Abstract 4123370: Distance to a Cardiac Imaging Center and Likelihood of Imaging Receipt: Defining Imaging Deserts

Abstract

Background: Cardiovascular imaging is critical for the diagnosis and management of cardiovascular disease. Whether geographic distance to a cardiovascular imaging center (CVIC) impacts access to care is unknown. Methods: We evaluated all Medicare beneficiaries (Fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage) from 2018-2022, excluding those < 65, without continuous Medicare enrollment in the previous year, individuals missing zip code of residence, or CVICs missing zip codes. We estimated distance from the centroid of an individual’s zip code of residence to the centroid of the zip code with the nearest CVIC (defined as > 10 imaging procedures/year). Multivariable regression models were used to estimate likelihood of imaging receipt by distance. Results/Data: A total of 64,260,530 individuals (age 73.0 ± 8 years, 54.6% female, 80.1% White) received care at 3,886 CVICS. The vast majority (95%) lived within 16 miles of a CVIC, but varied considerably by modality with substantially greater distances for cardiac CT, cardiac MRI, and PET (Median [IQR] distance in miles to CVIC, Echo: 3.4 [0.4-7.0]; SPECT: 3.8 [1.3-7.9]; cardiac CT: 8.1 [3.7-21.3]; cardiac MRI: 17.4 [7.3-43.3]; PET: 88.9 [26.2-194.6]). CVICs performing cardiac CT, cardiac MRI, or PET were nearly all in metropolitan locations. Likelihood of imaging receipt was triphasic: lowest within 0-10 miles of a CVIC (mainly metropolitan locations), greater within 10-15 miles, and then increasingly lower beyond 15 miles ( Figure 1 ). Sites beyond the 16-mile threshold were predominantly in the Midwest and West ( Figure 2 ). Conclusions: In this study of 64 million Medicare beneficiaries, 2018-2022, 95% of the US population was found to live within 16 miles of a CVIC, though varied by modality. While those living > 16 miles from a CVIC received less imaging, the lowest use was identified among individuals living in the same zip code as a CVIC, suggesting a possible disconnect between access to imaging care and proximity.