-
Part-time Radiology UtilizationChart Review Jobs: How to get started?
I am a staff Radiologist 5 years out of training looking for a little supplemental income. I have been reading about possible opportunities with insurance companies doing remote chart reviews on a part time basis. I am having a hard time finding specific job opportunities or contact information. Does anyone have any experience with this or tips on how to get started? Thanks.
-
15 Replies
-
Not sure, but I suspect the pay is low.
-
Im not sure either, but in my opinion this is a better option than doing $18/RVU. My guess is you make $100-150/hr for this kind of work.
-
Even so, it seems reading more cases would bring more income? Can you do extra shifts after hours where you work now? This kind of work sounds terrible…
-
What’s the medical liability for chart reviews?
-
My buddys wife does it and he claims the pay is the same as what she got paid as an EM doc…. i dont know anything more than that.
-
Quote from RadsZR
What’s the medical liability for chart reviews?
I don’t believe there is much in the way of liability but someone with experience can hopefully correct me if I’m wrong.
-
-
Quote from irfellowship2020
Can you do extra shifts after hours where you work now?
Academic Radiologist without any real opportunity to pick up extra shifts. At least not in my current situation. I could potentially reach out to some private groups. It just seems like the Utilization Review works wouldn’t be time consuming, fairly easy, and done from home. Just looking for a little supplemental income during my off time.
-
Quote from Gastrografin
Quote from irfellowship2020
Can you do extra shifts after hours where you work now?
Academic Radiologist without any real opportunity to pick up extra shifts. At least not in my current situation. I could potentially reach out to some private groups. It just seems like the Utilization Review works wouldn’t be time consuming, fairly easy, and done from home. Just looking for a little supplemental income during my off time.
A lot of academics do legal work. In fact, some of the sleaziest plaintiff experts are academics, in my experience.
You could do defense work, it pays well, but can be a headache. Testifying in court is particularly a hassle, but also a rush, esp. when your side wins. Once you are a proven entity, the phone will ring.
There is also disability radiology work, much less stress, and pays well. No court, only depositions. For me, this was a sweet spot.
Peer review work. Usually for a local medical organization. Pay modest. Not many cases in radiology.
State Board review; pay is meager; but important to participate to assure fairness etc; cases are not that frequent, which is good.
As far as plaintiff verses defense; I made a decision not to do plaintiff work a long time ago. It’s true that some radiologists need to be outed for their negligence, and someone has do it; but the system is so twisted, I didn’t want to have to select out the righteous cases. For defense, I would advise when to settle, but also took some 50/50 cases, because someone has to do it. Always took the righteous cases. What I discovered, is that juries are unpredictable, and that court is theater. It’s about who puts on the best show. So as an expert, you play your practiced role, and never waver. It’s surprising how many experts can’t do this consistently.
-
@boomer: how does one find radiology disability work? Basic google search shows demand for occupational medicine docs for disability. Thanks.
-
It would be a larger firm that does defense work.
They sought me out, so I can’t advise how to get started.
Imaging studies are central to disability, esp. spine and joints. Many are cold stone normal, which is very helpful in sorting our malingering. On the other hand, some have clear pathology that might reasonably be related to an event; and so an expeditious settlement is good for all (some people actually are disabled.)
The attorney needs to be a believer in using imaging, presented to a magistrate if there isn’t a settlement; it has been very effective. There are a lot of depositions, but they are simple and repetitive.
So you are right, much of disability evals are traditionally clinical; but because it is so subjective with a lot of funny business; imaging offers objectivity. There is a future in using imaging. Not all attorneys would agree, but all you need is one smart attorney that makes it work, and you’ll have more than you’ll want to deal with.
This is for clinical experienced rads, if you try to make a full time job of it, credibility goes out the window.
-
Thank you for the guidance. Very helpful.
-
But seeing as there is tons of data that imaging doesnt correlate with patient symptoms Im not sure the utility of testifying how their MR looks. So people with bad looking spines are ok to be considered disabled but if it looks good theyre malingering ? I think we have plenty of data to show that thought process is wrong
-
No doubt its complicated. But still more straightforward than clinical exams. Unfortunately, disability is a huge industry, with considerable fraud by claimants and a minority of physicians. So anything thats more objective has value. A normal study is particularly helpful. Or two studies pre and post injury; which is pretty common in malingerers. Then there is the obvious acute injury which should be settled expeditiously.
-
As far as the bad spines. They would typically be indeterminate. You would advise regarding the findings, but not deposed, as it adds no value either way.
-
The disability work tends to be a local racket. There are two or three law-firms that are successful on the appeals and that is what they do. They have their stable of clinical examiners who know the words to use that put the disability office in a defensive position. Same with the imaging.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
