual census of 80,000 visits and 1,101 ED trauma activations. The ED is a core teaching site for a 4‐year emergency medicine (EM) residency, has 35 faculty members, and has 24‐hour availability of all radiology services including formal US. ED US is utilized as part of evaluation of all trauma activations and for ED procedures. As actual billing charges and reimbursement rates are institution‐specific and proprietary information, relative value units (RVUs) and reimbursement based on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) 2007 fee schedule (adjusted for fixed diagnosis‐related group [DRG] payments and bad debt) was used to determine revenue generated from ED US. To estimate potential volume, assumptions were made on improvement in documentation rate for diagnostic scans (current documentation rates based on billed volume versus diagnostic studies in diagnostic image database), with no improvements assumed for procedural ED US. Expenses consist of three components—capital costs, training costs, and ongoing operational costs—and were determined by institutional experience. Training costs were considered sunken expenses by this institution and were thus not included in the original return on investment (ROI) calculation, although for this article a second ROI calculation was done with training cost estimates included. For the purposes of analysis, certain key assumptions were made. We utilized a collection rate of 45% and hospitalization rates (used to adjust for fixed DRG payments) of 33% for all diagnostic scans, 100% for vascular access, and 10% for needle placement. An optimal documentation rate of 95% was used to estimate potential revenue.Results:  In FY 2007, 486 limited echo exams of abdomen (current procedural terminology [CPT] 76705) and 480 limited echo cardiac exams were performed (CPT 93308) while there were 78 exams for US‐guided vascular access (CPT 76937) and 36 US‐guided needle placements when performing paracentesis, thoracentesis, or location of abscess for drainage (CPT 76492). Applying the 2007 CMS fee schedule and above assumptions, the revenue generated was 578 RVUs and $35,541 ($12,934 in professional physician fees and $22,607 in facility fees). Assuming optimal documentation rates for diagnostic ED US scans, ED US could have generated 1,487 RVUs and $94,593 ($33,953 in professional physician fees and $60,640 in facility fees). Program expenses include an initial capital expense (estimated at $120,000 for two US machines) and ongoing operational costs ($68,640 per year to cover image quality assurance review, continuing education, and program maintenance). Based on current revenue, there would be an annual operating loss, and thus an ROI cannot be calculated. However, if potential revenue is achieved, the annual operating income will be $22,846 per year with an ROI of 4.9 years to break even with initial investment.Conclusions:  Determining an ROI is a required procedure for any business plan for establishing an ED US program. Our analysis demonstrates that an ED US program that captures charges for trauma and procedural US and achieves the potential billing volume breaks even in less than 5 years, at which point it would generate a positive margin.