American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 157, 603-607, Copyright © 1991 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Analysis of economics and use of MR imaging units in the United States in 1990

RG Evens and RG Evens Jr
Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63110.

Personnel from the 72 facilities with the most experience in MR imaging were surveyed, and 45 questionnaires were returned with data to study the economics and use of MR imaging facilities. The data from 1990 were compared with results of studies done in 1985 and 1987. The facilities studied were highly selected, and the data and conclusions are unlikely to be representative of all MR facilities currently operational in the United States. The "typical" MR unit operated about 66 hr per week and imaged 68 patients. Most procedures were examinations of the head and spine (73%), with examinations of bone and joint increasing in frequency (17%). Scheduling delays for both inpatients and outpatients have decreased since 1987, indicating that clinical demand is being met by MR facilities. The global (technical plus professional) charge for an examination was approximately $950, and the charge for IV contrast material was an additional $200. IV contrast material was used in approximately 40% of head and 20% of spine studies. The typical MR units in 1990 was used to examine more than 3000 patients per year at a charge of approximately $750 each for the technical component. Technical billings for each unit were approximately $2.3 million, and net revenues were almost $1.9 million. We estimate the annual operating cost of an MR unit in 1990 was $1.3 million, so the typical MR unit had an annual net profit of approximately $500,000. This is a considerable improvement from the economic position in 1985, when each MR unit was losing approximately $400,000 annually. We conclude that experienced MR imaging facilities are now profitable owing to increased efficiency and continually rising charges. We suggest the economic historical pattern demonstrated by MR imaging (large losses initially followed by profitability within several years owing to increased efficiency and higher charges) is a typical pattern for many new technologies with the current medical payment system in the United States.
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. G.W. Fraser, A. R. Moody, P. S. Morgan, A. L. Martel, and I. Davidson Diagnosis of Lower-Limb Deep Venous Thrombosis: A Prospective Blinded Study of Magnetic Resonance Direct Thrombus Imaging Ann Intern Med, January 15, 2002; 136(2): 89 - 98. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Landrigan Preventable Deaths and Injuries during Magnetic Resonance Imaging N. Engl. J. Med., September 27, 2001; 345(13): 1000 - 1001. [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. R. Grable Abnormal Findings on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in a Group of Motor Vehicle Accident Patients with Low Back Pain American Journal of Medical Quality, December 1, 1993; 8(4): 194 - 196. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. R. Edelman and S. Warach Magnetic Resonance Imaging- Second of Two Parts N. Engl. J. Med., March 18, 1993; 328(11): 785 - 791. [Full Text]

				B. J. Livstone, L. Parker, and D. C. Levin Trends in the Utilization of MR Angiography and Body MR Imaging in the U.S. Medicare Population: 1993-1998 Radiology, March 1, 2002; 222(3): 615 - 618. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]