To offset the costs of these additional procedures, insurance companies have resorted to changing their policies to decrease the amount of reimbursement they deliver to providers in exchange for MR exams, straining providers and forcing them to take measures of their own to offset the burden.

These may include cutting the number of staffers that oversee MR exams or turning to less experienced doctors and workers who will accept lower salaries. These decisions limit the quality of supervision in both numbers and expertise.


The problem is only exacerbated by continuous advancements in MR systems with many displaying stronger magnetic fields and faster gradient systems. If not supervised or handled correctly, these devices have the potential to inflict serious harm to patients and staff.

"We're slowly whittling away at some of the patient safety protections,” says Gilk. “None of the whittling is nefarious, it's not set out to make MR more dangerous, but that's some of the unintended consequence of technological advancements, MR as an imaging resource and response to some of the financial realities of declining reimbursements."

These changes can cost providers hefty medical and legal fees and more importantly, diminish the overall quality and quantity of protection and safety measures for patients – putting them at greater risk.

A false sense of security
The burden of cost for MR exams and the need for experienced staff has at least prompted some positive changes in the last few years, with providers exploring new ways to protect patient safety.

“There’ve been accreditations that are now reviewing processes, facility processes,” says David Geiger, vice president of Americas sales at ETS-Lindgren. “I’ve seen construction standards that are requiring the use of some of the tools to help prevent injuries and incidents. Today, there are a lot of talks, meetings and training. There’s a lot more exposure for folks to understand what they need to do.”

The need to enhance safety in the MR environment has spurred the creation and growth of many organizations offering courses and certification on the subject, an opportunity that many providers are jumping on to ensure the safety status of their institutions.

Though a positive change, the development of certification has created another problem in MR safety with providers believing that certification guarantees safety, and that’s the end of it.

"Many facilities will walk away from the accreditation process believing that the presence of accreditation is a demonstration of the site’s safe practices,” says Gilk. “While that may be true in other areas, historically, that has not been true with respect to MR. So the hallmark of a site that makes me nervous is one that insists, ‘We have joint accreditation or ACR accreditation and therefore, we don't need to worry.”

More Magazine Features

MRI Homepage