Your Guide to Medical Imaging Equipment

In the cardiovascular imaging community, there has been much anticipation over the last few months regarding the proposed addition of some codes to the ambulatory surgery center (ASC) payable list. Well, the day has come and it is good news!

It’s been several years since Philips declared their Forte nuclear camera end of life (EOL). Still, through the service and spare parts support of third party providers, many users have continued scanning patients with them. Now, however, this years-long arrangement may no longer be a viable one.

On September 19, Philips Sr. Manager of Post Market Surveillance issued an urgent field safety notice to all users of the Forte family to discontinue use until further notice. This applies to all Fortes, including the Powerpack, the Jetstream, or systems refurbished by Philips.

In the notice, Philips said “There is a possibility that a detector may fall unimpeded vertically to the end stops of its travel limit, due to mechanical failure, possibly making contact with a patient that could result in entrapment, serious injury, or death.” Essentially, anyone who keeps using the Forte runs the risk of hurting a patient, or worse, with a falling detector.

This news raises serious questions for facilities that have relied on the Philips Forte for their nuclear medicine studies. What's being done? How long will it take? What are our alternatives? Below, we'll address those questions with the information that's available now. Check back periodically to to see updates as they become available from Philips and the FDA.

Recently, a proposal through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recommended a change to the 2020 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) that would reduce reimbursement for cardiac PET scan procedures by 80%. While the proposed change doesn't prevent anyone from continuing to offer cardiac PET services, it does drop reimbursement to a level well below what's needed to maintain a viable cardiac imaging service, a move that will force many providers out of the market and eliminate access to service for the majority of patients.

This news raises several questions. What is CMS thinking with this proposal? What will patients do if the proposal is accepted? And what can be done about it? We'll answer these questions below to shed more light on the situation and what's to be done as CMS administrators make their deliberations.

Thanks for stopping by to learn about XR-29. Click here to determine if your CT is XR-29 compliant: Is My CT Scanner Compliant?

You might be surprised to hear that XR-29 is NOT about low dose. Click here to read more: Do I Need Iterative Reconstruction?

Are you asking yourself if you should buy an after-market add-on to make your CT compliant? Click here to find out why the answer is probably no: NEMA Whitepaper Clarifies Aftermarket Add-ons, RDSR, and More

Remember also that XR-29 only Affects Medicare Outpatients in Hospitals and Clinics and Does not Apply to PET/CT

Last, but not least, here is A Guide to Checking Your System for XR-29 Compliance.

Keep reading here for an analysis of the law itself.

On April 1, 2014, President Obama signed into law the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (HR 4302). Per the act, beginning in 2016, Medicare paid less for certain diagnostic CT scans performed on CT equipment that does not meet the XR-29 CT standard (MITA Smart Dose) .  

What does this mean for you? For some, not a lot. Many CT scanners already meet the requirements. For others, the legislation meant replacing their system altogether or facing the applicable reimbursement cuts. To help you get a better idea of how XR-29 might affect your next CT equipment decision, we've taken a closer look at the law and the penalties below.

In February of 2019, the Medical Imaging and Technology Alliance (MITA) released a new standards whitepaper titled "Requirements for Servicing of Medical Imaging Equipment". It is the latest item to stir the ongoing debate on who should be servicing imaging equipment and how it should be serviced.

A document like this has the potential to be worrisome for some service entities. We don’t see it that way.