What People Think
 |
 |
45% For, 55% Against
Take Action
| Vote on this Bill | |
  |
For |
  |
Against |
| Speak Out | |
  |
Comment on this Bill |
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
H.R. 1293, The Access to Medicare Imaging Act of 2007
Revision History 
Below is the revision history of this article.
(Learn how to edit the WashingtonWatch.com wiki.)
No revisions found.
Learn More
Trackback URL: http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/trackback/110_HR_1293.html
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
mike
The cuts in medical imaging must be reversed. These cuts range from 30-50 percent or more for many procedures and they will force physicians to cutback on offering medical imaging services, or stop offering imaging altogether. This would mean patients would have to travel further, or simply go without the treatments they need.
Vicki
In order for people to obtain high-quality health care, physicians must be able to offer state of the art outpatient imaging services. They can't provide this care if they are not paid appropriately.
TL
Cost of advanced imaging equipment is substantial for hospitals but is nexessary to provide patients and physicians the tools necessary to diagnos and treat disease in fast effective manner. Hospitals must be able to be reimbursed appropriatley to be able to operate and staff this life savig equipment. They cannot continue to bare the brunt of the reductions.
John
Yes, the cuts were draconian, and should be reversed. However, a significant part of the high cost of imaging has come from doctors who can self-refer due to the in-office exception of Stark II. Studies show that they order from 2 to 8 times the number of scans that they would otherwise, costing up to $16Billion per year in some estimates. How about dealing with the REAL problem?
Deborah
Part 1
IMAGING (Radiology) vs IMAGE GUIDANCE (Radiation Therapy)
Imaging refers to studies performed for diagnostic purposes and require that the physician render an interpretation & report interpreting.
Image guidance (IGRT) is the utilization of images (i.e., port films, ultrasound, cone beam CT, stereoscopic) to better target the radiation dose in the tumor while reducing the radiation exposure to healthy organs. Image guidance leads to improved control of the tumor while simultaneously reducing the potential for acute side effects due to irradiation of healthy tissue surrounding the tumor.
Congress has grouped image guidance procedures with diagnostic imaging, reflected by the packaging of these codes. Image guidance is required in radiation therapy for the safe efficacious treatment of patients. Congress continues to group radiology (diagnostics) with radiation therapy (treatment), and these modalities are not the same and should be treated separately.
Deborah
Part 2
As radiation therapy technology continues to advance, we must fund the technology to ensure the safe delivery to the patients. The packaging of imaging in the hospital under OPPS reduces any incentive for hospitals to purchase the image guidance equipment. In other countries, image guided radiation therapy (IGRT) is mandated when intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is prescribed. In the US, over 50% of hospitals, including many academic centers, are treating with IMRT without the benefit of IGRT. Best doctor practices should be the goal of our healthcare system. Congress should revisit this issue and reinstate the funding for imaging in radiation therapy (hospital OPPS).