Effects of a Managed Chiropractic Benefit on the Use of Specific Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures in the Treatment of Low Back and Neck Pain

Cost of chiropractic versus medical management of adults with spine-related musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The cost of spine-related pain in the United States is estimated at $134.5 billion. Spinal pain patients have multiple options when choosing healthcare providers, resulting in variable costs. Escalation of costs occurs when downstream costs are added to episode costs of care. The purpose of this review was to compare costs of chiropractic and medical management of patients with spine-related pain.

METHODS

A Medline search was conducted from inception through October 31, 2022, for cost data on U.S. adults treated for spine-related pain. The search included economic studies, randomized controlled trials and observational studies. All studies were independently evaluated for quality and risk of bias by 3 investigators and data extraction was performed by 3 investigators.

RESULTS

The literature search found 2256 citations, of which 93 full-text articles were screened for eligibility. Forty-four studies were included in the review, including 26 cohort studies, 17 cost studies and 1 randomized controlled trial. All included studies were rated as high or acceptable quality. Spinal pain patients who consulted chiropractors as first providers needed fewer opioid prescriptions, surgeries, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, specialist referrals and injection procedures.

CONCLUSION

Patients with spine-related musculoskeletal pain who consulted a chiropractor as their initial provider incurred substantially decreased downstream healthcare services and associated costs, resulting in lower overall healthcare costs compared with medical management. The included studies were limited to mostly retrospective cohorts of large databases. Given the consistency of outcomes reported, further investigation with higher-level designs is warranted.

Dosing of lumbar spinal manipulative therapy and its association with escalated spine care: A cohort study of insurance claims

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between three distinct spinal manipulative therapy dose groups and escalated spine care by analyzing insurance claims from a cohort of patients with low back pain.

METHODS

We compared three distinct spinal manipulative therapy dose groups (low = 1 SMT visits, moderate = 2-12 SMT visits, high = 13+ SMT visits), to a control group (no spinal manipulative therapy) regarding the outcome of escalated spine care. Escalated spine care procedures include imaging studies, injection procedures, emergency department visits, surgery, and opioid medication use. Propensity score matching was performed to address treatment selection bias. Modified Poisson regression modeling was used to estimate the relative risk of spine care escalation among three spinal manipulative therapy doses, adjusting for age, sex, retrospective risk score and claim count.

RESULTS

83,025 claims were categorized into 11,114 unique low back pain episodes; 8,137 claims had 0 spinal manipulative therapy visits, with the remaining episodes classified as low dose (n = 404), moderate dose (n = 1,763) or high dose (n = 810). After propensity score matching, 5,348 episodes remained; 2,454 had 0 spinal manipulative therapy visits with the remaining episodes classified as low dose (n = 404), moderate dose (n = 1,761), or high dose (n = 729). The estimated relative risk (vs no spinal manipulative therapy) for any escalated spine care was 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.38, 0.55, p <0.001), 0.58 (95% confidence interval 0.53, 0.63, p <0.001), and 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.95, 1.13, p = 0.461) for low, moderate, and high dose spinal manipulative therapy groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

For claims associated with initial episodes of low back pain, low and moderate dose spinal manipulative therapy groups were associated with a 55% and 42% reduction, respectively, in the relative risk of any escalated spine care.

Association between chiropractic spinal manipulation and lumbar discectomy in adults with lumbar disc herniation and radiculopathy: retrospective cohort study using United States' data

OBJECTIVES

Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) and lumbar discectomy are both used for lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and lumbosacral radiculopathy (LSR); however, limited research has examined the relationship between these therapies. We hypothesised that adults receiving CSMT for newly diagnosed LDH or LSR would have reduced odds of lumbar discectomy over 1-year and 2-year follow-up compared with those receiving other care.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

101 million patient US health records network (TriNetX), queried on 24 October 2022, yielding data from 2012 query.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults age 18-49 with newly diagnosed LDH/LSR (first date of diagnosis) were included. Exclusions were prior lumbar surgery, absolute indications for surgery, trauma, spondylolisthesis and scoliosis. Propensity score matching controlled for variables associated with the likelihood of discectomy (eg, demographics, medications).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were divided into cohorts according to receipt of CSMT.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

ORs for lumbar discectomy; calculated by dividing odds in the CSMT cohort by odds in the cohort receiving other care.

RESULTS

After matching, there were 5785 patients per cohort (mean age 36.9±8.2). The ORs (95% CI) for discectomy were significantly reduced in the CSMT cohort compared with the cohort receiving other care over 1-year (0.69 (0.52 to 0.90), p=0.006) and 2-year follow-up (0.77 (0.60 to 0.99), p=0.040). E-value sensitivity analysis estimated the strength in terms of risk ratio an unmeasured confounding variable would need to account for study results, yielding point estimates for each follow-up (1 year: 2.26; 2 years: 1.92), which no variables in the literature reached.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest receiving CSMT compared with other care for newly diagnosed LDH/LSR is associated with significantly reduced odds of discectomy over 2-year follow-up. Given socioeconomic variables were unavailable and an observational design precludes inferring causality, the efficacy of CSMT for LDH/LSR should be examined via randomised controlled trial to eliminate residual confounding.

Three Patterns of Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Back Pain and Their Association With Imaging Studies, Injection Procedures, and Surgery: A Cohort Study of Insurance Claims

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between procedures and care patterns in back pain episodes by analyzing health insurance claims.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of insurance claims data from a single Fortune 500 company. The 3 care patterns we analyzed were initial spinal manipulative therapy, delayed spinal manipulative therapy, and no spinal manipulative therapy. The 3 procedures analyzed were imaging studies, injection procedures, and back surgery. We considered "escalated care" to be any claims with diagnostic imaging, injection procedures, or back surgery. Modified-Poisson regression modeling was used to determine relative risk of escalated care.

RESULTS

There were 83 025 claims that were categorized into 10 372 unique patient first episodes. Spinal manipulative therapy was present in 2943 episodes (28%). Initial spinal manipulation was present in 2519 episodes (24%), delayed spinal manipulation was present in 424 episodes (4%), and 7429 (72%) had no evidence of spinal manipulative therapy. The estimated relative risk, adjusted for age, sex, and risk score, for care escalation (eg, imaging, injections, or surgery) was 0.70 (95% confidence interval 0.65-0.75, P < .001) for initial spinal manipulation and 1.22 (95% confidence interval 1.10-1.35, P < .001) for delayed spinal manipulation with no spinal manipulation used as the reference group.

CONCLUSION

For claims associated with initial episodes of back pain, initial spinal manipulative therapy was associated with an approximately 30% decrease in the risk of imaging studies, injection procedures, or back surgery compared with no spinal manipulative therapy. The risk of imaging studies, injection procedures, or back surgery in episodes in the delayed spinal manipulative therapy group was higher than those without spinal manipulative therapy.

Guideline-concordant utilization of magnetic resonance imaging in adults receiving chiropractic manipulative therapy vs other care for radicular low back pain: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (LMRI) is often performed early in the course of care, which can be discordant with guidelines for non-serious low back pain. Our primary hypothesis was that adults receiving chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) for incident radicular low back pain (rLBP) would have reduced odds of early LMRI over 6-weeks' follow-up compared to those receiving other care (a range of medical care, excluding CSMT). As a secondary hypothesis, CSMT recipients were also expected to have reduced odds of LMRI over 6-months' and 1-years' follow-up.

METHODS

A national 84-million-patient health records database including large academic healthcare organizations (TriNetX) was queried for adults age 20-70 with rLBP newly-diagnosed between January 31, 2012 and January 31, 2022. Receipt or non-receipt of CSMT determined cohort allocation. Patients with prior lumbar imaging and serious pathology within 90 days of diagnosis were excluded. Propensity score matching controlled for variables associated with LMRI utilization (e.g., demographics). Odds ratios (ORs) of LMRI over 6-weeks', 6-months', and 1-years' follow-up after rLBP diagnosis were calculated.

RESULTS

After matching, there were 12,353 patients per cohort (mean age 50 years, 56% female), with a small but statistically significant reduction in odds of early LMRI in the CSMT compared to other care cohort over 6-weeks' follow-up (9%, 10%, OR [95% CI] 0.88 [0.81-0.96] P = 0.0046). There was a small but statistically significant increase in odds of LMRI among patients in the CSMT relative to the other care cohort over 6-months' (12%, 11%, OR [95% CI] 1.10 [1.02-1.19], P < 0.0174) and 1-years' follow-up (14%, 12%, OR [95% CI] 1.21 [1.13-1.31], P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that patients receiving CSMT for newly-diagnosed rLBP are less likely to receive early LMRI than patients receiving other care. However, CSMT recipients have a small increase in odds of LMRI over the long-term. Both cohorts in this study had a relatively low rate of early LMRI, possibly because the data were derived from academic healthcare organizations. The relationship of these findings to other patient care outcomes and cost should be explored in a future randomized controlled trial.

REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/t9myp ).

Effects of a Remotely Delivered Cognitive Behavioral Coaching Program on the Self-Rated Functional Disability of Participants with Low Back Pain

PURPOSE

A remotely delivered cognitive behavioral coaching (CBC) program was offered as a service benefit for commercial health plan members with low back pain (LBP). This study describes changes in self-rated functional disability in a sample of plan members participating in the program (N=423).

METHODS

Independent measures included demographics, length of program enrollment, total CBC sessions, and baseline self-reported patient activation and presenteeism levels. Participants rated their functional disability level due to LBP using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Dependent outcomes quantified change in participant functional disability rating (final ODI score minus baseline ODI score). Nonparametric tests compare differences between groups and within-group ODI score change. Two generalized linear models test for associations between independent variables and the ODI change score.

RESULTS

A significant difference between baseline and final ODI scores was observed at the overall program level (p<.001) and within all independent variable categories of interest. Over 68% of total participants (n=289) reported improved functional ability from baseline to final (decrease in ODI score). Participants who completed more CBC sessions demonstrated significantly greater improvement in functional ability (p=.038) compared to those who completed fewer sessions. Participants aged 55 and older were significantly more likely to show deterioration in functional ability from baseline to final (p=.021).

CONCLUSION

Outcomes suggest that program participation can influence self-rated functional disability in the management of LBP.

The Effect of Reduced Access to Chiropractic Care on Medical Service Use for Spine Conditions Among Older Adults

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which access to chiropractic care affects medical service use among older adults with spine conditions.

METHODS

We used Medicare claims data to identify a cohort of 39,278 older adult chiropractic care users who relocated during 2010-2014 and thus experienced a change in geographic access to chiropractic care. National Plan and Provider Enumeration System data were used to determine chiropractor per population ratios across the United States. A reduction in access to chiropractic care was defined as decreasing 1 quintile or more in chiropractor per population ratio after relocation. Using a difference-in-difference analysis (before versus after relocation), we compared the use of medical services among those who experienced a reduction in access to chiropractic care versus those who did not.

RESULTS

Among those who experienced a reduction in access to chiropractic care (versus those who did not), we observed an increase in the rate of visits to primary care physicians for spine conditions (an annual increase of 32.3 visits, 95% CI: 1.4-63.1 per 1,000) and rate of spine surgeries (an annual increase of 5.5 surgeries, 95% CI: 1.3-9.8 per 1,000). Considering the mean cost of a visit to a primary care physician and spine surgery, a reduction in access to chiropractic care was associated with an additional cost of $114,967 per 1,000 beneficiaries on medical services ($391 million nationally).

CONCLUSIONS

Among older adults, reduced access to chiropractic care is associated with an increase in the use of some medical services for spine conditions.

Risk of Treatment Escalation in Recipients vs Nonrecipients of Spinal Manipulation for Musculoskeletal Cervical Spine Disorders: An Analysis of Insurance Claims

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between treatment escalation and spinal manipulation in a retrospective cohort of people diagnosed with musculoskeletal disorders of the cervical spine.

METHODS

We used retrospective analysis of insurance claims data (2012-2018) from a single Fortune 500 company. After isolating the first episode of care, we categorized 58 147 claims into 7951 unique patient episodes. Treatment escalation included claims where imaging, injection, emergency room, or surgery was present. Modified Poisson regression was used to determine the relative risk of treatment escalation comparing recipients vs nonrecipients of spinal manipulation, adjusted for age, sex, episode duration, and risk scores.

RESULTS

The sample was 55% women, with a mean age of 44 years (range, 18-103). Treatment escalation was present in 42% of episodes overall: 2448 (46%) associated with other care and 876 (26%) associated with spinal manipulation. The estimated risk of any treatment escalation was 2.38 times higher in those who received other care than in those who received spinal manipulation (95% confidence interval, 2.22-2.55, P = .001).

CONCLUSION

Among episodes of care associated with neck pain diagnoses, those associated with other care had twice the risk of any treatment escalation compared with those associated with spinal manipulation. In the United States, over 90% of spinal manipulation is provided by doctors of chiropractic; therefore, these findings are relevant and should be considered in addressing solutions for neck pain. Additional research investigating the factors influencing treatment escalation is necessary to moderate the use of high-cost and guideline-incongruent procedures in people with neck pain.

Cost-Efficiency and Effectiveness of Including Doctors of Chiropractic to Offer Treatment Under Medicaid: A Critical Appraisal of Missouri Inclusion of Chiropractic Under Missouri Medicaid

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to critically evaluate the methodology and conclusions of the fiscal notes prepared by the state of Missouri for including doctors of chiropractic (DCs) under Missouri Medicaid and to develop a dynamic scoring model that calculates the savings if DCs were allowed to offer treatment under Missouri Medicaid.

METHODS

We used a secondary analysis to determine the cost-saving assumptions to be incorporated into a dynamic model. We reviewed the literature on efficiency and effectiveness of DC-delivered care regarding the most reliable assumptions concerning cost savings and utilization. The assumptions for percentage savings from DC-provided care and the avoidance of spinal surgeries were then combined in the dynamic scoring model to determine projected cost savings from adding DCs as covered providers under Missouri Medicaid. The actual cost of opioid abuse in Missouri was then determined as a basis to measure cost savings from adding DC care as an alternative therapy for the management of neck and low back pain.

DISCUSSION

The Missouri Health Division initially used the static scoring approach to evaluate proposals to cover DC care under Missouri Medicaid. This approach only considers added costs from a legislative change. Because of this, we proposed that the Missouri Health Division used flawed methodology and data in their calculations for the fiscal note regarding the cost of including care from DCs under Missouri Medicaid. After consideration of the approach used in this study, the Committee adopted some important elements of dynamic scoring. Based on our computations and the dynamic scoring model, we determined that there would be a cost savings to the state of Missouri of between $14.1 and $49.2 million once DCs are included as covered providers under Missouri Medicaid. This study also supports the proposition that treatment by DCs for neck and lower back pain may reduce the use and abuse of opioid prescription drugs.

CONCLUSION

Policymakers may unintentionally rely on flawed assumptions and methodologies such as static scoring, which we propose results in flawed conclusions. Legislative options involve some additional cost. The issue is whether proposed legislative options offer more effective outcomes along with more efficient cost. Using a dynamic scoring model to incorporate savings from 3 primary sources, we found that (1) chiropractic care provides better outcomes at lower cost, (2) chiropractic treatment and care leads to a reduction in cost of spinal surgery, and (3) chiropractic care leads to cost savings from reduced use and abuse of opioid prescription drugs.

How common is imaging for low back pain in primary and emergency care? Systematic review and meta-analysis of over 4 million imaging requests across 21 years

Objectives

To (1) estimate the proportion of patients seeking care for low back pain (LBP) who are imaged and (2) explore trends in the proportion of patients who received diagnostic imaging over time. We also examined the effect of study-level factors on estimates of imaging proportion.

Data sources

Electronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases from January 1995 to December 2017.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Observational designs and controlled trials that reported imaging for patients presenting to primary care or emergency care for LBP. We assessed study quality and calculated pooled proportions by care setting and imaging type, with strength of evidence assessed using the GRADE system.

Results

45 studies were included. They represented 19 451 749 consultations for LBP that had resulted in 4 343 919 imaging requests/events over 21 years. Primary care: moderate quality evidence that simple imaging proportion was 16.3% (95% CI 12.6% to 21.1%) and complex imaging was 9.2% (95% CI 6.2% to 13.5%). For any imaging, the pooled proportion was 24.8% (95% CI 19.3%to 31.1%). Emergency care: moderate quality evidence that simple imaging proportion was 26.1% (95% CI 18.2% to 35.8%) and high-quality evidence that complex imaging proportion was 8.2% (95% CI 4.4% to 15.6%). For any imaging, the pooled proportion was 35.6% (95% CI 29.8% to 41.8%). Complex imaging increased from 7.4% (95% CI 5.7% to 9.6%) for imaging requested in 1995 to 11.4% (95% CI 9.6% to 13.5%) in 2015 (relative increase of 53.5%). Between-study variability in imaging proportions was only partially explained by study-level characteristics; there were insufficient data to comment on some prespecified study-level factors.

Summary/conclusion

One in four patients who presented to primary care with LBP received imaging as did one in three who presented to the emergency department. The rate of complex imaging appears to have increased over 21 years despite guideline advice and education campaigns.

Trial registration number

CRD42016041987.

Mapping the Health Care Policy Landscape for Complementary and Alternative Medicine Professions Using Expert Panels and Literature Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this project was to examine the policy implications of politically defining complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) professions by their treatment modalities rather than by their full professional scope.

METHODS

This study used a 2-stage exploratory grounded approach. In stage 1, we identified how CAM is represented (if considered as professions vs modalities) across a purposely sampled diverse set of policy topic domains using exemplars to describe and summarize each. In stage 2 we convened 2 stakeholder panels (12 CAM practitioners and 9 health policymaker representatives), and using the results of stage 1 as a starting point and framing mechanism, we engaged panelists in a discussion of how they each see the dichotomy and its impacts. Our discussion focused on 4 licensed CAM professions: acupuncture and Oriental medicine, chiropractic, naturopathic medicine, and massage.

RESULTS

Workforce policies affected where and how members of CAM professions could practice. Licensure affected whether a CAM profession was recognized in a state and which modalities were allowed. Complementary and alternative medicine research examined the effectiveness of procedures and modalities and only rarely the effectiveness of care from a particular profession. Treatment guidelines are based on research and also focus on procedures and modalities. Health plan reimbursement policies address which professions are covered and for which procedures/modalities and conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

The policy landscape related to CAM professions and modalities is broad, complex, and interrelated. Although health plan reimbursement tends to receive the majority of attention when CAM health care policy is discussed, it is clear, given the results of our study, that coverage policies cannot be addressed in isolation and that a wide range of stakeholders and social institutions will need to be involved.

Regional Supply of Chiropractic Care and Visits to Primary Care Physicians for Back and Neck Pain

BACKGROUND

Whether availability of chiropractic care affects use of primary care physician (PCP) services is unknown.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study of 17.7 million older adults who were enrolled in Medicare from 2010 to 2011. We examined the relationship between regional supply of chiropractic care and PCP services using Spearman correlation. Generalized linear models were used to examine the association between regional supply of chiropractic care and number of annual visits to PCPs for back and/or neck pain.

RESULTS

We found a positive association between regional supply of chiropractic care and PCP services (rs = 0.52; P <.001). An inverse association between supply of chiropractic care and the number of annual visits to PCPs for back and/or neck pain was apparent. The number of PCP visits for back and/or neck pain was 8% lower (rate ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-0.92) in the quintile with the highest supply of chiropractic care compared to the lowest quintile. We estimate chiropractic care is associated with a reduction of 0.37 million visits to PCPs nationally, at a cost of $83.5 million.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater availability of chiropractic care in some areas may be offsetting PCP services for back and/or neck pain among older adults.

The association of complementary and alternative medicine use and health care expenditures for back and neck problems

BACKGROUND

Health care costs associated with use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by patients with spine problems have not been studied in a national sample.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the total and spine-specific medical expenditures among CAM and non-CAM users with spine problems.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Analysis of the 2002-2008 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.

SUBJECTS

Adults (above 17 y) with self-reported neck and back problems who did or did not use CAM services.

MEASURES

Survey-weighted generalized linear regression and propensity matching to examine expenditure differences between CAM users and non-CAM users while controlling for patient, socioeconomic, and health characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 12,036 respondents with spine problems were included, including 4306 (35.8%) CAM users (40.8% in weighted sample). CAM users had significantly better self-reported health, education, and comorbidity compared with non-CAM users. Adjusted annual medical costs among CAM users was $424 lower (95% confidence interval: $240, $609; P<0.001) for spine-related costs, and $796 lower (95% confidence interval: $121, $1470; P = 0.021) for total health care cost than among non-CAM users. Average expenditure for CAM users, based on propensity matching, was $526 lower for spine-specific costs (P<0.001) and $298 lower for total health costs (P = 0.403). Expenditure differences were primarily due to lower inpatient expenditures among CAM users.

CONCLUSIONS

CAM users did not add to the overall medical spending in a nationally representative sample with neck and back problems. As the causal associations remain unclear in these cross-sectional data, future research exploring these cost differences might benefit from research designs that minimize confounding.

Cost minimization analysis of low back pain claims data for chiropractic vs medicine in a managed care organization

OBJECTIVE

A managed care organization (MCO) examined differences in allowed cost for managing low back pain by medical providers vs chiropractors in an integrated care environment. The purpose of this study is to provide a retrospective cost analysis of administrative data of chiropractic vs medical management of low back pain in a managed care setting.

METHODS

All patients with a low back pain-related diagnosis presenting for health care from January 2004 to June 2004 who were insured by an MCO in northeast Wisconsin were tracked. The cumulative health care costs incurred by this MCO during the 2-year period from January 2004 to December 2005 related to these back pain diagnoses were collected.

RESULTS

Allowed costs of chiropractic treatment were 12% greater than medical primary care and 60% less per case than other types of medical care combined, on a per-case basis: median cost of medical primary care was $365.00, chiropractic care was $417.00, and medical nonprimary care was $669.00.

CONCLUSION

This study of an MCO's low back pain allowed costs may be better redirected to primary care or chiropractic, given equivalent levels of case complexity. This study suggests chiropractic management as less expensive compared with medical management of back pain when care extends beyond primary care. Primary care management alone is virtually indistinguishable from chiropractic management in terms of costs.