Valuable Breast Imaging resources are available on the
ACR website for our members including:

1. Downloadable social media promotions for October Breast Cancer Awareness month
2. Information on ACR policies and statements regarding breast imaging
3. Links to reliable sources for patient information

https://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/Breast-Imaging-Resources

---

 

Medicaid Coverage for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis

The NYS Health Department announced in the August 2017 Medicaid Update that the State’s Medicaid program will provide coverage for digital breast tomosynthesis, effective September 1, 2017 for Medicaid fee-for-service, and November 1, 2017 for Medicaid Managed Care. Further information can be found at this following link:

https://www.health.ny.gov/health_care/medicaid/program/update/2017/2017-08.htm

​The New York State Radiological Society was instrumental in getting DBT covered by the New York State Medicaid program by advocating at every level of government, including the State Legislature and the Executive Branch. Last year Society members met with officials at the New York State Health Department, Insurance Department, and the Governor’s Office to gain support for including DBT in the State’s Medicaid benefit package. In addition, last December the Society developed a joint statement with the Medical Society of the State of New York and provided testimony at the New York State Medicaid Evidence Based Review Advisory Committee meeting in support of Medicaid Coverage of DBT.

 

---

 

Dr. Bonnie Litvack, Dr. Rich Cavoli, Dr. Kimberly Feigin, and Dr. Susan Danahy accept the ACR award for Excellence in Government Relations for the New York State Radiological Society

---

 

Dr. Kimberly Feigin receives the ACR award for Excellence in Government Relations on behalf of the New York State Radiological Society

---

Statement of the New York State Radiological Society, Inc. to:  New York State Medicaid Evidence Based Benefit Review Advisory Committee Meeting  December 15, 2016 

The New York State Radiological Society (NYSRS) is the New York State chapter of the American College of Radiology (ACR) and represents 1523 diagnostic radiologist and radiation oncologists practicing in NY  state.  The NYSRS is committed to reducing breast cancer mortality by optimizing women’s access to  effective breast cancer screening.  Regular mammography is the mainstay of breast cancer screening,  with ample data to support its efficacy in reducing breast cancer deaths [1].  Full‐field digital mammography (FFDM) became widely utilized over the last decade as studies showed its improved  accuracy over traditional film‐screen mammography [2].

The NYSRS strongly recommends that the Medical Evidence Based Benefit Review Advisory Committee (EBBRAC) support and recommend Medicaid coverage of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis  (DBT).
Digital Breast Tomosynthesis is an application of digital mammography that allows for 3‐dimensional (3D) imaging of the breast.  Multiple studies performed over the last three years show that DBT has  significant advantages over conventional mammography (FFDM or film‐screen) including improved  accuracy, increased cancer detection rates, and a decrease in false positive results.  The decrease in false  positive rates results in fewer patient recalls for additional testing in women who do not have breast  cancer [3‐11].   Thus, DBT has the potential to decrease both breast cancer mortality and the anxiety and  costs associated with known limitations of traditional 2‐dimensional (2‐D) mammography,

Conventional mammography produces planar images in which overlapping tissue can result in both  patient recalls from false positive studies and in missed cancers from false negative studies.  Approximately 10% to 20% of the cases in which a woman must be recalled from screening  mammography are due to superimposed normal tissue simulating a lesion [12]. In addition, overlying  tissue can obscure cancers, with as many as 20% to 30% of cancers missed by conventional  mammography [13, 14). DBT helps address the problem of overlapping tissues in planar FFDM and  reduces interpretation inaccuracy.

The largest study to date published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2014 [7] which  compared 281,187 conventional mammograms to 173,663 DBT exams reported the following  statistically significant findings for DBT exams:

• A 41% increase in the detection of invasive breast cancers.
• A 29% increase in the detection of all breast cancers.
• A 15% decrease in women recalled for additional imaging.
• A 49% increase in positive predictive value for recall.
• A 21% increase in positive predictive value for biopsy.

A study published online on February 18, 2016 by JAMA Oncology reaffirmed that 3‐D mammography is  a better test for breast cancer screening. It found lower recall rates and the detection of more cancers  than 2‐D mammograms. The authors of the study said that it is the first longitudinal evidence that the  benefits of initial 3‐D mammograms can be sustained and improved over time with consecutive 3‐D  mammogram screening [15].

A 2015 study showed that wider adoption of DBT presents an opportunity to deliver value‐based care.  The study reported a $28.53 savings per woman screened due to the reduction in the number of women  recalled for additional follow‐up imaging and the ability of DBT to facilitate earlier diagnosis at less  invasive stages where treatment costs are lower [16].

The US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approved DBT in 2011 for the same indications as traditional  2‐D mammography including breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and intervention.    On August 26, 2014,  a second vendor received FDA approval for DBT. Other vendors are expected to apply for approval. In  the State of New York there are 111 sites that have implemented DBT.

It is important to note that DBT is not investigational. The term investigational implies that studies have  not been performed demonstrating improved performance compared with FFDM. Numerous large‐scale  studies of DBT have already demonstrated this benefit.

For all of the above reasons, the NYSRS strongly recommends that this Committee recommend Medicaid  coverage of digital breast tomosynthesis.

Thank you for the opportunity to present this information.

1. Feig, S.A., Current status of screening mammography. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am, 2002. 29(1): p. 123‐36.
2. Pisano, E.D., et al., Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast‐Cancer Screening. New England Journal  of Medicine, 2005. 353(17): p. 1773‐1783.
3. Skaane, P., et al., Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population‐based  screening program. Radiology, 2013. 267(1): p. 47‐56.
4. Ciatto, S., et al., Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast‐cancer screening (STORM): a  prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol, 2013. 14(7): p. 583‐9.
5. Haas, B.M., et al., Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer  screening. Radiology, 2013. 269(3): p. 694‐700.
6. Rose, S.L., et al., Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J  Roentgenol, 2013. 200(6): p. 1401‐8.
7. Friedewald, S.M., et al., Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA, 2014.  311(24): p. 2499‐507.
8. Greenberg, J.S., et al., Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for  breast cancer screening in community practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2014. 203(3): p. 687‐93.
9. Lourenco, A.P., et al., Changes in Recall Type and Patient Treatment Following Implementation of Screening Digital Breast  Tomosynthesis. Radiology, 2014: p. 140317.
10. Lee, C.I., et al., Comparative Effectiveness of Combined Digital Mammography and Tomosynthesis Screening for Women with Dense  Breasts. Radiology, 2014: p. 141237.
11. McCarthy, A.M., et al., Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general‐population  screening program. J Natl Cancer Ins
12. Rosenberg R.D., et al., Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology. 2006 Oct; 241 (1): 55‐66. Erratum in:  Radiology. 2014 May: 271(2):620.
13. Schell MJ et al. Evidence‐based target recall rates for screening mammography. Radiology. June 2007: 243: 681‐689.
14. Holland R, Mravunac M, Hendriks JH, Bekker BV. So‐called interval cancers of the breast: pathologic and radiologic analysis of sixtyfour cases. Cancer 1982;49(12):2527‐2533.
15. McDonald, E, et al., Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared With Digital Mammography: Outcomes Analysis From 3  Years of Breast Cancer Screening. JAMA Oncology Online. February 18, 2016.
16. Bonafede M, et al., Value analysis of digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening in a commercially‐insured US  population. ClincioEconomics and Outcomes Research. 2015: 7 53‐63,

 

---

MAMMOGRAPHY REGULATIONS

Regulations proposed by Governor Andrew M. Cuomo to require hospitals and extension clinics certified to offer mammography services under the Mammography Quality Standards Act to provide extended hours for mammography services are effective May 18, 2016.

At the request of the New York State Radiological Society, the final rule was amended to: 1) change the term “mammography services” to “screening mammography” to clarify that the requirement does not include diagnostic or other procedures; and 2) eliminate the requirement that the screening hours provided must be consecutive.

The final regulation provides that extended hours must be offered for at least 2 days each week, for at least 2 hours each day offered, for a total of at least 4 hours per week. Appointment times must offered during the following times:

• * Monday-Friday, between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. or 5 p.m. and 7 p.m.; or
• * Saturday or Sunday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.

The regulation includes a waiver provision that would allow a facility to be exempt from the requirements for up to 90 days if it does not have sufficient staff to provide the expanded hours, if the center is in the process of discontinuing mammography services, or such other hardships as the Department of Health (DOH) deems appropriate.

The Department of Health has advised us that if a facility cannot comply with the regulations as of May 18, 2016, that they can apply for a waiver.

 

---

 

---

ALL MEMBERS MEETING APRIL 2016

---

NEW YORK STATE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION EXPOSES PHYSICIANS AND OTHER HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONS TO LIABILITY TO NON-PATIENT MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL COMMUNITY

The majority decision in Davis v. South Nassau Communities Hospital must be viewed as alarming to physicians and other health care professions. Physicians who administer or prescribe medication to patients must be prepared to document that they advised the patient of the foreseeable side effects of the medication, and, in particular, if the medication could foreseeably impair the patient’s ability to safely operate an automobile. Physicians must be prepared to document that they advised the patient not to drive while taking the medication.

---

ACR 2015: THE CROSSROADS OF RADIOLOGY
Washington, D.C.  May 2015

---

IMAGE GENTLY CAMPAIGN

Radiological Training and Community Outreach Learning Sessions

                 open link for details and training dates
http://www.albany.edu/sph/cphce/berp.shtml

 

 

---

 

THE NEW YORK STATE RADIOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.

A CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY
www.nysrs.org

NYSRS Statement on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis

The New York State Radiological Society (NYSRS) is the New York State chapter of the American College of Radiology (ACR) and represents 1523 diagnostic radiologist and radiation oncologists practicing in NY state. The NYSRS is committed to reducing breast cancer mortality by optimizing women’s access to effective breast cancer screening. Regular mammography is the mainstay of breast cancer screening, with ample data to support its efficacy in reducing breast cancer deaths [1]. Full-field digital mammography became widely utilized over the last decade as studies showed its improved accuracy over traditional film-screen mammography [2].

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is an application of digital mammography that allows for 3-dimensional (3-D) imaging of the breast. Multiple studies performed over the last three years have shown that it has improved accuracy over full-field digital mammography, demonstrating both an increased cancer detection rate and a decrease in false positive results; that is, results that lead to additional testing in women who do not have breast cancer[3-11]. Thus, DBT has the potential to decrease both breast cancer mortality and the anxiety and costs associated with known limitations of traditional 2-dimensional (2-D) mammography.

Widespread availability of DBT will facilitate research assessing long term clinical outcomes and identification of subgroups of women most likely to benefit from the examinations. As with any medical examination, availability is greatly impacted by reimbursement for the service provided. Interoperability among different DBT and Radiology Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) vendors is another essential factor for optimizing patient access. In the state of NY, there are currently over 80 sites that have implemented DBT.

The US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approved DBT in 2011 for the same indications as traditional 2-D mammography including breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and intervention. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently included payment codes and reimbursement rate values for DBT in its final 2015 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) and Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (HOPPS) and will be covering DBT as of January 1, 2015. Along with the ACR, the NYSRS supports CMS’s decision and strongly urges private insurers to cover beneficiaries for DBT as a medically necessary alternative and supplement to 2-D mammography for screening and diagnosis of breast cancer and to ultimately facilitate women’s access to these important exams.

1. Feig, S.A., Current status of screening mammography. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am, 2002. 29(1): p. 123-36.
2. Pisano, E.D., et al., Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening. New England Journal of Medicine, 2005. 353(17): p. 1773-1783.
3. Skaane, P., et al., Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology, 2013. 267(1): p. 47-56.
4. Ciatto, S., et al., Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol, 2013. 14(7): p. 583-9.
5. Haas, B.M., et al., Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology, 2013. 269(3): p. 694-700.
6. Rose, S.L., et al., Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2013. 200(6): p. 1401-8.
7. Friedewald, S.M., et al., Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA, 2014. 311(24): p. 2499-507.
8. Greenberg, J.S., et al., Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2014. 203(3): p. 687-93.
9. Lourenco, A.P., et al., Changes in Recall Type and Patient Treatment Following Implementation of Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. Radiology, 2014: p. 140317.
10. Lee, C.I., et al., Comparative Effectiveness of Combined Digital Mammography and Tomosynthesis Screening for Women with Dense Breasts. Radiology, 2014: p. 141237.
11. McCarthy, A.M., et al., Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program. J Natl Cancer Inst, 2014. 106(11).

 

---

 

Past-President Victor Scarmato, MD, FACR receives honorary recognition plaque from in-coming President S. Richard Cavoli, MD

---

Geraldine McGinty, MD, MBA, FACR, Chair of the Economics Committee speaks at the NYSRS October 2014 All Members meeting about Imaging 3.0 and the upcoming CMS proposed rules.

---

 

RADPAC 2014 Outstanding Group Practices in New York State

Hudson Valley Radiologists, PC

Windsong Radiology Group

ACR AMCLC 2014 Chapter Recognition Award
Government Relations

 

NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS

Update May 26, 2011

George Autz, MD FACR-Breast Imaging Committee

To All Members,

New York State Department of Health requires that all patients having a screening mammogram study have a prescription requesting such exam. This requirement comes from regulation that requires a prescription for ordering the application of radiation from radiation equipment to a patient:

16.19 Limitations on application of radiation to humans.9

(a) Diagnostic x-ray equipment. No person other than a professional practitioner, as defined in section 16.2(a)(85) of this part; a physician’s assistant working under the authority of a physician in accordance with Article 37 of the Public Health Law; or, a certified nurse practitioner working in accordance with Article 139 of the Education Law, within a practice agreement with a physician, or under the authority of a Medical Director or Medical Board in an Article 28 facility, shall direct or order the application of radiation from radiation equipment, as defined in section 16.2(a)(97) of this Part to a human being… Such direction or order to apply, or application of, radiation shall be in the course of the practitioner’s professional practice and shall comply with the applicable provisions of Part 89 of this Title and article 35 of the Public Health Law of the State of New York.

This includes self-referral patients and self-requesting patients. New York State regulations supersede MQSA regulations which do not require a prescription. Self-referred patients are those who come for mammography but have no health care provider, who decline a health care provider, or for whom the provider declines responsibility. Self-requesting patients are those who come for mammography, but are able to name a health care provider (or accept a health care provider offered by the facility) who accepts responsibility for that patient’s clinical breast care. If the health care provider declines to accept the mammography report from the facility, then those patients should be treated as self-referred.

Facilities that want to perform screening mammography on self referred patients need to apply to the Department of Health and comply with the regulations listed under section 16.22 of Part 16 of the Public Health Law, using the following link: http://www.nyhealth.gov/environmental/radiological/radon/radioactive_material_licensing/docs/part16.pdf

Facilities performing screening mammography on self referral patients still require a prescription, which must be written by a qualified person as defined in section 16.19 above. Radiologists may write the prescription for these patients. Any further questions may be addressed to me at the e-mail address below.

Sincerely,

George Autz, MD
Chair, Mammography Committee
New York State Radiological Society
gaport@optonline.net

RADIOLOGY SURCHARGE BILL DEFEATED

Update Sept 2, 2010

Shauneen McNally (Weingarten, Reid & McNally) Lobbyist

Following the lobbying efforts of the New York State Radiological Society, MSSNY, New York State specialty societies, and The Emergency Coalition to Save Cancer Imaging, the Governor’s proposal to impose a surcharge on HMO’s for radiological and surgical services was not included in the Budget bills passed to date, and is not included in the Revenue Bill (A.9710-D) that passed the Assembly and Senate.

The New York State Radiological Society has a long history of actively representing the specialty of Radiology including significant involvement in legislative issues. Because of our legislative successes, the NYSRS has been awarded the Governmental Relations Award from the American College of Radiology for the past six years.

Updated Jan 31, 2010

The Department of Health has requested each medical specialty society to inform its members that they should be sure to comply with a state law that took effect a year ago which requires each physician to update his or her profile information within the six months prior to the expiration date of such physician’s registration period, as a condition of registration renewal at the State Education Department. The profile update is to be provided to the Department of Health.

That law further provides that the State Education Department may not re-register any physician unless he or she includes with the re-registration application an attestation made under penalty of perjury that he or she has, within the six months prior to submission of the re-registration application, updated his or her physician profile.