The Overuse of Diagnostic Imaging and the Choosing Wisely Initiative
Authors: Vijay M. Rao, David C. Levin
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (2012)

Ideas and Opinions16 October 2012The Overuse of Diagnostic Imaging and the Choosing Wisely InitiativeFREEVijay M. Rao, MD and David C. Levin, MDVijay M. Rao, MDFrom Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. and David C. Levin, MDFrom Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-157-8-201210160-00535 SectionsAboutVisual AbstractPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Health care in America costs too much. There are many reasons for this, but an important one is the overuse of diagnostic tests—including but not limited to imaging studies.A report by Iglehart (1) indicated that, between 2000 and 2007, use of imaging studies grew faster than that of any other physician service in the Medicare population. Another report by the influential group America's Health Insurance Plans (2) claimed that 20% to 50% of all "high-tech" imaging provide no useful information and may be unnecessary. Reports like these have led to cost concerns among key federal agencies like the Congressional Budget Office, Government Accountability Office, and Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (3, 4), and steps have been taken in recent years to reduce reimbursements for imaging (3). However, an even better approach might be to try to limit imaging studies and other tests and treatments that are inappropriate, unnecessary, wasteful, or redundant.In an attempt at this latter option, the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation worked with Consumer Reports to conceive and organize the Choosing Wisely initiative (5). The Foundation brought 9 other leading medical organizations into the campaign: the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology; American Academy of Family Physicians; American College of Cardiology; American College of Physicians (ACP); American College of Radiology (ACR); American Gastroenterological Association; American Society of Clinical Oncology; American Society of Nephrology; and American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. These 9 organizations were asked to pick 5 tests or treatments within their purview that they believed were overused. The list of 45 services was announced on 4 April 2012 and drew widespread and generally favorable commentary in the national news media (6, 7). A few days later, a New York Times editorial lauded the effort, saying that "The groups showed admirable statesmanship by proposing cuts that would affect their incomes ... " (8).The Choosing Wisely Web site (www.choosingwisely.org) lists these 45 tests and treatments. As radiologists, we were interested to note that 24 of the 45 were directly related to diagnostic imaging. Among the 9 organizations that participated, 8 listed at least 1 imaging test. The Table shows the specific imaging tests that were judged to be overused, along with the organizations that chose them. To formulate the table, we paraphrased some of the descriptors, combined others that were similar or duplicative, and eliminated 1 that was nonspecific to yield a list of 16 distinct overused imaging studies.Choosing Wisely follows closely on an initiative of the ACP, described in the 17 January 2012 issue of Annals. Qaseem and colleagues (9) reported on an ACP workgroup of internists from various subspecialties who identified common screening and diagnostic tests that they believed were overused. The final list contained 37 tests, 18 of which were imaging studies—13 commonly performed by radiologists and 5 commonly performed by cardiologists. In an accompanying editorial, Laine (10) cited an estimate that up to 5% of the country's gross national product is spent on tests and procedures that do not improve patient outcomes. Considerable overlap exists between the ACP's 18 imaging tests and the 16 in the Table.This suggests a widespread perception among many branches of medicine that imaging is overused. We agree that all 16 of the tests shown in the Table are overused. We hope that all physicians who order imaging tests will reflect on the Choosing Wisely lists and adjust their ordering patterns accordingly.Table. Specific Imaging Tests in the Choosing Wisely Campaign That Are Believed to Be OverusedThe American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation deserves great credit for its leadership in organizing this important initiative, as does the ACP for its earlier effort (9). The ACR, the American College of Cardiology, and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology similarly deserve credit for their roles in the campaign. Many of their members perform the very tests that they included on their lists and this could adversely affect their practices. The 3 organizations clearly acted in the best interests of patients and the health care system, without regard to their own self-interest.Three important questions must be considered if we are to reduce the overuse of imaging tests. First, why is imaging overused? Many physicians worry about malpractice liability and order too many tests for fear of overlooking anything that could conceivably contribute to a lawsuit. Meaningful tort reform is needed if the problem of inappropriate testing is to ever be solved.Advanced imaging equipment is installed in nonradiologist physician offices with some frequency and incentivizes these physicians to order abundant imaging tests to generate revenues. Numerous studies over the past 4 decades have shown that self-referral invariably leads to higher use of imaging studies (11–14). The problem is compounded by the fact that many patients demand advanced imaging after hearing about it from friends, the media, or even direct-to-consumer advertising of certain types of imaging-based screening. Radiologists, who have generally been unwilling to act as gatekeepers, should be more proactive in using evidence-based criteria in front-end consultations with ordering physicians to reduce inappropriate or unnecessary imaging tests.Radiologists can help to educate ordering physicians who lack informed knowledge of which imaging tests, if any, are most appropriate for the patient's clinical circumstances. Even when the initial test is appropriate, the tests are sometimes unnecessarily duplicated when a patient seeks care from a new physician or at a new site, because the old studies are not readily available or the clinicians have more confidence in their own equipment and radiologists.Finally, radiologists themselves must acknowledge their own potential conflicts of interest about overuse of imaging studies. The more imaging studies they do, the more they earn. Radiologists should recommend additional imaging tests in their reports only when such additional testing is truly warranted. Too often, such casual recommendations about additional testing ties the hands of treating physicians and compels them to order further tests largely for defensive purposes.Second, why is too much imaging a bad thing? Cost issues aside, inappropriate imaging unnecessarily exposes patients to excessive radiation, inconvenience, and actual harms that come from the cascade of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions that often follow identification of a lesion that proves only to be an incidentaloma.The third question is how can we fix the problem? Awareness of the Choosing Wisely and ACP initiatives is another important step in the right direction. As noted previously, radiologists need to make some modifications to their daily routines and recommend testing only when indicated and intervene to cancel inappropriate tests when ordered. Physicians should also be aware of the ACR's evidence-based appropriateness criteria for imaging that were first developed in the 1990s.The ACR frequently updates the appropriateness criteria, and they currently cover 175 clinical conditions with more than 850 variants, including cardiac imaging tests. Expert panels developed the criteria using evidence review and input from more than 300 physicians, including some 80 clinical specialists from 20 nonradiologic medical organizations. These appropriateness criteria are readily accessed at the ACR's Web site at www.acr.org/quality-safety/appropriateness-criteria. Many nonradiologist physicians are unfortunately unaware of these criteria (15), and radiologists do not always implement them in their daily practices.Appropriateness criteria can be a valuable resource in the effort to reduce unnecessary imaging. To augment their use, the criteria are increasingly being incorporated into computerized decision-support tools linked to the ordering of imaging tests. Although not yet widely used, these tools show promise for the future (16). In addition, the so-called radiology benefits management companies are using their own variations of the appropriateness criteria in their preauthorization programs. Although these programs are unpopular among clinicians, they are widely used by commercial insurers and have helped to control inappropriate imaging (17, 18).One final matter is worth mentioning. Earlier, we mentioned that use of imaging was growing rapidly during the past decade (1). However, that growth seems to have halted. Recent studies by our group show that in the Medicare population, use of advanced imaging has actually begun to decline (3, 4, 19). Moreover, overall Medicare payments for noninvasive diagnostic imaging decreased by 21% between 2007 and 2010 (20). These trends could signify that downturns in imaging and the associated costs are already at hand.Current campaigns that draw attention to overuse of imaging studies coupled with greater physician knowledge and use of the criteria for appropriate imaging can help to ensure a further reduction in unnecessary testing—a result that would benefit both patients and our health care system.References1. Iglehart JK. Health insurers and medical-imaging policy—a work in progress. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1030-7. [PMID: 19264694] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. America's Health Insurance Plans. Ensuring Quality through Appropriate Use of Diagnostic Imaging. Washington, DC: America's Health Insurance Plans; 2008. Google Scholar3. Levin DC, Rao VM, Parker L, Frangos AJ, Sunshine JH. Bending the curve: the recent marked slowdown in growth of noninvasive diagnostic imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:W25-9. [PMID: 21178027] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Levin DC, Rao VM, Parker L. Physician orders contribute to high-tech imaging slowdown. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29:189-95. [PMID: 20048376] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Cassel CK, Guest JA. Choosing wisely: helping physicians and patients make smart decisions about their care. JAMA. 2012;307:1801-2. [PMID: 22492759] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6. Rabin RC. Doctor panels recommend fewer tests for patients. New York Times. 4 April 2012. Accessed at www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/health/doctor-panels-urge-fewer-routine-tests.html on 4 April 2012. Google Scholar7. Jaslow R. Doctors unveil "Choosing Wisely" campaign to cut unnecessary medical tests. CBS News. 4 April 2012. Accessed at www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57409204-10391704/doctors-unveil-choosing-wisely-campaign-to-cut-unnecessary-medical-tests on 29 May 2012. Google Scholar8. Do you need that test? New York Times. 9 April 2012:A20. Accessed at www.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/opinion/do-you-really-need-that-medical-test.html on 9 April 2012. Google Scholar9. Qaseem A, Alguire P, Dallas P, Feinberg LE, Fitzgerald FT, Horwitch C, et al. Appropriate use of screening and diagnostic tests to foster high-value, cost-conscious care. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:147-9. [PMID: 22250146] LinkGoogle Scholar10. Laine C. High-value testing begins with a few simple questions [Editorial]. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:162-3. [PMID: 22250151] LinkGoogle Scholar11. Childs AW, Hunter ED. Non-medical factors influencing use of diagnostic x-ray by physicians. Med Care. 1972;10:323-35. [PMID: 5050742] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12. Hillman BJ, Olson GT, Griffith PE, Sunshine JH, Joseph CA, Kennedy SD, et al. Physicians' utilization and charges for outpatient diagnostic imaging in a Medicare population. JAMA. 1992;268:2050-4. [PMID: 1404741] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13. Hughes DR, Bhargavan M, Sunshine JH. Imaging self-referral associated with higher costs and limited impact on duration of illness. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29:2244-51. [PMID: 21134926] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14. Levin DC, Rao VM. The effect of self-referral on utilization of advanced diagnostic imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:848-52. [PMID: 21427334] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15. Bautista AB, Burgos A, Nickel BJ, Yoon JJ, Tilara AA, Amorosa JK; American College of Radiology Appropriateness. Do clinicians use the American College of Radiology Appropriateness criteria in the management of their patients? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:1581-5. [PMID: 19457821] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar16. Sistrom CL, Dang PA, Weilburg JB, Dreyer KJ, Rosenthal DI, Thrall JH. Effect of computerized order entry with integrated decision support on the growth of outpatient procedure volumes: seven-year time series analysis. Radiology. 2009;251:147-55. [PMID: 19221058] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar17. Levin DC, Bree RL, Rao VM, Johnson J. A prior authorization program of a radiology benefits management company and how it has affected utilization of advanced diagnostic imaging. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7:33-8. [PMID: 20129269] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar18. Mitchell JM, Lagalia RR. Controlling the escalating use of advanced imaging: the role of radiology benefit management programs. Med Care Res Rev. 2009;66:339-51. [PMID: 19208823] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar19. Levin DC, Rao VM, Parker L. The recent downturn in utilization of CT: the start of a new trend? J Am Coll Radiol. 2012. [Forthcoming]. Google Scholar20. Levin DC, Rao VM, Parker L, Frangos AJ. The sharp reduction in Medicare payments for noninvasive diagnostic imaging in recent years: will they satisfy the federal policymakers? J Am Coll Radiol. 2012;9:643-7. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Comments0 CommentsSign In to Submit A Comment Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: From Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M12-1458.Corresponding Author: Vijay M. Rao, MD, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Department of Radiology, 132 South 10th Street, Suite 1087 Main, Philadelphia, PA 19107; e-mail, [email protected].Current Author Addresses: Dr. Rao: Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Department of Radiology, 132 South 10th Street, Suite 1087 Main, Philadelphia, PA 19107.Dr. Levin: Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Department of Radiology, 132 South 10th Street, Suite 1090 Main, Philadelphia, PA 19107.Author Contributions: Conception and design: V.M. Rao, D.C. Levin.Drafting of the article: V.M. Rao, D.C. Levin.Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: V.M. Rao, D.C. Levin.Final approval of the article: V.M. Rao, D.C. Levin.This article was published at www.annals.org on 28 August 2012. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics Cited ByRadiation risk issues in recurrent imagingEvidence-Based Care Reduces Unnecessary Medical Procedures and Healthcare Costs in the Outpatient SettingImpact of clinical information on CT diagnosis by radiologist and subsequent clinical management by physician in acute abdominal painBarriers to using clinical decision support in ambulatory care: Do clinics in health systems fare better?Rational use of diagnostic and screening testsUse of a Commercially Available Clinical Decision Support Tool to Expedite Prior Authorization in Partnership With a Private PayerHaste or Waste? Peer Pressure and Productivity in the Emergency DepartmentThe Choosing Wisely Initiative and MRIs: Over- and Under-Diagnosis in Japan and MyanmarAssessing Utilization of the Cerebrospinal Fluid Venereal Disease Research Laboratory Test for Diagnosis of Neurosyphilis: a Cohort StudyA moneymaking scan: Dual reimbursement systems and supplier‐induced demand for diagnostic imagingNODDI in clinical researchPoint of care ultrasound for rapid assessment and treatment of palliative care patients in acute medical settingsHow Do Doctors Respond to Incentives? Unintended Consequences of Paying Doctors to Reduce CostsAn Imaging Stewardship Initiative to Reduce Low-Value Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography Use in Hospitalized PatientsPilot Study: Outcomes of the Full Abdominopelvic Ultrasound Protocol for Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis in Children: A Retrospective Chart ReviewDo the Number of Visits and the Cost of Musculoskeletal Care Improve Outcomes? More May Not Be BetterEffects of Physician Experience, Specialty Training, and Self-referral on Inappropriate Diagnostic ImagingPrior authorization and its impact on access to obstetric ultrasoundCervical spine radiographs in patients with vertigo and dizzinessNational Trends in Imaging Rates for Eye-Related Emergency Department Visits in the United StatesIncreasing Use, Geographic Variation, and Disparities in Emergency Department CT for Suspected UrolithiasisCascades of Care After Incidental Findings in a US National Survey of PhysiciansPrevalence and Cost of Care Cascades After Low-Value Preoperative Electrocardiogram for Cataract Surgery in Fee-for-Service Medicare BeneficiariesChoosing wisely in the ED: The diagnostic cascade of needless medical testing in a two-level studySolutions to Reduce Unnecessary ImagingIntegrated Physical Medicine at Employer-Sponsored Health Clinics Improves Quality of Care at Reduced CostEffect of Analytics-Driven Worklists on Musculoskeletal MRI Interpretation Times in an Academic SettingClinical decision support: the role of ACR Appropriateness CriteriaOveruse of Previsit Ultrasound in Patients Referred for Treatment of Inguinal HerniasRate of instrumentation changes on postoperative and follow-up radiographs after primary complex spinal fusion (five or more levels) for adult deformity correctionMagnitude and financial implications of inappropriate diagnostic imaging for three common clinical conditionsDoes What Happens in the ED Stay in the ED? The Effects of Emergency Department Physician Workload on Post-ED Care UseVariation of preoperative chest radiography utilization in Switzerland and its influencing factors: a multilevel study with claims dataRelative diagnostic utility of radiologist-recommended abdominal ultrasound following emergency department abdominal and pelvic computed tomographyValidity of inducible ischaemia as a surrogate for adverse outcomes in stable coronary artery diseaseUtilization Trends in Diagnostic Imaging for a Commercially Insured Population: A Study of Massachusetts Residents 2009 to 2013Where Are the Opportunities for Reducing Health Care Spending Within Alternative Payment Models?Radiologist involvement is associated with reduced use of MRI in the acute period of low back pain in a non-elderly populationGlobal and Japanese regional variations in radiologist potential workload for computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging examinationsPreoperative Evaluation of Patients Undergoing Non-cardiac SurgeryDefining and Measuring Diagnostic Uncertainty in Medicine: A Systematic ReviewPutting It All TogetherIn support of the Choosing Wisely campaign: Perceived higher risk leads to unnecessary imaging in accelerated partial breast irradiation?Radiation Reduction and Competing Technologies in Cardiac Imaging from a Nuclear PerspectiveWhat Role Does Efficiency Play in Understanding the Relationship Between Cost and Quality in Physician Organizations?Appropriate imaging utilization in Japan: a survey of accredited radiology training hospitalsReducing Portable Chest Radiography in the Intensive Care UnitReducing Inappropriate Use of Diagnostic Imaging Through the Choosing Wisely InitiativeSustainable health and degrowth: Health, health care and society beyond the growth paradigmRisk, Benefit, and Cost Thresholds for Emergency Department Testing: A Cross-sectional, Scenario-based StudyToward a Framework for Benefit-Risk Assessment in Diagnostic ImagingCompromiso por la calidad de las sociedades científicas en EspañaCommitment to quality of the Spanish scientific societiesDiagnostic performance of a biomarker panel as a negative predictor for acute appendicitis in adult ED patients with abdominal painÜberversorgung in der Schweiz: Wie häufig werden präoperative Thorax-Röntgenuntersuchungen durchgeführt?Imaging Room and Beyond: The Underlying Economics Behind Physicians' Test-Ordering Behavior in Outpatient ServicesReport of the ACR's Economics Committee on Value-Based Payment ModelsChoosing Wisely: Opportunities for Improving Value in Cancer Care Delivery?Certificate of Need Regulation and Hospital Behavior: Evidence from MRIs in North CarolinaBarriers to evidence-based physician decision-making at the point of care: a narrative literature reviewReference Pricing, Consumer Cost-Sharing, and Insurer Spending for Advanced Imaging TestsThe Determinants of Productivity in Medical Testing: Intensity and Allocation of CareNeuroimaging WiselyCurbing the Urge to ImageShould obtaining a preoperative audiogram before tympanostomy tube placement be used as a quality metric? A survey of pediatric otolaryngologistsProspective validation of a biomarker panel to identify pediatric ED patients with abdominal pain who are at low risk for acute appendicitisThe Rapidly Evolving Role of Imaging in Urology: How to Balance Breakthroughs in Knowledge with OverusePalliating Predatory Practices and Protecting ProfessionalismAdvanced Imaging and Receipt of Guideline Concordant Care in Women with Early Stage Breast CancerMedical Student Usage of the American College of Radiology Appropriateness CriteriaUse of Health Information Exchange and Repeat Imaging CostsImage Sharing Technologies and Reduction of Imaging Utilization: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysisReadiness of hospital-based internists to embrace and discuss high-value care with patients and family members: a single-centre cross-sectional survey studyHeadache neuroimaging: Routine testing when guidelines recommend against themAn Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement: A Research Framework for Pulmonary Nodule Evaluation and ManagementMeasuring the effect of Choosing Wisely: an integrated framework to assess campaign impact on low-value careEffect of Public Reporting on MR Imaging Use for Low Back PainRadiation epidemiology and recent paediatric computed tomography studiesThe 2014 RSNA Annual Oration in Diagnostic Radiology: Transitioning from Volume-based to Value-based Practice—A Meaningful Goal for All Radiologists or a Meaningless Platitude?Evaluating the feasibility and utility of translating Choosing Wisely recommendations into e-MeasuresClinical utility of inappropriate positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging: Test results and cardiovascular eventsDistress and Patient-Centered Communication among Veterans with Incidental (Not Screen-Detected) Pulmonary Nodules. A Cohort StudyOveruse of Testing in Preoperative Evaluation and Syncope A Survey of HospitalistsAllen Kachalia, MD, JD, Aaron Berg, MD, Angela Fagerlin, PhD, Karen E. Fowler, MPH, Timothy P. Hofer, MD, MSc, Scott A. Flanders, MD, and Sanjay Saint, MD, MPHManagement of Medical Radiation: Perspectives from CardiologyCost-effective use of investigations in developing countriesCanadian physicians' responses to cross border health careContinued Growth in Emergency Department Imaging Is Bucking the Overall TrendsPhysician Decision Making and Trends in the Use of Cardiac Stress Testing in the United States An Analysis of Repeated Cross-sectional DataJoseph A. Ladapo, MD, PhD, Saul Blecker, MD, MHS, and Pamela S. Douglas, MDAdding Value to Health Care: Where Radiologists May ContributeKathleen Mears Memorial Lecture: Personal Accountability: Your Key to Survival in Health Care ReformProfessionalism in RadiologyChoosing Wisely for Syncope: Low‐Value Carotid Ultrasound UseHead CT Scan Overuse in Frequently Admitted Medical PatientsGetting From Choosing Wisely to Spending WiselyUtility of Cardiovascular Imaging to Refine Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) Risk AssessmentThe Choosing Wisely Initiative of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation: What Will Its Impact Be on Radiology Practice?Choosing Wisely in Headache Medicine: The American Headache Society's List of Five Things Physicians and Patients Should QuestionProstate Cancer Imaging Trends After a Nationwide Effort to Discourage Inappropriate Prostate Cancer ImagingEnsuring the Future of Radiology: How to Respond to the ThreatsThe Recent Reversal of the Growth Trend in MRI: A Harbinger of the Future?The Choosing Wisely initiative: Does it have your back?What the Heck Is a "Nodule"? A Qualitative Study of Veterans with Pulmonary NodulesGlobal budgets and technology-intensive medical services 16 October 2012Volume 157, Issue 8Page: 574-576KeywordsConflicts of interestDiagnostic imagingDiagnostic radiologyHealth careMedicareNephrologyPatientsPerceptionRadiation therapyRadiologists ePublished: 16 October 2012 Issue Published: 16 October 2012 CopyrightCopyright © 2012 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF DownloadLoading ...