Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2005 Feb;184(2):433-8.
doi: 10.2214/ajr.184.2.01840433.

Community-based mammography practice: services, charges, and interpretation methods

Affiliations

Community-based mammography practice: services, charges, and interpretation methods

R Edward Hendrick et al. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Feb.

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of our study was to accurately describe facility characteristics among community-based screening and diagnostic mammography practices in the United States.

Materials and methods: A survey was developed and applied to community-based facilities providing screening mammography in three geographically distinct locations in the states of Washington, Colorado, and New Hampshire. The facility survey was conducted between December 2001 and September 2002. Characteristics surveyed included facility type, services offered, charges for screening and diagnostic mammography, information systems, and interpretation methods, including the frequency of double interpretation.

Results: Among 45 responding facilities, services offered included screening mammography at all facilities, diagnostic mammography at 34 facilities (76%), breast sonography at 30 (67%), breast MRI at seven (16%), and nuclear medicine breast scanning at seven (16%). Most facilities surveyed were radiology practices in nonhospital settings. Eight facilities (18%) reported performing clinical breast examinations routinely along with screening mammography. Only five screening sites (11%) used computer-aided detection (CAD) and only two (5%) used digital mammography. Nearly two thirds of facilities interpreted screening mammography examinations on-site, whereas 91% of facilities interpreted diagnostic examinations on-site. Only three facilities (7%) interpreted screening examinations on line as they were performed. Approximately half of facilities reported using some type of double interpretation, although the methods of double interpretation and the fraction of cases double-interpreted varied widely across facilities. On average, approximately 15% of screening examinations and 10% of diagnostic examinations were reported as being double-interpreted.

Conclusion: Comparison of this survey's results with those collected a decade earlier indicates dramatic changes in the practice of mammography, including a clear distinction between screening and diagnostic mammography, batch interpretation of screening mammograms, and improved quality assurance and medical audit tools. Diffusion of new technologies such as CAD and digital mammography was not widespread. The methods of double-interpretation and the fraction of cases double-interpreted varied widely across study sites.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Graph shows total charges (technical and interpretation charges) for screening mammography (individual points) compared with the Medicare reimbursement rate for screening mammography (solid line).
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Graph shows total charges (technical and interpretation charges) for diagnostic mammography (individual points) compared with Medicare reimbursement rate for diagnostic mammography (solid line).
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Pie chart shows double-interpretation methods for screening mammograms at 23 U.S. facilities. BI-RADS = Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [18].

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Breast cancer screening. Vol. 7. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2002. Handbooks of cancer prevention.
    1. The Mammography Quality Standards Act (Public L No. 102–539), October 27, 1992

    1. Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR. 1997;169:1001–1008. - PubMed
    1. Houn F, Brown ML. Current practice of screening mammography in the United States: data from the National Survey of Mammography Facilities. Radiology. 1994;190:209–215. - PubMed
    1. Thurfjell EL, Lernevall K, Taube AAS. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology. 1994;191:241–244. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms