Time to Align Coverage with Evidence for Treatment of Back Pain

Reciprocal Association Between Chronic Pain and Health Insurance Type in a Population-based Longitudinal Cohort Study

Chronic pain is a widespread condition limiting adults' daily activities and labor force participation. In the United States, withdrawal from the workforce could be associated with loss of health insurance coverage, while lack of health insurance coverage can limit access to diagnosis and management of chronic health conditions. We used a longitudinal cohort study of middle-aged adults to investigate whether chronic pain is reciprocally associated with coverage by any insurance and type of insurance coverage over a 2-year period (2018 and 2020). Among 5,137 participants (median age of 57 years in 2018), 29% reported chronic pain in either year, while 9 to 10% were uninsured each year. Using multivariable cross-lagged logistic regression analysis, chronic pain in 2018 was not associated with having any insurance coverage in 2020, and lack of coverage in 2018 was not associated with chronic pain in 2020. In further analysis, we determined that public coverage, other (non-private) coverage, or no coverage in 2018 were associated with an increased risk of chronic pain in 2020; while chronic pain in 2018 increased the risk of coverage by public rather than private insurance 2 years later, as well as the risk of coverage by other (non-private) payors. The reciprocal association of non-private insurance coverage and chronic pain may be related to insufficient access to chronic pain treatment among publicly insured adults, or qualification for public insurance based on disability among adults with chronic pain. These results demonstrate that accounting for the type of health insurance coverage is critical when predicting chronic pain in US populations. PERSPECTIVE: In a longitudinal cohort study of middle-aged US adults, the use of public and other non-private insurance predicts future experience of chronic pain, while past experience of chronic pain predicts future use of public and other non-private insurance.

Trends in Chiropractic Care and Physical Rehabilitation Use Among Adults with Low Back Pain in the United States, 2002 to 2018

BACKGROUND

While nonpharmacologic treatments are increasingly endorsed as first-line therapy for low back pain (LBP) in clinical practice guidelines, it is unclear if use of these treatments is increasing or equitable.

OBJECTIVE

Examine national trends in chiropractic care and physical rehabilitation (occupational/physical therapy (OT/PT)) use among adults with LBP.

DESIGN/SETTING

Serial cross-sectional analysis of the National Health Interview Survey, 2002 to 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

146,087 adults reporting LBP in prior 3 months.

METHODS

We evaluated the association of survey year with chiropractic care or OT/PT use in prior 12 months. Logistic regression with multilevel linear splines was used to determine if chiropractic care or OT/PT use increased after the introduction of clinical guidelines. We also examined trends in use by age, sex, race, and ethnicity. When trends were similar over time, we present differences by these demographic characteristics as unadjusted ORs using data from all respondents.

RESULTS

Between 2002 and 2018, less than one-third of adults with LBP reported use of either chiropractic care or OT/PT. Rates did not change until 2016 when uptake increased with the introduction of clinical guidelines (2016-2018 vs 2002-2015, OR = 1.15; 95% CI: 1.10-1.19). Trends did not differ significantly by sex, race, or ethnicity (p for interactions > 0.05). Racial and ethnic disparities in chiropractic care or OT/PT use were identified and persisted over time. For example, compared to non-Hispanic adults, either chiropractic care or OT/PT use was lower among Hispanic adults (combined OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.65-0.73). By contrast, compared to White adults, Black adults had similar OT/PT use (OR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.94-1.03) but lower for chiropractic care use (OR = 0.50; 95% CI: 0.47-0.53).

CONCLUSIONS

Although use of chiropractic care or OT/PT for LBP increased after the introduction of clinical guidelines in 2016, only about a third of US adults with LBP reported using these services between 2016 and 2018 and disparities in use have not improved.

Governing therapeutic pluralism: An environmental scan of the statutory regulation and government reimbursement of traditional and complementary medicine practitioners in the United States

The World Health Organization has called on nation-states to statutorily govern, and integrate into state-funded healthcare systems, practitioners of traditional and complementary medicine (T&CM) (whose therapeutic approaches that fall outside the boundaries of conventional biomedicine). To date, however, there exist few rigorous reports of the degree to which individual nations have responded to this call. This study, an environmental scan, comprehensively documents the statutory governance and government reimbursement of T&CM practitioners in the United States (US). Across the US, where health practitioner governance falls within state and territorial (rather than federal) jurisdiction, over 300 laws have been enacted to statutorily regulate a wide range of T&CM practitioners. Nurse-midwives and chiropractors are universally licensed across all 56 US regulatory jurisdictions (50 states, 5 territories and the District of Columbia); other major T&CM practitioner groups are regulated in fewer jurisdictions (acupuncturists, n = 52; massage therapists, n = 50; direct-entry [non-nurse] midwives, n = 36; naturopaths, n = 24). Additional statutory stipulations exist to govern chiropractic assistants (n = 30), auricular (ear) acupuncture practitioners (n = 24), homeopathic practitioners (n = 3), and psychedelic facilitators (n = 1), as well as biomedical professionals who practice acupuncture and related techniques, e.g., 'dry needling' (n = 44). While professional entry requirements for licensed T&CM practitioners are substantially harmonized across jurisdictions, restricted titles and statutory scopes of practice vary. Ten states have furthermore implemented 'safe harbor' ('negative licensing') exemption laws enabling otherwise-unregulated T&CM practitioners to legally practice. Limited government reimbursement for T&CM care is available across several federal and state programs, including Medicare, Tricare, Veterans Health Authority, and Medicaid. Nurse-midwifery and chiropractic care is most frequently reimbursed; acupuncturists, naturopaths and massage therapists are eligible for much more limited coverage. Medicaid programs for low-income people in ten states furthermore cover the services of (unlicensed but statutorily-recognized) birth doulas. Additional research is needed to assess the impact of these regulations on US health care.

Osteopathic manipulative treatment for the allopathic resident elective: does it change practice after graduation?

CONTEXT

Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) for the allopathic resident is an elective at the University of Minnesota North Memorial Residency that engages the resident in the basic tenants of osteopathic medicine, with exposure to the vast application of OMT with a curricular focus on low back pain management. Implementing an elective curriculum is a feasible way to improve attitudes in OMT for MDs in a Family Medicine residency, and residents can learn OMT in an elective rotation.

OBJECTIVES

This article aims to determine if MDs who complete an OMT for the allopathic physician elective rotation have higher comfort caring for patients with back pain compared to those who do not complete the elective. Further, this article is designed to evaluate if these MDs continue to incorporate OMT into the care they provide once they graduate from their residency programs.

METHODS

Graduates from the University of Minnesota North Memorial Family Medicine Residency (2013 to 2019) were sent an email invitation in August 2020 to complete a Qualtrics survey regarding their comfort with caring for patients with back pain, referral patterns for these patients, and the ongoing use of OMT in their practices. Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO) graduates who responded to the survey were removed from the analysis.

RESULTS

Among emailed graduates, 61.8% (42/68) completed the survey, with representation from each class ranging from 1 to 7 years postresidency. The five DO graduates who responded were removed from the analysis. Among the remaining 37 respondents, 27 had completed the OMT for the allopathic rotation ("elective participants") during their residency training and 10 had not ("control"). Half (50.0%) of the control group provide OMT care compared to 66.7% of the elective participants, with a comfort score of 22.6 (standard deviation [SD] 32.7) in the control group vs. 34.0 (SD 21.0) in elective participants (on a 0-100 scale; 100 being completely comfortable; p=0.091). Among the control group, 40.0% regularly refer to a DO provider compared to 66.7% of those who completed the elective (p=0.257). The mean comfort score for performing a physical examination on patients presenting with back pain was 78.7 (SD 13.1) and 80.9 (SD 19.3) in the control and elective participants groups, respectively (p=0.198).

CONCLUSIONS

Allopathic Family Medicine residents who completed an elective rotation in OMT have a slight increase in frequency of referring to DOs. They also have a meaningful increase in comfort performing OMT. With the limited number of DOs being a common barrier to OMT care, more widely implemented training in OMT for allopathic Family Medicine residents may be a reasonable intervention to improve the care of patients with back pain.

The Effect of a New Payment System on Physiotherapeutic Management of Patients With Low Back Pain in Primary Care

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate differences regarding the number of treatment sessions, costs, and outcomes (including relapses) between a regular payment-per-session system and the recently introduced product payment system.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Dutch physical therapy practices in primary care over a 2-year period.

PARTICIPANTS

16,103 patients with low back pain (LBP).

INTERVENTION

The new product payment system is compared with the regular payment-per-session system.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pain, disability, recovery, number of physical therapy sessions, therapy duration, costs (per episode), and LBP relapse.

RESULTS

At baseline, we found greater pain and disability scores associated with an increased risk profile in both payment systems. With regard to the payment systems, we found greater costs (€283.8 vs €210.8) and a greater percentage of relapse (4.5% vs 2.8%) for the product payment system compared with the payment-per-session system. Comparing the 2 payment systems within each risk strata, we found no significant differences, except for a decrease in pain in the medium-risk stratum. Concerning the therapy characteristics, we found that in the payment-per-session group, the therapy took 6 days longer for low-risk patients (median 27 vs 21 days) and 7 days shorter for high-risk patients (median 42 vs 49 days) compared with the product payment group. Moreover, the mean number of sessions in the payment-per-session group was greater for low-risk patients (5.4 vs 4.8 sessions) and lower for high-risk patients (7.7 vs 8.1 sessions) compared with the payment-per-session group. Finally, the costs were significantly greater in all strata of the product payment group compared with the payment-per-session group.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2 payment systems are largely comparable regarding patient outcomes, therapy duration, and treatment sessions. Both the average cost per patient per LBP episode and the number of relapses in the product payment system are statistically significantly greater than in the payment-per-session system.

Conscious connected breathing with breath retention intervention in adults with chronic low back pain: protocol for a randomized controlled pilot study

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is a major source of human suffering, and chronic low back pain (cLBP) is among the most prevalent, costly, and disabling of pain conditions. Due to the significant personal and societal burden and the complex and recurring nature of cLBP, self-management approaches that can be practiced at home are highly relevant to develop and test. The respiratory system is one of the most integrated systems of the body, and breathing is bidirectionally related with stress, emotion, and pain. Thus, the widespread physiological and psychological impact of breathing practices and breathwork interventions hold substantial promise as possible self-management strategies for chronic pain. The primary aim of the current randomized pilot study is to test the feasibility and acceptability of a conscious connected breathing with breath retention intervention compared to a sham control condition.

METHODS

The rationale and procedures for testing a 5-day conscious connected breathing with breath retention intervention, compared to a deep breathing sham control intervention, in 24 adults (18-65 years) with cLBP is described. Both interventions will be delivered using standardized audio recordings and practiced over 5 days (two times in-person and three times at-home), and both are described as Breathing and Attention Training to reduce possible expectancy and placebo effects common in pain research. The primary outcomes for this study are feasibility and acceptability. Feasibility will be evaluated by determining rates of participant recruitment, adherence, retention, and study assessment completion, and acceptability will be evaluated by assessing participants' satisfaction and helpfulness of the intervention. We will also measure other clinical pain, psychological, behavioral, and physiological variables that are planned to be included in a follow-up randomized controlled trial.

DISCUSSION

This will be the first study to examine the effects of a conscious connected breathing with breath retention intervention for individuals with chronic pain. The successful completion of this smaller-scale pilot study will provide data regarding the feasibility and acceptability to conduct a subsequent trial testing the efficacy of this breathing self-management practice for adults with cLBP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT04740710 . Registered on 5 February 2021.

Massage Therapy: A Person-Centred Approach to Chronic Pain

Person-centred care is an emergent movement within evidence-based medicine that has the potential to transform the health care system. Person-centred care is a collaborative approach in which health care professionals partner with patients to co-design and deliver personalized care with a focus on physical comfort, emotional well-being, and patient empowerment. By embracing person-centred care through two-way communication, patient engagement, and self-management strategies, massage therapists have the potential to further reduce suffering associated with chronic pain in our society.

Acupuncture therapy as an Evidence-Based Nonpharmacologic Strategy for Comprehensive Acute Pain Care: the Academic Consortium Pain Task Force White Paper Update

Background

A crisis in pain management persists, as does the epidemic of opioid overdose deaths, addiction, and diversion. Pain medicine is meeting these challenges by returning to its origins: the Bonica model of multidisciplinary pain care. The 2018 Academic Consortium White Paper detailed the historical context and magnitude of the pain crisis and the evidence base for nonpharmacologic strategies. More than 50% of chronic opioid use begins in the acute pain care setting. Acupuncture may be able to reduce this risk.

Objective

This article updates the evidence base for acupuncture therapy for acute pain with a review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on postsurgical/perioperative pain with opioid sparing and acute nonsurgical/trauma pain, including acute pain in the emergency department.

Methods

To update reviews cited in the 2018 White Paper, electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for “acupuncture” and “acupuncture therapy” and “acute pain,” “surgery,” “peri-operative,” “trauma,” “emergency department,” “urgent care,” “review(s) ,” “systematic review,” “meta-analysis,” with additional manual review of titles, links, and reference lists.

Results

There are 22 systematic reviews, 17 with meta-analyses of acupuncture in acute pain settings, and a review for acute pain in the intensive care unit. There are additional studies of acupuncture in acute pain settings.

Conclusion

The majority of reviews found acupuncture therapy to be an efficacious strategy for acute pain, with potential to avoid or reduce opioid reliance. Future multicenter trials are needed to clarify the dosage and generalizability of acupuncture for acute pain in the emergency department. With an extremely low risk profile, acupuncture therapy is an important strategy in comprehensive acute pain care.

The Intersection of Dissemination Research and Acupuncture: Applications for Chronic Low Back Pain

Dissemination research is the study of distributing information and intervention materials to a specific clinical practice or public health audience. Acupuncture, a healthcare practice involving the stimulation of certain body points, often with thin needles, is considered an evidence-based treatment for low back pain (LBP), but is underutilized in the United States.

Body: We will use the example of acupuncture for LBP to identify opportunities to leverage dissemination research to increase utilization of acupuncture. Deficits in the awareness or knowledge of acupuncture may limit its adoption by patients and other stakeholders. Thus, we summarize methods to gather data on stakeholder awareness and knowledge of acupuncture for LBP, i.e., audience research. Engaging multiple stakeholder audiences (e.g., health system leaders, primary care providers, patients), is needed to generate knowledge on promising dissemination strategies for each audience. Audience segmentation is important for identifying population subgroups for whom adoption of acupuncture may require a more intensive or tailored dissemination strategy. To illustrate potential audience ‘segments’, our research discussion focused on developing dissemination strategies by age (i.e., older adults – those age 65 years or older, and younger adults – those under age 65 ). This decision was prompted by Medicare’s recent policy covering acupuncture for chronic LBP. We leverage current knowledge of barriers and facilitators of acupuncture use to discuss how further tailoring of dissemination strategies might optimize adoption of acupuncture in both groups of adults. Experimental study designs could then be used to compare the effectiveness of such strategies to increase awareness, knowledge, or adoption of acupuncture.

Conclusions: Conducting dissemination research may improve awareness and knowledge of acupuncture, and ultimately the adoption of acupuncture in biomedical settings. We anticipate that the concepts highlighted in this manuscript will also be helpful for those disseminating information about other complementary and integrative health approaches.

Initial Management of Acute and Chronic Low Back Pain: Responses from Brief Interviews of Primary Care Providers

Background: In April 2017, the American College of Physicians (ACP) published a clinical practice guideline for low back pain (LBP) recommending nonpharmacologic treatments as first-line therapy for acute, subacute, and chronic LBP. Objective: To assess primary care provider (PCP)-reported initial treatment recommendations for LBP following guideline release. Design: Cross-sectional structured interviews. Participants: Convenience sample of 72 PCPs from 3 community-based outpatient clinics in high- or low-income neighborhoods. Approach: PCPs were interviewed about their familiarity with the ACP guideline, and how they initially manage patients with acute/subacute and chronic LBP. Treatment responses were coded as patient education, nonpharmacologic, pharmacologic, or medical specialty referral. PCPs were also asked about their comfort referring patients to nonpharmacologic treatment providers, and about barriers to referring. Responses were assessed using content analysis. Differences in responses were assessed using descriptive statistics. Key results: Interviews were completed between December 2017 and March 2018. Of 72 participating PCPs (50% male; mean years of practice = 13.8), over three-fourths indicated being familiar with the ACP guideline (76%-87% at 3 clinics). For acute LBP, PCPs typically provided advice to stay active (81%) and pharmacologic management (97%; primarily nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). For chronic LBP, PCPs were more likely to recommend nonpharmacologic treatments than for acute LBP (85% vs. 0%, p < 0.001). The most common nonpharmacologic treatments recommended for chronic LBP were physical therapy (78%), chiropractic care (21%), massage therapy (18%), and acupuncture (17%) (each compared with 0% for acute LBP, all p < 0.001). The cost of nonpharmacologic treatments was perceived as a barrier. However, PCPs working in low-income neighborhood clinics were as likely to recommend nonpharmacologic approaches as those from a high-income neighborhood clinic. Conclusions: While most PCPs indicated they were familiar with the ACP guideline for LBP, nonpharmacologic treatments were not recommended for patients with acute symptoms. Further dissemination and implementation of the ACP guideline are needed.

A comparison of trends in opioid dispensing patterns between Medicaid pharmacy claims and prescription drug monitoring program data

PURPOSE

Public and private payers have implemented benefit limitations to reduce high-risk opioid prescriptions. The effect of these policies on the increase of out-pocket payment is unclear. To understand this gap, we compared the discrepancies in trends between opioid prescription fills vs claims among Medicaid beneficiaries.

METHODS

Data from the Oregon Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) and Oregon Medicaid administrative claims were used to identify Medicaid beneficiaries 18 years and older enrolled at least one full month from 2015 to 2017. Generalized linear models assessed the trends in the monthly rates of opioid PDMP prescription fills and pharmacy claims per 1000 eligible members. Rates by morphine equivalent dose (MED) tier (<50, 50-89, 90-120, >120 MED) and co-prescribed opioid and benzodiazepine were also assessed.

RESULTS

During the study period, an average of 495 355 Medicaid members had 2 797 054 opioid PDMP fills and 2 472 155 opioid Medicaid pharmacy claims. Study participants had 15.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] 13.6 to 17.0; P < .001) more prescriptions per 1000 member per month in the PDMP data (114.1 [SD 7.4]) compared with the Medicaid claims data (98.7 [SD 7.9]). Similarly, there were 1.9 more co-occurring opioid/benzodiazepine prescriptions per 1000 members per month observed in the PDMP data than the Medicaid claims data (95% CI 1.7 to 2.1; P < .001). At each MED tier, the PDMP fills were consistently higher than the claims (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Higher rate of fills in the PDMP compared to pharmacy claims suggests that there may be an increasing trend of out-of-pocket payment among Medicaid beneficiaries.