Tag: radiology jobs

Radiologist Shortage Looms

Posted on by Brian Casey

A new report from healthcare staffing firm Medicus Healthcare Solutions paints a gloomy picture of the demographic crush facing radiology as the US population ages and imaging volumes rise, but the number of radiologists remains static. 

Radiology’s demographic dilemma isn’t new to anyone in the field. Radiologists are having to work harder to meet growing demand for imaging by an aging population, while reimbursement falls.

  • Meanwhile, efforts to grow the number of radiologists are hamstrung by the country’s physician training system, which requires a literal act of Congress in order to expand the number of residency slots. 

The new Medicus report mostly draws on established data sources, but it provides insight into the supply and demand challenges facing radiology, presented in an attractive graphical format. Salient points include …

  • There are about 37.7k diagnostic radiologists in the US, with job growth of 4% annually through 2032
  • Since 2020 there have been only 22 new diagnostic radiology residency PGY-1 positions added
  • From 2010 to 2020, the number of diagnostic radiology trainees grew 2.5%, while the number of US adults over 65 rose 34%
  • By 2030, all baby boomers will be aged 65 and older – and will require more medical care
  • The gap between radiology supply and demand is expected to grow through 2034 (see above chart)

What’s more, the vast majority of radiologists reaching retirement age are generalists, while the field’s recent focus on subspecialization means many younger radiologists aren’t comfortable reading scans outside their focus. 

The Medicus report isn’t all doom and gloom. It does offer some possible solutions to the staffing shortage, including teleradiology, AI, and increased use of locums tenens radiologist services (which Medicus provides). 

The Takeaway

The Medicus report provides a snapshot of a medical specialty that – like many others – is facing a demographic crunch between rising demand and fixed supply. Hopefully, technologies like AI will enable radiologists to do more with less in the years to come.

Top 6 Radiology Trends of 2024’s First Half

Posted on by Brian Casey

You can put the first half of 2024 in the books … and it was full of major developments for radiology. What follows are the top six trends in medical imaging – one for each month of the first half.

  • The Rise of AI for Breast Screening – The first half of 2024 saw the publication of studies conducted in Norway and Denmark that underlined the potential role of AI for breast screening, particularly for ruling out exams most likely to be normal. But research conducted within Europe’s paradigm of double-reading workflow for 2D mammograms may not be so relevant in the US, and more studies are needed.
  • Mammography Guideline Controversy – Changes to breast screening guidelines in both the US and Canada were first-half headlines. In the US, the USPSTF made official its proposal to lower to 40 the recommended age to start screening, but many were disappointed it failed to provide stronger guidance on dense breast screening. Things were even worse in Canada, where a federal task force declined to lower the screening age from 50 to 40. Canadian advocates have vowed to fight on at the provincial level. 
  • AI Funding Pullback Continues – The ongoing pullback in venture capital funding for AI developers continues. A study by Signify Research found that not only did VC funding fall 19% in 2023, but it got off to a slow start in 2024 as well. The new environment could be putting more pressure on AI firms to demonstrate ROI to both healthcare providers and investors, while also having broader implications – a major AI conference rescheduled a show that had been on the calendar for May, citing “market conditions.” On the positive side, Tempus AI’s IPO boomed, raising $412M. 
  • Opportunistic Screening Gains Steam – The concept of opportunistic screening – detecting pathology on medical images acquired for other indications – has been around for a while. But it’s only really started to catch on with the development of AI algorithms that can process thousands of images without a radiologist’s involvement. The first half of 2024 saw publication of several exciting studies for indications including detecting osteoporosis, scoring coronary artery calcifications, and predicting major adverse cardiac events. 
  • ChatGPT Frenzy Subsides – The frenzied interest in ChatGPT and other generative AI large language models seen throughout 2023 seemed to subside in the first half of 2024. A quick search of The Imaging Wire archives, for example, finds just four references to ChatGPT in the first six months of 2024 compared to 21 citations at the same point in 2023. LLM developers need to address major issues – from GenAI’s “hallucination effect” to potential misuse of the technology – before LLMs can be used in clinical settings.

The Takeaway

The midpoint of the year is a great time to take stock of radiology’s progress and the issues that have bubbled to the surface over the past six months. In 2024’s back half, look for renewed attention on breast screening as the FDA’s density reporting rules go into effect in September, and keep on the lookout for signs that real-world AI adoption is growing, even as AI developers look for consolidation opportunities.

Radiology’s Private-Practice Squeeze

Posted on by Brian Casey

It’s no secret that US radiology’s traditional private-practice model has been slowly fading away, but new numbers published in AJR illustrate the magnitude of the shift. The number of radiologist-affiliated and radiologist-only practices has dropped, even as the total number of US radiologists has gone up. 

Radiology has long prided itself on a cozy business model in which radiologists banded together as owner-operators of small private-practice groups that contracted their services with hospitals. 

  • This model has had many benefits for radiologists, but it’s begun to fray in the face of competitive threats like teleradiology providers, health system consolidation, and large national radiology groups like Radiology Partners.

Many radiologists have chosen to switch rather than fight, selling out to national groups or taking positions as employees within health systems.

  • Meanwhile, some practices that want to stay independent are finding strength in numbers by joining with other like-minded groups or seeking out multi-specialty medical groups. 

In the new study, researchers from the ACR’s Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute analyzed CMS data from 2014 to 2023, tracking not only changes in the number of US radiologists but also their type of employment, finding …

  • The number of radiologists grew 17%, from 30.7k to 36k
  • But the number of radiologist-affiliated practices fell 15%, from 5.1k to 4.3k
  • The number of radiology-only practices fell 32%
  • The number of small radiology practices fell, with the decline varying by practice size: 1-2 radiologists -19%, 3-9 radiologists -34%, and 10-24 radiologists -25%
  • The number of large practices jumped, with the biggest increase – 349% – at very large practices (over 100 radiologists)
  • The mean number of radiologists per practice shot up 84%, from 9.7 to 17.9

Why the shift? The researchers theorized that much of it was driven by federal policy and reimbursement changes that incentivize consolidation, mostly to spread the risk and cost of compliance with various regulations like ACA and MACRA.

The Takeaway

There’s no question that radiology is changing – the question is what impact the changes will have on how radiologists perceive their work. The old guard may choose to rage against the dying of the light, while younger generations embrace the new model and its benefits for both professional careers and patient care. 

Radiologist Pay Grows 3%

Posted on by Brian Casey

Annual salaries for US radiologists grew 3.1% in 2023 in the most recent physician salary report by Medscape. Although radiologist salaries are nearing the half-million-dollar mark, the increase actually represents a slowdown compared to 11% growth last year. 

The Medscape report shows that US radiologists had an average annual salary of $498k in 2023, compared to $483k in 2023 and $437k in 2022.

  • Radiologists ranked sixth on a list of 29 medical specialties, with orthopedic physicians topping the charts at $558k and diabetes and endocrinology doctors at the bottom at $256k. 

The report surveyed 7k practicing US physicians from October 2023 to January 2024, finding … 

  • 61% of those surveyed thought physicians overall are underpaid
  • 49% believe that they themselves are fairly paid
  • 83% said that pay was either no factor or only a minor factor in the specialty they chose, with only 14% saying it was the leading factor
  • Male specialists earned 31% more than female specialists, indicating a widening gender gap compared to 27% last year
  • 57% of radiologists were happy with their compensation, sixth among 29 medical specialties

Physician comments submitted to Medscape focused on the significant stress being experienced by many physicians, a phenomenon that’s been linked to burnout in other surveys. 

The Takeaway

Underlying this year’s Medscape data is an inconvenient truth for radiologists: their 3.1% pay gains for the year were not enough to keep pace with the US inflation rate of 3.4%. In that respect, radiologists find themselves in the same situation as most Americans.

Is Head CT Overused in the ED?

Posted on by Brian Casey

A new study suggests that head CT could be overused in the emergency department for patients presenting with conditions like headache and dizziness. Writing in a paper in Internal and Emergency Medicine, researchers looking at CT angiography use at a large medical center found a big increase in CTA utilization – even as the rate of positive findings dropped. 

CTA is a powerful tool that can quickly and efficiently give clinicians information to guide treatment of acute neurovascular conditions like aneurysm and stroke. 

  • As such, many emergency departments have been installing their own CT scanners to enable them to scan emergent patients without transporting them to the radiology department. 

But with great power comes great responsibility, and there is always the temptation to scan first and ask questions later. 

  • To better understand changing CTA use in the emergency setting, researchers from the Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute analyzed CTA exams at a level 1 trauma center that sees about 110k emergency patients a year.

Researchers analyzed 25k ED visits from 2017 to 2021 and correlated them to head and neck CTA exams for headache and/or dizziness, finding …

  • The rate of CTA exams rose 64%, from 7.9% of ED visits to 13%
  • Symptomatic patients were 15% more likely to have a CTA in 2021 versus 2017
  • The rate of positive CTA findings fell 38%, from 17% to 10%
  • Patients with private insurance were more likely to have CTA (OR=1.44)
  • Black patients were less likely to be scanned (OR=0.69)

The researchers said the findings indicate the need for better clinical decision support tools, which they believe can help emergency physicians provide an accurate diagnosis without exposing patients to unnecessary radiation and incurring additional cost. 

The Takeaway

This study further confirms widespread accounts that head and neck CTA is overused and on the rise. As the US government backs off on its attempt to force clinical decision support on referring physicians, it may be up to health systems and providers themselves to ensure more appropriate utilization – in a way that doesn’t rely on heavy-handed tools like prior authorization. 

The 35 Best Radiology Sources

Posted on by Brian Casey

Our list of the top radiology news sources last year generated a lot of excitement, so we’re updating the list for 2024 with the people and publications we rely on to find the most interesting medical imaging stories. 

Top Radiology Sites

From a radiology newsletter with a laser focus on AI to an educational site with thousands of radiology cases, you’re sure to find something that meets your needs from the list below.

  • AI for Radiology – A great source for news on AI, including the Project AIR testing clearinghouse.
  • DI Europe – Two European journalists reviving one of radiology’s most venerable brands.
  • Medality Radiology Report Podcast – Medality CEO Daniel Arnold interviews the biggest names in medical imaging. Think Howard Stern for radiology.
  • radHQ.net Forums – In a short time this has become the go-to public bulletin board for radiologists. Bring popcorn. 
  • Radiopaedia – The best site for educational radiology content, bar none.
  • Signify Research – Home of the best radiology market analysis, backed by actual market data.

Top Radiology Key Opinion Leaders

Radiology is fortunate to have a wealth of really smart people sharing their thoughts on medical imaging technology. Here are a few of the best.

  • Jan Beger – OEM executive with insightful high-level thoughts on AI.
  • Mike Cannavo – The one and only PACSman, with invaluable insights on AI and enterprise imaging.
  • Francis Deng, MD – Great analysis of radiology education and residency trends.
  • Rich Duszak, MD – Always a superb source for radiology leadership and responsible imaging.
  • Tobias Gilk – Radiology’s conscience on MRI safety. 
  • Tom Greeson – The authority for perspectives on legal issues in radiology.
  • Laura Heacock, MD – A leading voice on AI research and advancements.
  • Saurabh Jha, MBBS – Delivers keen radiology insights with a biting wit.
  • John Kalafut, PhD – Former vendor executive now offering AI wisdom.
  • Woojin Kim, MD – One of radiology’s best sources for keeping up with the latest AI research. 
  • Amine Korchi, MD – A radiologist with an eye for business news.
  • Nina Kottler, MD – Eloquent and informed insights from the frontlines of imaging. 
  • Curt Langlotz, MD, PhD – The first place we look for imaging AI context.
  • Rizwan Malik, MD – Incredibly insightful and uniquely autobiographical. 
  • Geraldine McGinty, MD – New platform, but still the moral compass of radiology.
  • Herman Oosterwijk – The unquestioned authority on DICOM and enterprise imaging.
  • Sebastian Schmidt – OEM executive with insightful analysis on CT lung cancer screening.
  • Vikas Shah, MD – Radiopaedia managing editor. Come for the educational content, stay for the dart takes. 
  • Ben White, MD – Excellent insights into the vagaries of being a working radiologist.
  • Reza Zahiri – Detailed LinkedIn posts that deconstruct the financial positions of medical imaging vendors.

Healthcare Newsletters and Sites

Looking to get out of the radiology niche and broaden your horizons? Check out some of these healthcare newsletters and websites.

The Takeaway

This list should cover all your bases for staying informed about the latest developments in radiology news, especially in the red-hot AI segment. Or, just sign up for The Imaging Wire and we’ll do it for you.

PS – As always, if there’s any radiology publications or healthcare news sources that should be on this list, let us know!

MRI’s Value for Prostate Screening

Posted on by Brian Casey

Among cancer screening tests, prostate screening could be the most problematic. But a new study published this week in JAMA Network Open offers guidance on the role that MRI can play in making prostate screening more effective – and opening the door to population-based screening.

The problem with prostate screening is that PSA tests often discover disease that’s either indolent or slow-growing. 

  • This can lead to a cascade of interventions that are expensive and have harms of their own. 

But prostate cancer remains a common – and deadly – cancer, with 1.5M cases globally in 2022, and it’s the second most commonly occurring cancer in men after lung cancer.

  • Given these statistics, there has to be a way to perform prostate screening more effectively.

MRI offers one such alternative, and a clinical consensus has emerged that performing a single MRI scan after a positive PSA result can help stratify men before biopsy. 

  • In this scenario, men might not be referred to biopsy if their MRI scan is negative, and adoption of this protocol has helped reduce prostate biopsies in PSA-positive men while still detecting clinically significant cancer.   

But if one MRI scan is good, are repeat MRI scans even better? In the new study, Swedish researchers investigated this question in a secondary analysis of the STHLM3-MRI trial, which involved repeat screening of 1.5k men 2-3 years after an original prostate screening.

Of the group who got repeat PSA and MRI screening, 667 men had PSA levels of 3 ng/mL or higher, the threshold for MRI testing, with the repeat scans finding … 

  • 51 men (7.6%) had equivocal lesions (PI-RADS score of 3)
  • 33 men (4.9%) had suspicious lesions (PI-RADS score of 4)
  • Only 10 men (1.5%) had lesions with PI-RADS scores of 4 or greater

The findings led the authors to conclude that cancer detection was “limited” in the second round of PSA and MRI prostate screening, and detection of low-grade tumors was low.

The Takeaway

At first blush, STHLM3-MRI may seem like a negative study, but it actually helps frame the debate over prostate cancer screening and MRI’s role by omitting the need for multiple repeat scans. The results also give clinicians confidence that it’s safe to omit prostate biopsies in men who have a single negative MRI result – a key finding in reducing the downstream costs of any population-based screening program.

Imaging and COVID Vaccine Effectiveness

Posted on by Brian Casey

In the debate over how long the protection from COVID-19 vaccines last, radiology has now entered the chat. A new study in Radiology shows that people with COVID who got vaccinated more than eight months before COVID diagnosis had more severe clinical findings on imaging exams. 

The rapid development of COVID vaccines and their rollout worldwide has been one of the biggest public health success stories of the last 100 years. 

  • Still, even the most effective vaccines lose their potency over time, and COVID vaccines are no different. 

The question is, how long does the COVID vaccine’s protection last? 

  • Previous research documented a decline during the Delta and Omicron waves in vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization, from 92% to 79% after 224-251 days, and a drop in efficacy against death from 91% to 86% after 168-195 days in those with severe COVID.

To shed more light on the issue, researchers in South Korea performed imaging exams on 4.2k patients with COVID from June 2021 to December 2022. 

  • They correlated the severity of clinical outcomes like pneumonia visible on imaging exams to the length of time between patient diagnosis and when they had been vaccinated. 

Compared to those vaccinated in the last 90 days before COVID diagnosis, people vaccinated more than 240 days …

  • Had almost twice odds of severe outcomes (OR = 1.94)
  • Had higher odds of severe pneumonia on chest radiographs (OR = 1.65)
  • But there was no difference in the odds of severe outcome between those vaccinated in the last 90 days and those vaccinated 91-240 days before diagnosis

In an interesting wrinkle to the study, the researchers found no statistically significant difference in odds of severe pneumonia visible on chest CT scans between those vaccinated more than 90 days before diagnosis and those vaccinated within 90 days.

  • The authors proposed that the low use of CT for pneumonia assessment in their study population (20%) and its use primarily for critically ill patients could have introduced bias into the results. 

The Takeaway

The new findings shed light on the declining potency of COVID vaccines over time and could inform public debate over the length of time between boosters. The research also dovetails with other studies showing that the vaccine’s effectiveness does indeed begin to wane at six months.

Out-of-Network Radiology Claims Fall

Posted on by Brian Casey

Is out-of-network billing – when a patient receives care outside their insurance network – still a problem in radiology? A new study in JACR shows that out-of-network commercial claims have dropped dramatically since 2007.

Out-of-network healthcare has been the focus of a number of legislative efforts in recent years as lawmakers try to protect patients from the financial sting of getting a big bill for services rendered outside their provider’s network.

  • Probably the centerpiece of this effort is the federal No Surprises Act, which went into effect in January 2022; not only did it cap the amount that patients can be billed for out-of-network services, but it created an independent dispute resolution mechanism for adjudicating disagreement between providers and payors over how much they should be paid.

The IDR mechanism has been the focus of legal wrangling in recent months, but the new study in JACR indicates that it might not be getting much use after all, at least in radiology.

Researchers from the ACR’s Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute analyzed 80M commercial claims for radiology services from 2007 to 2021, finding…

  • Out-of-network radiology claims fell dramatically (to 1.1% vs. 13%)
  • Out-of-network claims fell for inpatient stays (to 1.4% vs. 10%)
  • Claims also fell for emergency visits (to 0.4% vs. 3.9%)
  • By modality, most claims were for X-ray (57%), followed by ultrasound and CT (15% each) 
  • By 2021, radiologists practiced almost exclusively in-network

What’s the reason for the dramatic decline? The study authors credit good-faith negotiations between radiology practices and commercial payors, as well as the impact of state surprise billing laws (the study period occurred before the federal No Surprises Act went into effect).

  • Other possible factors include consolidation among practices, hospitals, and payors; expansion of academic centers into communities; and the COVID-19 pandemic.   

The Takeaway

The JACR study is welcome news for both patients and radiology practices. Patients are less likely to be hit with surprise medical charges, while practices are less likely to have to fight through the IDR process to resolve claims. In the end, everybody wins – even insurance companies.

AI Models Go Head-to-Head in Project AIR Study

Posted on by Brian Casey

One of the biggest challenges in assessing the performance of different AI algorithms is the varying conditions under which AI research studies are conducted. A new study from the Netherlands published this week in Radiology aims to correct that by testing a variety of AI algorithms head-to-head under similar conditions. 

There are over 200 AI algorithms on the European market (and even more in the US), many of which address the same clinical condition. 

  • Therefore, hospitals looking to acquire AI can find it difficult to assess the diagnostic performance of different models. 

The Project AIR initiative was launched to fill the gap in accurate assessment of AI algorithms by creating a Consumer Reports-style testing environment that’s consistent and transparent.

  • Project AIR researchers have assembled a validated database of medical images for different clinical applications, against which multiple AI algorithms can be tested; to ensure generalizability, images have come from different institutions and were acquired on equipment from different vendors. 

In the first test of the Project AIR concept, a team led by Kicky van Leeuwen of Radboud University Medical Centre in the Netherlands invited AI developers to participate, with nine products from eight vendors validated from June 2022 to January 2023: two models for bone age prediction and seven algorithms for lung nodule assessment (one vendor participated in both tests). Results included:

  • For bone age analysis, both of the tested algorithms (Visiana and Vuno) showed “excellent correlation” with the reference standard, with an r correlation coefficient of 0.987-0.989 (1 = perfect agreement)
  • For lung nodule analysis, there was a wider spread in AUC between the algorithms and human readers, with humans posting a mean AUC of 0.81
  • Researchers found superior performance for Annalise.ai (0.90), Lunit (0.93), Milvue (0.86), and Oxipit (0.88)

What’s next on Project AIR’s testing agenda? Van Leeuwen told The Imaging Wire that the next study will involve fracture detection. Meanwhile, interested parties can follow along on leaderboards for both bone age and lung nodule use cases. 

The Takeaway

Head-to-head studies like the one conducted by Project AIR may make many AI developers squirm (several that were invited declined to participate), but they are a necessary step toward building clinician confidence in the performance of AI algorithms that needs to take place to support the widespread adoption of AI. 

Get every issue of The Imaging Wire, delivered right to your inbox.

You might also like..

Select All

You're signed up!

It's great to have you as a reader. Check your inbox for a welcome email.

-- The Imaging Wire team

You're all set!