HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Deitch, C. H. Articles by Sunshine, J. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Deitch, C. H. Articles by Sunshine, J. H. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

The Relationship of Managed Care To Business, Professional, and Organizational Aspects of Radiology Practices

¹ Department of Sociology, George Washington University, 2121 Eye St., NW, Washington, DC 20052.
² Research Department, American College of Radiology, 1891 Preston White Dr., Reston, VA 20191-4397.
³ Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520.

OBJECTIVE. We sought to determine the extent of managed care involvement among radiology practices of different types, locations, and sizes; the factors associated with differences in involvement; and the impact of managed care on professional, organizational, financial, and hospital-relations aspects of radiology practices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. A survey was mailed in 1999 to a sample of 970 radiology practices; completed, usable surveys were returned by 66% of the practices. Three indicators of managed care were used: a practice's percentage of managed care (HMOs plus preferred provider organizations), local area HMO penetration rate, and self-reported perceived effect of managed care.

RESULTS. Percentage of managed care averaged 30% but was 40% for multispecialty groups. It was relatively high in large metropolitan areas, for practices with no hospital activity, and for practices with any owners who were not practice members. The three measures of managed care were only moderately correlated (correlation coefficient, 0.25–0.33). None of the managed care variables had a statistically significant effect on days provided for vacation and continuing medical education, promptness of payment, years required for practice ownership (partnership), and percentage of practice members who were owners. Higher percentage of managed care was associated with higher collection rates, whereas greater perceived impact of managed care had the opposite association. Two thirds of practices belonged to at least one managed care–related organization such as an independent practice association. Most radiology practices reported no involvement in the managed care negotiations of hospitals, which was true even when the hospital's negotiations included the radiologists' fees or when the practice determined its level of involvement.

CONCLUSION. Many negative outcomes most feared by radiologists regarding the effect of managed care have not materialized. Perceptions of practices as to the effect of managed care seem to reflect negative aspects of their general situation, not only realities of managed care.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. H. Sunshine, R. S. Lewis, and M. Bhargavan A Portrait of Interventional Radiologists in the United States Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2005; 185(5): 1103 - 1112. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Hogan and J. H. Sunshine Financial Ratios in Diagnostic Radiology Practices: Variability and Trends Radiology, March 1, 2004; 230(3): 774 - 782. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]