This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Radiologic Imaging, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic

Mike Mitka

JAMA. 2005;293:665-667.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Chicago—The use of diagnostic imaging is growing, rapidly fueled by its ability to better uncover patient ailments in a less invasive manner.

Imaging equipment is now found in many specialist offices outside the worlds of radiology and medical centers. Many patients say they favor this development because it gives them fast results without having to travel to yet another physician or the hospital.

But this rapid growth comes at a cost—now estimated to be nearing $100 billion annually, according to a report by the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association—a 40% jump since 2000.

Not surprisingly, insurers and Medicare officials are concerned about this rapid cost increase. They worry that diagnostic imaging’s growth is not simply the result of the natural evolution of health care delivery but that some part of the equation includes physicians seeking new revenue streams.

Radiologists say nonradiologists performing in-office diagnostic imaging may . . . [Full Text of this Article]

UTILIZATION SCRUTINIZED