In an exclusive video interview with Diagnostic Imaging, Josh Cooper, vice president of congressional affairs for the American College of Radiology (ACR), and Thomas Hoffman, vice president of legal for the ACR, discuss the ACR’s lawsuit over the IDR process of the No Surprises Act and the potential impact of the law on reimbursement and patient access to care.
The No Surprises Act, which went into effect on January 1, is intended to curtail surprise medical bills for patients who receive emergency care at out-of-network facilities and non-emergency care provided at in-network facilities. However, a key aspect of the law’s independent dispute resolution (IDR) process, as noted in the interim final rule for the legislation, has drawn legal challenges from medical organizations including the American College of Radiology (ACR).
According to the ACR, the IDR process, which providers can use to negotiate reimbursement amounts from insurers, was intended to consider several factors, including patient complexity, scope of services and qualified payment amount (QPA). However, the interim final rule for the legislation establishes the QPA, set by insurers, as the primary determining factor for the IDR process, notes the ACR. The ACR, along with the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Society of Anesthesiologists, recently filed a lawsuit against the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), challenging this provision of the IDR process of the No Surprises Act.
In a recent video interview, Thomas Hoffman, JD, CAE, vice president of legal for the American College of Radiology (ACR), and Josh Cooper, vice president of congressional affairs for the ACR, discussed the lawsuit and the potential impact of the current law’s IDR process upon reimbursement for radiologists and access to timely imaging for patients. Watch below.
Can CT-Based Deep Learning Bolster Prognostic Assessments of Ground-Glass Nodules?
June 19th 2025Emerging research shows that a multiple time-series deep learning model assessment of CT images provides 20 percent higher sensitivity than a delta radiomic model and 56 percent higher sensitivity than a clinical model for prognostic evaluation of ground-glass nodules.
Can Contrast-Enhanced Mammography be a Viable Screening Alternative to Breast MRI?
June 17th 2025While the addition of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) led to over a 13 percent increase in false positive cases, researchers also noted over double the cancer yield per 1,000 women in comparison to DBT alone.
Multinational Study Reaffirms Value of Adjunctive AI for Prostate MRI
June 16th 2025The use of adjunctive AI in biparametric prostate MRI exams led to 3.3 percent and 3.4 percent increases in the AUC and specificity, respectively, for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in a 360-person cohort drawn from 53 facilities.