A patient suffering from a sustained back ache goes to his general practitioner seeking help for the pain.

Instead of ordering the patient to get some exercise, lose 25 pounds and take a few aspirin, the doctor orders an X-ray, which comes up negative.

When the pain doesn’t go away, the doctor orders two far more sophisticated tests: a magnetic resonance imaging scan, or MRI, and a computed tomography, or CT scan, each of which costs about $1,000. These tests are also negative.

The patient’s insurance company is now on the hook for over $2,000 for tests that have yet to yield a firm diagnosis.

Now hypothetically expand that scenario out over thousands of patients--each and every day.

Perhaps no recent innovations in medical technology have been as inarguably beneficial -- and at the same time controversial -- as those that fall under the broad umbrella of radiology.

Among these innovative forms of testing are the MRI, the CT, and, most recently, the PET scan, or positron emission tomography, which is used to diagnose certain strains of cancer.

These tests, which allow doctors a clear internal view of their patients, are widely credited with eliminating the need for countless exploratory surgeries.

But at the same time, the extraordinary proliferation of the use of these tests has placed an increasingly heavy burden on both private insurance companies and government-funded insurers such as Medicare.

Indeed, the U.S. Government Accountability Office recently found that Medicare Part B spending for medical imaging tests had more than doubled between 2000 and 2006 to $14.1 billion.

Bruce Steinwald, the GAO’s director of health care, said the rise in spending can be attributed almost entirely to a sharp spike in the number of images being ordered by doctors.

That increase has coincided, he said, with the “migration of imaging machinery out of hospitals and into doctors offices.”

A decade ago medical device companies began marketing these machines directly to doctors, and many got on board, buying the machines and setting up practice for themselves as medical imagers. Naturally, when they had a patient who needed an MRI or CT scan, the patient was sent to a facility owned by that doctor.

That dynamic, an obvious conflict of interest, is now the target of a government crackdown.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, is pushing legislation that would place restrictions on so-called self-referrals, or physicians who refer patients to medical imaging centers in which the doctor has a financial interest.

Dr. Arl Van Moore, president of the American College of Radiology (ACR), said the practice of self-referrals has grown increasingly noticeable during the past decade.

Here are some striking figures culled from various studies provided to FOXBusiness.com by the ACR:

-- when doctors refer patients to facilities in which they have a financial interest, imaging tests are increased by as much as 54%.

-- non-radiologist doctors who own their own imaging equipment are up to 7 times more likely to order imaging procedures than physicians who refer patients to a facility in which they have no financial interest.

-- nationwide from 1998 – 2005 in-office imaging by nonradiologists increased by 69%.

-- earlier this decade Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Missouri estimated that 20% to 30% of Pet scans CTs and MRIs were ordered unnecessarily.

That last figure is now estimated to be as high as 50% when the imaging is ordered by non-radiologist physicians.

In light of these striking numbers, the American College of Radiology is stressing the need for an established criteria for when medical images are needed.

Moore said a number of radiology centers have adopted the ACR’s “Appropriateness Criteria,” which provides a specific set of guidelines for when physicians should recommend imaging. In addition, the ACR is pushing for mandatory accreditation for all radiology centers by 2012.

"We'd like to see everybody on the same page," said Moore.