The “Patient Test Result Information Act”, or Pennsylvania Act 112 of 2018, will take full effect on December 23, 2019. The Act was originally scheduled to begin in December 2018, but the imposition of citations and fines was delayed for one year. During that time, many hospitals and radiology practices have implemented systems designed to help them comply with this law.
Any physician who has read about the relatively high award in a recent medical malpractice lawsuit has to be thinking about how they can protect their own practice against a similar outcome from a missed communication with a patient or primary care physician. In case you missed it, our recent article describes the lessons learned from this case.
A recent study aimed at calculating follow-up recommendations in radiology reports and comparing the efficacy of various methods to identify patients in need of follow-up suggests the usefulness of technologies that can take action on those recommendations. The study that was conducted by Dr. Emmanuel Carrodeguas and his colleagues, published on December 29, 2018 in the Journal of the American College of Radiology and reported by AuntMinnie.com, concludes in part that “Automatic identification of follow-up recommendations could have wide implications for establishing and timely performance of collaboratively developed follow-up care plans for actionable findings in radiology reports to improve quality and experience of care for patients.”
Healthcare reform is forcing ongoing risk vs. reward debates that seek consensus on the ideal balance of cost expenditure and patient care quality. As a prime example: the issue of if and how to best handle patients with incidental imaging findings receives continued scrutiny. This Reuters article summarizing a recent study in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) highlights the complexities inherent to developing standards of care for the major types of incidentalomas. It also reveals key insights that can be used for the benefit of radiology practices and patients alike.
Radiologists often identify incidental findings. When clinically significant, communicating these findings for further evaluation and treatment can be a lifesaving action. Despite best efforts, documentation in radiology reports does not adhere to a fixed standard, making subsequent analysis of incidental findings quite difficult. And, while such a finding might be insignificant in the present exam, over time a patient’s status may change and incidental findings may be a key indicator of appropriate follow-up care.
Converting the US healthcare economy to a value-based model that rewards both quality and cost savings is an objective that still holds bipartisan support, despite the well-known burdens of compliance that many providers have experienced. While some significant voices are currently advocating repeal and replacement of MIPS, others are for "charging forward".