Greater Use Of In-Patient Diagnostic Imaging Improves Patient Outcomes Without Significantly Impacting Costs
Main Category: MRI / PET / UltrasoundAlso Included In: Public Health; Radiology / Nuclear Medicine
Article Date: 29 Oct 2009 - 6:00 PDT
Hospitals that make greater use of inpatient diagnostic imaging exams achieve lower in-hospital mortality rates with little or no impact on costs, according to a peer-reviewed study of more than 1 million patient outcomes in more than 100 hospitals nationwide published in the November issue of the Journal of the American College of Radiology (JACR).
"The results of our in-depth study would indicate that greater use of imaging does, in fact, lead to better patient outcomes in terms of lower in-hospital death rates with no significant impact on overall cost," said David W. Lee, Ph.D., lead author of the article and Senior Director, Health Economics and Outcome Research at GE Healthcare. "This study dealt only with imaging provided in hospitals, but would seem to confirm what many have long suspected - that medical imaging exams save lives."
Researchers examined data from the Thomson Reuters Drug Database (HDD) exploring the association between the utilization of diagnostic imaging services and two key hospital outcome measures: mortality and costs. Their analysis examined data from inpatient admissions that occurred during 2007 in the 102 hospitals in the HDD that provided sufficiently detailed data to support assessment of the utilization of inpatient diagnostic services. The study included all clinical conditions treated in-hospital, assessing the experience of patients with private, commercial and governmental-sponsored insurance.
"Because use of imaging procedures grew rapidly in the early parts of this decade, payers and policymakers have questioned whether more diagnostic imaging use is associated with better health outcomes. Based on our research, the answer would appear to be yes," said Lee.
Source: Heather Curry
American Roentgen Ray Society
Visit our mri / pet / ultrasound section for the latest news on this subject.
MLA
12 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/169177.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/169177.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (1)
Most Hopsitals Do Not Charge For Inpatient Evaluation
posted by Philip Chao on 29 Oct 2009 at 8:32 amI would tend to agree if you can get imaging for no additional hosptial charge of course you should try to get this. Many patients do not realize that if their hospitalization is paid through a DRG that their imaging is free. One thing I would recommend is to not allow yourself to be blasted with xrays for a CT study. Most patients do not know there are many risks associated with a routine CT scan - computerized tomography study. Although I am a radiologist I think it is important to mention that CT scans deliver a very high radiation dose. It is high enough that the estimate risk of getting cancer (in ten years) from the scan is 1 in 1000. In fact we see a rising number of lymphomas, leukemias and thyroid cancer whcih parallels the tripling or qudrupling of CT procedures in the past two decades. This is very troubling. Most providers do not explain the risk of CT iodinated contrast which carries with it a transient risk of decreased renal function in 20% of patients. The risk of cancer is 1 in 550 in the pediatric population. And this is for each area scanned. So a CT exam of abdomen and pelvis with and without contrast is actually 4 scans and carries with it a risk of cancer of 1 in 250. This is a significant radiation dose and a significant risk. Why is it that no patients are given the alternative of MRI of the abdomen and pelvis which is done with a 3 phase liver study on a state of the art scanner and has no cancer risk. It also should be done with the safest contrast which is either Prohance or Eovist. These newest generation MR contrasts are more stable and have never been associated with nephrogenic systemic sclerosis. This debilitating disease is totally preventable. It is a shame most facilities do not switch to the safer contrasts.
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
![]()
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.




