Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 44, Issue 7, pp 2656–2662 | Cite as

In comparison with other abdominal imaging modalities, which radiologists interpret abdominal MRI?

  • Andrew B. RosenkrantzEmail author
  • Krishna P. Shanbhogue
  • Richard DuszakJr.



To assess subspecialty mix and case volumes of general and abdominal subspecialty radiologists interpreting abdominal MRI.


The 2016 CMS Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master File was used to obtain billed counts of radiologist-interpreted abdominal fluoroscopy, US, CT, and MRI examinations. The CMS Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File was used to assess the subspecialty mix and case volume of the radiologists interpreting those examinations.


The fraction of all abdominal imaging examinations interpreted by generalists and abdominal subspecialty radiologists was 70.7% and 16.5% for fluoroscopy; 68.7% and 21.0% for US; 71.4% and 19.2% for CT; and 41.9% and 52.5% for MRI. In 2016, the fraction of general and abdominal radiologists interpreting > 50 fluoroscopy examinations on Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries was 15.1% and 16.2%. For > 50 US examinations, the fraction was 61.5% and 60.5%; for > 50 CT examinations, 91.2% and 79.6%; and for > 50 MRI examinations, 4.0% and 28.5%. The fraction of abdominal imaging examinations interpreted overall by low-volume providers (those interpreting ≤ 50 examinations in 2016) was 59.5% for fluoroscopy, 17.5% for US, 6.3% for CT, and 50.6% for MRI.


Nationally, most abdominal fluoroscopy, US, and CT examinations are interpreted by general radiologists, who have similar annual volumes of these examinations as abdominal subspecialty radiologists. In contrast, most abdominal MRI examinations are interpreted by abdominal subspecialty radiologists, who attain considerably higher volumes. These findings have implications for workforce planning and abdominal imaging fellowship design to ensure their graduates are optimally prepared to contribute to their future practices.


Abdominal radiologist Radiologist workforce MRI Health policy 



Authors Rosenkrantz and Duszak are supported by research grants from the Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute.


  1. 1.
    Rosman DA, Duszak R, Jr., Wang W, Hughes DR, Rosenkrantz AB. Changing Utilization of Noninvasive Diagnostic Imaging Over 2 Decades: An Examination Family-Focused Analysis of Medicare Claims Using the Neiman Imaging Types of Service Categorization System. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210(2):364-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Qayyum A. Diffusion-weighted imaging in the abdomen and pelvis: concepts and applications. Radiographics. 2009;29(6):1797-810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Madhuranthakam AJ, Yuan Q, Pedrosa I. Quantitative Methods in Abdominal MRI: Perfusion Imaging. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2017;26(6):251-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Srinivasa Babu A, Wells ML, Teytelboym OM, et al. Elastography in Chronic Liver Disease: Modalities, Techniques, Limitations, and Future Directions. Radiographics. 2016;36(7):1987-2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kloeckner R, Otto G, Biesterfeld S, Oberholzer K, Dueber C, Pitton MB. MDCT versus MRI assessment of tumor response after transarterial chemoembolization for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2010;33(3):532-40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pedrosa I, Sun MR, Spencer M, et al. MR imaging of renal masses: correlation with findings at surgery and pathologic analysis. Radiographics. 2008;28(4):985-1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rahman WT, Hussain HK, Parikh ND, Davenport MS. Reinterpretation of Outside Hospital MRI Abdomen Examinations in Patients With Cirrhosis: Is the OPTN Mandate Necessary? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;207(4):782-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary File. Accessed on: December 28, 2018.
  9. 9.
    Gyftopoulos S, Harkey P, Hemingway J, Hughes DR, Rosenkrantz AB, Duszak R, Jr. Changing Musculoskeletal Extremity Imaging Utilization From 1994 Through 2013: A Medicare Beneficiary Perspective. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209(5):1103-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morris E, Duszak R, Jr., Sista AK, Hemingway J, Hughes DR, Rosenkrantz AB. National Trends in Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement and Retrieval Procedures in the Medicare Population Over Two Decades. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(8):1080-6.sCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Bilal NH, Hughes DR, Duszak R, Jr. National specialty trends in billable diagnostic ultrasound in the ED: analysis of Medicare claims data. Am J Emerg Med. 2014;32(12):1470-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chokshi FH, Hughes DR, Wang JM, Mullins ME, Hawkins CM, Duszak R, Jr. Diagnostic Radiology Resident and Fellow Workloads: A 12-Year Longitudinal Trend Analysis Using National Medicare Aggregate Claims Data. J Am Coll Radiol. 2015;12(7):664-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Hawkins CM, Deitte LA, Hemingway J, Hughes DR, Duszak R, Jr. Invasive Procedural Versus Diagnostic Imaging and Clinical Services Rendered by Radiology Trainees Over Two Decades. J Am Coll Radiol. 2019. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Provider Utililzation and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier. cs-trends-and-reports/medicare-provider-charge-data/physician-and-other-supplier.html. Accessed on: December 28, 2018.
  15. 15.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Hoque K, Hemingway J, Hughes DR, Duszak R, Jr. Unique Medicare Beneficiaries Served: A Radiologist-Focused Specialty-Level Analysis. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(5):734-9 e2.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Nicola GN, Duszak R, Jr. Characteristics of High-Performing Radiologists Within Medicare Quality Programs. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(6):842-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Wang W, Vijayasarathi A, Duszak R, Jr. Factors Influencing List Prices for Radiologists’ Services. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14(11):1396-402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Wang W, Hughes DR, Ginocchio LA, Rosman DA, Duszak R, Jr. Academic Radiologist Subspecialty Identification Using a Novel Claims-Based Classification System. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(6):1249-55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Wang W, Bodapati S, Hughes DR, Duszak R, Jr. Private Practice Radiologist Subspecialty Classification Using Medicare Claims. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14(11):1419-25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Wang W, Hughes DR, Duszak R, Jr. Generalist versus Subspecialist Characteristics of the U.S. Radiologist Workforce. Radiology. 2018;286(3):929-37.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Wang W, Hughes DR, Duszak R, Jr. A County-Level Analysis of the US Radiologist Workforce: Physician Supply and Subspecialty Characteristics. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(4):601-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Friedberg EB, Prologo JD, Everett C, Duszak R, Jr. Generalist versus Subspecialist Workforce Characteristics of Invasive Procedures Performed by Radiologists. Radiology. 2018;289(1):140-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Duszak R, Jr., Muroff LR. Measuring and managing radiologist productivity, part 1: clinical metrics and benchmarks. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7(6):452-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Duszak R, Jr., Muroff LR. Measuring and managing radiologist productivity, part 2: beyond the clinical numbers. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7(7):482-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyNYU Langone HealthNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Radiology and Imaging SciencesEmory University School of MedicineAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations