Contracts between hospitals and radiology groups are evolving to reflect the shifting requirements of health care—and both parties can expect to continue to see changes, according to Stephanie Krent, an analyst with The Advisory Board. “What we have learned, from speaking with many hospitals and radiology groups, is that contracts need to be individualized to fit the relationship and to reflect current priorities,” Krent says. “It has to be a fluid process, with the contract continually updated to reflect how needs are changing and risk is shifting.”

Patient satisfaction is often misunderstood by health-care providers, according to William R. Johnson, CRA, MBA, RT, system director of patient experience with Memorial Health System (Springfield, Illinois). In Los Angeles, California, on April 10, at the 2013 spring meeting of AHRA: The Association for Medical Imaging Management, he presented “Patient Satisfaction: What It Isn’t, What It Is, and How to Do It Better.” He says, “It’s all about the patients’ experience of how they were treated as human beings. It’s about their perceptions of the caring they received during their clinical journeys.”

When the hospital is the buying party in an imaging joint venture, there are four potential issues that could terminate the transaction, all of which stem from due diligence. These issues include one or both parties failing to understand the distinction between fair market value and strategic value, conflicts surrounding how professional payments are determined after the transaction, collection irregularities or other problems with revenue recognition, and management and governance issues for the newly joint-ventured or acquired imaging center. All four of these transaction deal-breakers, however, can be avoided through understanding, preparation, commitment to communication, and setting expectations.

Radiology groups’ conversations with their hospital partners are undergoing an evolution, in the experience of Edward Rittweger, MD, president of Navesink Radiology (Red Bank, New Jersey). “In the past, most of the hospital discussions involving imaging have been about decreasing turnaround times and increasing efficiency in response to decreased reimbursements,” he says. “As we move forward, however, it will be more important for the radiology group to assist the hospital in developing metrics to evaluate how imaging adheres to decision-support mechanisms and evidence-based care protocols.”

All over the country, radiology practices are merging, consolidating, and forming networks in order to grow in size and, in theory, negotiate from a more powerful position while making the most of economies of scale. Tom Vaughan, MD, president of Kent Diagnostic Radiology Associates (Dover, Delaware), points out that the emphasis on growth raises some challenging questions, from a practice-management perspective. He says, “As you grow from being a small practice to being a large one, management becomes much more challenging. In some ways, it can be a luxury to be small.”

Clinical analytics for radiology can play a critical strategic role in practice development and growth, but only if the approach to aggregating and sharing analytics is effective, according to Paul Potok, DO, radiologist and board member with Quantum Imaging & Therapeutic Associates, Inc (Lewisberry, Pennsylvania), a 40-radiologist practice. “Many of the metrics we track are the same ones people have been tracking for years, but we do it differently,” Potok says. “Among other things, we make the information instantly accessible to everyone.”

In the last issue of RadAnalytics, I wrote about productivity and efficiency, with an emphasis on keeping an eye to quality. I believe that those group practices that figure out the key to improving individual radiologists’ productivity (as well as overall group productivity) while adhering to patient-centered quality objectives will thrive under the new collaborative reimbursement models that we are seeing in the market.

The aggregation and utilization of data in health care has two sides, according to Lynn Gibson, vice president and CTO of Christus Health, Irving, California. The first, and most in focus, is the provider’s; the second, less emphasized but equally important, is the patient’s. “Health care is on a rapidly changing path,” he says, “and data-driven analysis is necessary for both the caregiver and the patient. We have to be able to collect the pertinent information to support both sides and make it available to both the patient and the clinician.”