Fixing what’s broken
The Annals study’s authors propose some solutions to the problems they quantified. The first is a sort of “super panel” that collectively evaluates readings. Although a completely unbiased panel would be nice, such impartiality is likely unsustainable, Mr. Smith said. He believes that over time, the panel would become vulnerable to politics and would work in favor of the companies.
Even without a panel, a method to provide greater transparency could be a great start, some suggest. The DOL could make the entire FBLP database public and analyze it annually. The authors also propose a flat fee for readings. Even now, Dr. Adcock said he doesn’t make anywhere close to the upper limit of $750 per readings. “My understanding is around $125 is a pretty characteristic fee [for reading a chest x-ray],” he elaborated. “Everyone I’ve had a conversation with is within 25 bucks [of that].”
That said, Dr. Adcock is not currently listed among the heavy readers who appear in the data used for the study; it’s possible that his experience is not representative. Some readers who were included in that dataset read more than 10 times the average number of classifications per reader – the average was 242 classifications – and read 95% of chest x-rays as negative, according to Dr. Friedman. This news organization obtained the names of two doctors whose readings were 95% negative on a high volume of cases. Neither agreed to an interview.
It’s possible that if the dataset had included readings from more recent years, Dr. Adcock would have appeared more frequently, given his personal estimates. That’s why the study authors recommend that the DOL conduct this kind of analysis annually in order to get an accurate picture of who is contributing to these cases, in what way, and how often. By doing so, readers who appear biased could be identified and addressed with more regularity, Dr. Friedman said.
Even if the rate were more consistent and the data were more frequently analyzed, the very nature of the adversarial system will put any potential solution at risk. “I’m not sure there’s a foolproof system that can be devised that can’t be corrupted in time,” Mr. Cline said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.