Search

Out-of-network (OON) balance billing, commonly known as surprise billing but better described as a surprise gap in health insurance coverage, occurs when an individual with private health insurance (vs a public insurer such as Medicare) is administered unanticipated care from a physician who is not in their health plan's network. Such unexpected OON care may result in substantial out-of-pocket costs for patients. Although ending surprise billing is patient centric, patient protective, and noncontroversial, passing federal legislation was challenging given its ability to disrupt insurer-physician good-faith negotiations and thus impact in-network rates. Like past proposals, the recently passed No Surprises Act takes patients out of the middle of insurer-physician OON reimbursement disputes, limiting patients' expense to standard in-network cost-sharing amounts. The new law, based on arbitration, attempts to protect good-faith negotiations between physicians and insurance companies and encourages network contracting. Radiology practices, even those that are fully in network or that never practiced surprise billing, could nonetheless be affected. Ongoing rulemaking processes will have meaningful roles in determining how the law is made operational. Physician and stakeholder advocacy has been and will continue to be crucial to the ongoing evolution of this process. © RSNA, 2021.

To evaluate an approach to the treatment of iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT) that included pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis with reteplase and the Helix mechanical thrombectomy device, followed by early stent placement.During 3-year period, 23 symptomatic limbs in 18 patients with iliofemoral DVT were treated with reteplase catheter-directed thrombolysis. After an initial infusion of 8 to 16 hours, any residual acute thrombus over a long segment (10 cm) was treated by maceration with use of the Helix thrombectomy device. Residual short-segment (10 cm) iliac vein thrombus and/or stenosis were treated with stent placement. Technical success, clinical success, complications, thrombolytic infusion time, total thrombolytic agent dose, fibrinogen level changes, and late limb status were retrospectively analyzed.Technical success was achieved in 23 of 23 limbs (100%). Clinical success was achieved in 22 of 23 limbs (96%). Complete or partial thrombolysis was observed in 19 of 23 limbs (83%). Major bleeding was observed in one patient (6%) and necessitated blood transfusion. Mean per-limb thrombolytic infusion time and total dose were 19.6 hours +/- 8.1 and 13.8 U +/- 5.3 reteplase, respectively. Mean serum fibrinogen nadir and percentage drop in serum fibrinogen were 282 mg/dL +/- 167 and 47% +/- 24%, respectively. Late (mean, 19.8 +/- 11.6 months) modified Venous Disability Scores were 0 (none) for six limbs, 1 (mild) for 10 limbs, 2 (moderate) for two limbs, and 3 (severe) for no limbs.In a preliminary experience, pharmacomechanical catheter-directed iliofemoral DVT thrombolysis with early stent placement was safe and effective.

PURPOSE To evaluate the authors' preliminary experience with use of endovascular methods to treat inferior vena cava (IVC) thrombosis in patients with IVC filters. MATERIALS AND METHODS Catheter-directed thrombolysis, balloon maceration, mechanical thrombectomy, and stent placement were used to treat 10 patients with thrombosis of filter-bearing IVCs causing symptoms in 18 limbs. Procedural challenges, technical and clinical success, complications, postprocedural filter status, and postprocedural pulmonary embolism (PE) prophylaxis were monitored. RESULTS Technical and clinical success were achieved in 15 of 18 (83%) and 14 of 18 symptomatic limbs (78%), respectively. Major bleeding (muscular hematoma) occurred in one patient (10%). Postprocedural PE prophylaxis included anticoagulation ( n = 8) and placement of a new filter into a newly placed Wallstent ( n = 1). During clinical follow-up, no clinically detectable PE was observed. Data pertaining to late limb status were available at a median of 19 months (range 1–46 months) follow-up in seven patients: three patients were asymptomatic, two patients had ambulatory edema only, one patient had constant mild edema, and one patient had constant severe edema. Postprocedural filter stability was radiographically documented at a median of 255 days (range, 4–1021 d) of follow-up. CONCLUSION Endovascular recanalization of the occluded IVC is feasible even in the presence of an IVC filter.

PURPOSE To evaluate the use of adjunctive mechanical thrombectomy (MT) with pharmacologic catheter-directed lower extremity venous thrombolysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS Catheter-directed thrombolysis with adjunctive MT was used to treat 28 symptomatic limbs in 20 patients (22 procedures) with lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) between August 1997 and July 2001. Procedural success, major bleeding, thrombolytic infusion time, and total thrombolytic agent dose were recorded. RESULTS Procedural success was achieved in 23 of 28 limbs (82%). Fifteen patients (18 limbs) received iliac vein stents. Major bleeding was observed after three of 22 procedures (14%) and resulted in transfusion in two patients and endometrial ablation in the third patient. Mean per-limb infusion time was 16.8 hours ± 12.8. Mean per-limb total doses were lower than those reported in published studies of DVT thrombolysis: 2.67 million U ± 1.60 urokinase, 18.4 mg ± 10.7 tissue plasminogen activator, and 13.8 U ± 6.9 reteplase. Venographic analysis demonstrated minimal thrombus removal (26.0% ± 24.1) when using MT alone, compared with substantial thrombus removal (62.0% ± 24.9) when using MT after pharmacologic thrombolytic agents had been administered ( P = .006). CONCLUSION The use of adjunctive MT to augment pharmacologic catheter-directed DVT thrombolysis provides comparable procedural success and may reduce the required thrombolytic dose and infusion duration.