The United States Chiropractic Workforce: An alternative or complement to primary care?

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.

Engagement in Integrative and Nonpharmacologic Pain Management Modalities Among Adults with Chronic Pain: Analysis of the 2019 National Health Interview Survey

Objective

To examine variables associated with engagement in (1) integrative health and medicine (IHM) and (2) nonpharmacologic modalities rather than opioids among United States adults with chronic pain.

Methods

Using the 2019 National Health Interview Survey, we examined sociodemographic, pain, and mental health predictors of (1) the sum of IHM modalities (ie, chiropractic care, yoga/Tai Chi, massage, or meditation/guided imagery) used to manage pain and (2) exclusive engagement in nonpharmacologic pain management modalities (ie, IHM, a chronic pain self-management program, support groups, or physical, rehabilitative, occupational, or talk therapy) or opioids in the past 3 months.

Results

Metropolitan residency, higher family income, higher education levels, increased number of pain locations, and increased frequency of pain limiting life/work activities were associated with increased odds of IHM engagement. Older age, male sex, non-Hispanic Black/African American race/ethnicity, and daily opioid use were associated with decreased odds of IHM engagement. Older age, male sex, and increased depressive symptoms were associated with decreases in the count of IHM modalities used to manage pain. Metropolitan residency, higher family income, and higher education levels were associated with increased odds of exclusive nonpharmacologic modality engagement. Older age and increasing frequency of pain limiting life/work activities were associated with decreased odds of exclusive nonpharmacologic modality engagement.

Conclusions

We identified several contrasts between factors prevalent among individuals with chronic pain and factors associated with engagement in nonpharmacologic and IHM modalities. These results support efforts to address barriers to accessing these modalities among subpopulations of adults with chronic pain (eg, older adults, individuals identifying as Black/African American, rural residents, and those with lower levels of education and income).

Longitudinal Care Patterns and Utilization Among Patients With New-Onset Neck Pain by Initial Provider Specialty

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare utilization patterns for patients with new-onset neck pain by initial provider specialty.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Initial provider specialty has been associated with distinct care patterns among patients with acute back pain; little is known about care patterns among patients with acute neck pain.

METHODS

De-identified administrative claims and electronic health record data were derived from the Optum Labs Data Warehouse, which contains longitudinal health information on over 200M enrollees and patients representing a mixture of ages and geographical regions across the United States. Patients had outpatient visits for new-onset neck pain from October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2019, classified by initial provider specialty. Utilization was assessed during a 180-day follow-up period, including subsequent neck pain visits, diagnostic imaging, and therapeutic interventions.

RESULTS

The cohort included 770,326 patients with new-onset neck pain visits. The most common initial provider specialty was chiropractor (45.2%), followed by primary care (33.4%). Initial provider specialty was strongly associated with the receipt of subsequent neck pain visits with the same provider specialty. Rates and types of diagnostic imaging and therapeutic interventions during follow-up also varied widely by initial provider specialty. While uncommon after initial visits with chiropractors (≤2%), CT, or MRI scans occurred in over 30% of patients with initial visits with emergency physicians, orthopedists, or neurologists. Similarly, 6.8% and 3.4% of patients initially seen by orthopedists received therapeutic injections and major surgery, respectively, compared with 0.4% and 0.1% of patients initially seen by a chiropractor.

CONCLUSION

Within a large national cohort, chiropractors were the initial provider for a plurality of patients with new-onset neck pain. Compared with patients initially seen by physician providers, patients treated initially by chiropractors or therapists received fewer and less costly imaging services and were less likely to receive invasive therapeutic interventions during follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Temporal Trends and Geographic Variations in the Supply of Clinicians Who Provide Spinal Manipulation to Medicare Beneficiaries: A Serial Cross-Sectional Study

OBJECTIVE

Spinal manipulation (SM) is recommended for first-line treatment of patients with low back pain. Inadequate access to SM may result in inequitable spine care for older US adults, but the supply of clinicians who provide SM under Medicare is uncertain. The purpose of this study was to measure temporal trends and geographic variations in the supply of clinicians who provide SM to Medicare beneficiaries.

METHODS

Medicare is a US government-administered health insurance program that provides coverage primarily for older adults and people with disabilities. We used a serial cross-sectional design to examine Medicare administrative data from 2007 to 2015 for SM services identified by procedure code. We identified unique providers by National Provider Identifier and distinguished between chiropractors and other specialties by Physician Specialty Code. We calculated supply as the number of providers per 100 000 beneficiaries, stratified by geographic location and year.

RESULTS

Of all clinicians who provide SM to Medicare beneficiaries, 97% to 98% are doctors of chiropractic. The geographic supply of doctors of chiropractic providing SM services in 2015 ranged from 20/100 000 in the District of Columbia to 260/100 000 in North Dakota. The supply of other specialists performing the same services ranged from fewer than 1/100 000 in 11 states to 8/100 000 in Colorado. Nationally, the number of Medicare-active chiropractors declined from 47 102 in 2007 to 45 543 in 2015. The count of other clinicians providing SM rose from 700 in 2007 to 1441 in 2015.

CONCLUSION

Chiropractors constitute the vast majority of clinicians who bill for SM services to Medicare beneficiaries. The supply of Medicare-active SM providers varies widely by state. The overall supply of SM providers under Medicare is declining, while the supply of nonchiropractors who provide SM is growing.

Integrating a Multidisciplinary Pain Team and Chiropractic Care in a Community Health Center: An Observational Study of Managing Chronic Spinal Pain

BACKGROUND

Chronic spinal pain is one of the most common diseases in the United States. Underserved patients are most affected, and disproportionately may use opioid medications as they lack access to other therapies. It is therefore important to develop systems to treat spinal pain within the primary medical home.

METHODS

We designed a prospective observational pilot study at a community health center to measure the effectiveness of two interventions among an underserved population: a multidisciplinary pain team and chiropractic care. Study outcomes were pain and functional disability measured by the Pain Disability Questionnaire (PDQ), and reduction of opioid dose at baseline and 6-12 months. Multivariate linear regression was used to determine associating factors for change in PDQ scores.

RESULTS

Thirty-five individuals completed baseline and follow-up PDQs from August 2018 to May 2020. Overall, the mean baseline PDQ was 92.4 +/- 6.1 and the mean follow-up PDQ was 81.9 +/- 7.7, resulting in a mean improvement of -10.6 (95% CI 1.2 - -22.3, P = .08). Participants in the chiropractic team (mean change -25.0, P = .01) and those completing the study before COVID-19 (mean change = -22.6, P < .01) were found to have significantly greater improvement at follow-up.

CONCLUSION

This observational study within a community health center resulted in improvement in spinal pain and disability with chiropractic care versus a multidisciplinary pain team. Offering similar services in primary care may help to address pain and disability, and hopefully limit external referrals, advanced imaging, and opioid prescriptions.

U.S. Physician Recommendations to Their Patients About the Use of Complementary Health Approaches

Objective: There are no nationally representative studies using a probability sample that have been published examining whether physicians recommend complementary health approaches (CHAs) to their patients, as previous research has focused only on selected medical specialties or a particular U.S. region. This article fills a void in the current literature for robust data on recommendations for CHAs by office-based physicians in the United States. Design: Descriptive statistics and multivariable regression analyses of physician-level data were from the 2012 Physician Induction Interview of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS PII), a nationally representative survey of office-based physicians. Weighted response rate among eligible physicians sampled for the 2012 NAMCS PII was 59.7%. Setting/Location: United States. Outcome measures: Recommendations by physicians to their patients for any CHA, and individual CHAs: massage therapy, herbs/nonvitamin supplements, chiropractic/osteopathic manipulation, yoga, acupuncture, and mind-body therapies. Differences in recommendations by physician demographic characteristics were identified. Results: Massage therapy was the most commonly recommended CHA (30.4%), followed by chiropractic/osteopathic manipulation (27.1%), herbs/nonvitamin supplements (26.5%), yoga (25.6%), and acupuncture (22.4%). The most commonly recommended CHAs by general/family practice physicians were chiropractic/osteopathic manipulation (54.0%) and massage therapy (52.6%). Of all U.S. physicians, 53.1% recommended at least one CHA to patients during the previous 12 months. Multivariable analyses found physician's sex, race, specialty, and U.S. region to be significant predictors of CHA recommendations. Female physicians were more likely than male physicians to recommend massage therapy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.40-2.20), herbs/nonvitamin supplements (aOR = 1.85, 95% CI = 1.46-2.35), yoga (aOR = 2.16, 95% CI = 1.70-2.75), acupuncture (aOR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.27-2.13), and mind-body therapies (aOR = 2.63, 95% CI = 2.02-3.41) to patients. Psychiatrists (aOR = 0.13, 95% CI = 0.07-0.23), OB/GYNs (aOR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.24-0.60), and pediatricians (aOR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.18-0.38) were all less likely to recommend chiropractic/osteopathic manipulation than general and family practitioners. Conclusions: Overall, more than half of office-based physicians recommended at least one CHA to their patients. Female physicians recommended every individual CHA at a higher rate than male physicians except for chiropractic and osteopathic manipulation. These findings may enable consumers, physicians, and medical schools to better understand potential differences in use of CHAs with patients.

Access to chiropractic care and the cost of spine conditions among older adults

OBJECTIVES

Chiropractic care is a service that operates outside of the conventional medical system and is reimbursed by Medicare. Our objective was to examine the extent to which accessibility of chiropractic care affects spending on medical spine care among Medicare beneficiaries.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study that used beneficiary relocation as a quasi-experiment.

METHODS

We used a combination of national data on provider location and Medicare claims to perform a quasi-experimental study to examine the effect of chiropractic care accessibility on healthcare spending. We identified 84,679 older adults enrolled in Medicare with a spine condition who relocated once between 2010 and 2014. For each year, we measured accessibility using the variable-distance enhanced 2-step floating catchment area method. Using data for the years before and after relocation, we estimated the effect of moving to an area of lower or higher chiropractic accessibility on spine-related spending adjusted for access to medical physicians.

RESULTS

There are approximately 45,000 active chiropractors in the United States, and local accessibility varies considerably. A negative dose-response relationship was observed for spine-related spending on medical evaluation and management as well as diagnostic imaging and testing (mean differences, $20 and $40, respectively, among those exposed to increasingly higher chiropractic accessibility; P <.05 for both). Associations with other types of spine-related spending were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Among older adults, access to chiropractic care may reduce medical spending on services for spine conditions.

Interprofessional Attitudes and Interdisciplinary Practices for Older Adults With Back Pain Among Doctors of Chiropractic: A Descriptive Survey

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to report on attitudes of doctors of chiropractic (DCs) toward integrative medicine and their self-reported interdisciplinary practices for older adults with back pain.

METHODS

This descriptive survey was conducted with licensed DCs in a Midwestern community in the United States. Respondents completed a 53-item postal survey of demographics, practice characteristics, referral and co-management patterns, attitudes toward interdisciplinary practice, and the Integrative Medicine-30 Questionnaire (IM-30). Descriptive statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven DCs completed the survey (29% response). Geriatric-focused chiropractic practices were uncommon (<15%), although 56% reported that 25% to 49% of the patients treated each week were older adults. Respondents had a moderate orientation toward collaboration with other health care providers (IM-30 mean [standard deviation] 61.3 [11.5]). The IM-30 subscales placed DCs high on measures of integrative medicine safety; moderate on patient-centeredness, openness to working with other providers, and referral readiness; and low on learning from alternative paradigms. Doctors of chiropractic most referred older patients to neurologists, family physicians, massage therapists, orthopedists, and other chiropractors. Doctors of chiropractic reported the highest levels of co-management with family physicians, physical therapists, and massage therapists. Most DCs (92%) were confident in their own ability to manage back pain in older adults, with modest confidence expressed for treatments from professionals using manual therapies. Most (77%) responded that older patients would experience the most improvement if DCs collaborated with another chiropractor, rather than with medical professionals.

CONCLUSION

Doctors of chiropractic in one geographic community are moderately oriented toward interprofessional practice with other health care providers for older adults with back pain. Follow-up studies in representative national and international samples are recommended.

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.

Beyond spinal manipulation: should Medicare expand coverage for chiropractic services? A review and commentary on the challenges for policy makers

OBJECTIVES

Private insurance plans typically reimburse doctors of chiropractic for a range of clinical services, but Medicare reimbursements are restricted to spinal manipulation procedures. Medicare pays for evaluations performed by medical and osteopathic physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, and occupational therapists; however, it does not reimburse the same services provided by chiropractic physicians. Advocates for expanded coverage of chiropractic services under Medicare cite clinical effectiveness and patient satisfaction, whereas critics point to unnecessary services, inadequate clinical documentation, and projected cost increases. To further inform this debate, the purpose of this commentary is to address the following questions: (1) What are the barriers to expand coverage for chiropractic services? (2) What could potentially be done to address these issues? (3) Is there a rationale for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to expand coverage for chiropractic services?

METHODS

A literature search was conducted of Google and PubMed for peer-reviewed articles and US government reports relevant to the provision of chiropractic care under Medicare. We reviewed relevant articles and reports to identify key issues concerning the expansion of coverage for chiropractic under Medicare, including identification of barriers and rationale for expanded coverage.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 29 peer-reviewed articles and 7 federal government reports. Our review of these documents revealed 3 key barriers to full coverage of chiropractic services under Medicare: inadequate documentation of chiropractic claims, possible provision of unnecessary preventive care services, and the uncertain costs of expanded coverage. Our recommendations to address these barriers include the following: individual chiropractic physicians, as well as state and national chiropractic organizations, should continue to strengthen efforts to improve claims and documentation practices; and additional rigorous efficacy/effectiveness research and clinical studies for chiropractic services need to be performed. Research of chiropractic services should target the triple aim of high-quality care, affordability, and improved health.

CONCLUSIONS

The barriers that were identified in this study can be addressed. To overcome these barriers, the chiropractic profession and individual physicians must assume responsibility for correcting deficiencies in compliance and documentation; further research needs to be done to evaluate chiropractic services; and effectiveness of extended episodes of preventive chiropractic care should be rigorously evaluated. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services policies related to chiropractic reimbursement should be reexamined using the same standards applicable to other health care providers. The integration of chiropractic physicians as fully engaged Medicare providers has the potential to enhance the capacity of the Medicare workforce to care for the growing population. We recommend that Medicare policy makers consider limited expansion of Medicare coverage to include, at a minimum, reimbursement for evaluation and management services by chiropractic physicians.

Medicare's demonstration of expanded coverage for chiropractic services: limitations of the demonstration and an alternative direct cost estimate

OBJECTIVE

The purposes of this study were to examine the direct costs associated with Medicare's 2005-2007 "Demonstration of Expanded Coverage of Chiropractic Services" (Demonstration) and their drivers, to explore practice pattern variation during the Demonstration, and to describe scenarios of cost implications had provider behavior and benefit coverage been different.

METHODS

Using Medicare Part B data from April 1, 2005, and March 31, 2007, and 2004 Rural Urban Continuum Codes, we conducted a retrospective analysis of traditionally reimbursed and expanded chiropractic services provided to patients aged 65 to 99 years who had a neuromusculoskeletal condition. We compared chiropractic care costs, supply, and utilization patterns for the 2-year periods before, during, and after the Demonstration for 5 Chicago area counties that participated in the Demonstration to those for 6 other county aggregations-urban or rural counties that participated in the Demonstration; were designated comparison counties during the Demonstration; or were neither participating nor comparison counties during the Demonstration.

RESULTS

When compared with other groups, doctors of chiropractic in 1 region (Chicago area counties) billed more aggressively for expanded services and were reimbursed significantly more for traditionally reimbursed chiropractic services provided before, during, and after the Demonstration. Costs would have been substantially lower had doctors of chiropractic in this 1 region had responded similarly to those in other demonstration counties.

CONCLUSION

We found widespread geographic variation in practice behavior and patterns. Our findings suggest that Medicare might reduce the risk of accelerated costs associated with the introduction of a new benefit by applying appropriate limits to the frequency of use and overall costs of those benefits, particularly in highly competitive markets.