The association between cervical artery dissection and spinal manipulation among US adults.

PURPOSE: Cervical artery dissection (CeAD), which includes both vertebral artery dissection (VAD) and carotid artery dissection (CAD), is the most serious safety concern associated with cervical spinal manipulation (CSM). We evaluated the association between CSM and CeAD among US adults. METHODS: Through analysis of health claims data, we employed a case-control study with matched controls, a case-control design in which controls were diagnosed with ischemic stroke, and a case-crossover design in which recent exposures were compared to exposures in the same case that occurred 6-7 months earlier. We evaluated the association between CeAD and the 3-level exposure, CSM versus office visit for medical evaluation and management (E&M) versus neither, with E&M set as the referent group. RESULTS: We identified 2337 VAD cases and 2916 CAD cases. Compared to population controls, VAD cases were 0.17 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.32) times as likely to have received CSM in the previous week as compared to E&M. In other words, E&M was about 5 times more likely than CSM in the previous week in cases, relative to controls. CSM was 2.53 (95% CI 1.71 to 3.68) times as likely as E&M in the previous week among individuals with VAD than among individuals experiencing a stroke without CeAD. In the case-crossover study, CSM was 0.38 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.91) times as likely as E&M in the week before a VAD, relative to 6 months earlier. In other words, E&M was approximately 3 times more likely than CSM in the previous week in cases, relative to controls. Results for the 14-day and 30-day timeframes were similar to those at one week. CONCLUSION: Among privately insured US adults, the overall risk of CeAD is very low. Prior receipt of CSM was more likely than E&M among VAD patients as compared to stroke patients. However, for CAD patients as compared to stroke patients, as well as for both VAD and CAD patients in comparison with population controls and in case-crossover analysis, prior receipt of E&M was more likely than CSM.

Association between cervical artery dissection and spinal manipulative therapy -a medicare claims analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cervical artery dissection and subsequent ischemic stroke is the most serious safety concern associated with cervical spinal manipulation. METHODS: We evaluated the association between cervical spinal manipulation and cervical artery dissection among older Medicare beneficiaries in the United States. We employed case-control and case-crossover designs in the analysis of claims data for individuals aged 65+, continuously enrolled in Medicare Part A (covering hospitalizations) and Part B (covering outpatient encounters) for at least two consecutive years during 2007-2015. The primary exposure was cervical spinal manipulation; the secondary exposure was a clinical encounter for evaluation and management for neck pain or headache. We created a 3-level categorical variable, (1) any cervical spinal manipulation, 2) evaluation and management but no cervical spinal manipulation and (3) neither cervical spinal manipulation nor evaluation and management. The primary outcomes were occurrence of cervical artery dissection, either (1) vertebral artery dissection or (2) carotid artery dissection. The cases had a new primary diagnosis on at least one inpatient hospital claim or primary/secondary diagnosis for outpatient claims on at least two separate days. Cases were compared to 3 different control groups: (1) matched population controls having at least one claim in the same year as the case; (2) ischemic stroke controls without cervical artery dissection; and (3) case-crossover analysis comparing cases to themselves in the time period 6-7 months prior to their cervical artery dissection. We made each comparison across three different time frames: up to (1) 7 days; (2) 14 days; and (3) 30 days prior to index event. RESULTS: The odds of cervical spinal manipulation versus evaluation and management did not significantly differ between vertebral artery dissection cases and any of the control groups at any of the timepoints (ORs 0.84 to 1.88; p > 0.05). Results for carotid artery dissection cases were similar. CONCLUSION: Among Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older who received cervical spinal manipulation, the risk of cervical artery dissection is no greater than that among control groups.

Patient Characteristics Associated With Self-Reported Adherence to Chiropractic Treatment Recommendations: A Feasibility Study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility of developing and administering a patient adherence survey to assess self-reported adherence to treatment recommendations from a chiropractic doctor within an academic health center. METHODS: The survey items were developed by the authors and vetted by the university's students and faculty, who serve as health care practitioners at an academic health center. Adult patients with spine pain who were seen by a doctor of chiropractic at an academic health center were included in this survey study. A 32-item survey was administered between October 2019 and March 2020. RESULTS: A total of 62 respondents completed the anonymous survey. We found that 89% of respondents adhered to their clinic appointments. Although 82% of respondents said that their doctor's recommendation made sense, only 44% reported completely following treatment recommendations for at-home stretching and exercise. CONCLUSION: This study determined that it is feasible to assess patient self-reported adherence to chiropractic treatment within an academic health center setting. In our sample we found that although patient adherence to clinic appointments was high, adherence to treatments was not.

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.

Long-Term Medicare Costs Associated With Opioid Analgesic Therapy vs Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain in a Cohort of Older Adults.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare Medicare healthcare expenditures for patients who received long-term treatment of chronic low back pain (cLBP) with either opioid analgesic therapy (OAT) or spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study using a cohort design for analysis of Medicare claims data. The study population included Medicare beneficiaries enrolled under Medicare Parts A, B, and D from 2012 through 2016. We assembled cohorts of patients who received long-term management of cLBP with OAT or SMT (such as delivered by chiropractic or osteopathic practitioners) and evaluated the comparative effect of OAT vs SMT upon expenditures, using multivariable regression to control for beneficiary characteristics and measures of health status, and propensity score weighting and binning to account for selection bias. RESULTS: The study sample totaled 28,160 participants, of whom 77% initiated long-term care of cLBP with OAT, and 23% initiated care with SMT. For care of low back pain specifically, average long-term costs for patients who initiated care with OAT were 58% lower than those who initiated care with SMT. However, overall long-term healthcare expenditures under Medicare were 1.87 times higher for patients who initiated care via OAT compared with those initiated care with SMT (95% CI 1.65-2.11; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Adults aged 65 to 84 who initiated long-term treatment for cLBP via OAT incurred lower long-term costs for low back pain but higher long-term total healthcare costs under Medicare compared with patients who initiated long-term treatment with SMT.

Spinal Manipulation vs Prescription Drug Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain: Beliefs, Satisfaction With Care, and Qualify of Life Among Older Medicare Beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare patients' perspectives on the use of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) compared to prescription drug therapy (PDT) with regard to health-related quality of life (HRQoL), patient beliefs, and satisfaction with treatment. METHODS: Four cohorts of Medicare beneficiaries were assembled according to previous treatment received as evidenced in claims data: SMT, PDT, and 2 crossover cohorts (where participants experienced both types of treatments). A total of 195 Medicare beneficiaries responded to the survey. Outcome measures used were a 0-to-10 numeric rating scale to measure satisfaction, the Low Back Pain Treatment Beliefs Questionnaire to measure patient beliefs, and the 12-item Short Form Health Survey to measure HRQoL. RESULTS: Recipients of SMT were more likely to be very satisfied with their care (84%) than recipients of PDT (50%; P = .002). The SMT cohort self-reported significantly higher HRQoL compared to the PDT cohort; mean differences in physical and mental health scores on the 12-item Short Form Health Survey were 12.85 and 9.92, respectively. The SMT cohort had a lower degree of concern regarding chiropractic care for their back pain compared to the PDT cohort's reported concern about PDT (P = .03). CONCLUSION: Among older Medicare beneficiaries with chronic low back pain, long-term recipients of SMT had higher self-reported rates of HRQoL and greater satisfaction with their modality of care than long-term recipients of PDT. Participants who had longer-term management of care were more likely to have positive attitudes and beliefs toward the mode of care they received.

Impact of Chiropractic Care on Use of Prescription Opioids in Patients with Spinal Pain.

OBJECTIVE: Utilization of nonpharmacological pain management may prevent unnecessary use of opioids. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of chiropractic utilization upon use of prescription opioids among patients with spinal pain. DESIGN AND SETTING: We employed a retrospective cohort design for analysis of health claims data from three contiguous states for the years 2012-2017. SUBJECTS: We included adults aged 18-84 years enrolled in a health plan and with office visits to a primary care physician or chiropractor for spinal pain. We identified two cohorts of subjects: Recipients received both primary care and chiropractic care, and nonrecipients received primary care but not chiropractic care. METHODS: We performed adjusted time-to-event analyses to compare recipients and nonrecipients with regard to the risk of filling an opioid prescription. We stratified the recipient populations as: acute (first chiropractic encounter within 30 days of diagnosis) and nonacute (all other patients). RESULTS: The total number of subjects was 101,221. Overall, between 1.55 and 2.03 times more nonrecipients filled an opioid prescription, as compared with recipients (in Connecticut: hazard ratio [HR] = 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11-2.17, P = 0.010; in New Hampshire: HR = 2.03, 95% CI = 1.92-2.14, P < 0.0001). Similar differences were observed for the acute groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with spinal pain who saw a chiropractor had half the risk of filling an opioid prescription. Among those who saw a chiropractor within 30 days of diagnosis, the reduction in risk was greater as compared with those with their first visit after the acute phase.

Implementation of the Primary Spine Care Model in a Multi-Clinician Primary Care Setting: An Observational Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this investigation was to compare the value of primary spine care (PSC) with usual care for management of patients with spine-related disorders (SRDs) within a primary care setting. METHODS: We retrospectively examined existing patient encounter data at 3 primary care sites within a multi-clinic health system. Designated clinicians serve in the role as PSC as the initial point of contact for spine patients, coordinate, and follow up for the duration of the episode of care. A PSC may be a chiropractor, physical therapist, or medical or osteopathic physician who has been trained to provide primary care for patients with SRDs. The PSC model of care had been introduced at site I (Lebanon, New Hampshire); sites II (Bedford, New Hampshire) and III (Nashua, New Hampshire) served as control sites where patients received usual care. To evaluate cost outcomes, we employed a controlled quasi-experimental design for analysis of health claims data. For analysis of clinical outcomes, we compared clinical records for PSC at site I and usual care at sites II and III, all with reference to usual care at site I. We examined clinical encounters occurring over a 24-month period, from February 1, 2016 through January 31, 2018. RESULTS: Primary spine care was associated with reduced total expenditures compared with usual care for SRDs. At site I, average per-patient expenditure was $162 in year 1 and $186 in year 2, compared with site II ($332 in year 1; $306 in year 2) and site III ($467 in year 1; $323 in year 2). CONCLUSION: Among patients with SRDs included in this study, implementation of the PSC model within a conventional primary care setting was associated with a trend toward reduced total expenditures for spine care compared with usual primary care. Implementation of PSC may lead to reduced costs and resource utilization, but may be no more effective than usual care regarding clinical outcomes.

Association Between Utilization of Chiropractic Services for Treatment of Low Back Pain and Risk of Adverse Drug Events.

OBJECTIVES: Mortality rates due to adverse drug events (ADEs) are escalating in the United States. Analgesics are among the drug classes most often associated with occurrence of an ADE. Utilization of nonpharmacologic chiropractic services for treatment of low back pain could lead to reduced risk of an ADE. The objective of this investigation was to evaluate the association between utilization of chiropractic services and likelihood of an ADE. METHODS: We employed a retrospective cohort design to analyze health insurance claims data from the state of New Hampshire. After inversely weighting each participant by their propensity to be in their cohort, we employed logistic regression to compare recipients of chiropractic services to nonrecipients with regard to likelihood of occurrence of an ADE in an outpatient setting. RESULTS: The risk of an ADE was significantly lower among recipients of chiropractic services as compared with nonrecipients. The adjusted likelihood of an ADE occurring in an outpatient setting within 12 months was 51% lower among recipients of chiropractic services as compared to nonrecipients (OR 0.49; P = .0002). The reported ADEs were nonspecific with regard to drug category in the majority of incidents that occurred in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Among New Hampshire adults with office visits for low back pain, the adjusted likelihood of an ADE was significantly lower for recipients of chiropractic services as compared to nonrecipients. No causal relationship was established between utilization of chiropractic care and risk of an ADE. Future research should employ larger databases, rigorous methods to reduce risk of bias, and more sensitive means of identifying ADEs.

The Association Between Use of Chiropractic Care and Costs of Care Among Older Medicare Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain and Multiple Comorbidities.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether use of chiropractic manipulative treatment (CMT) was associated with lower healthcare costs among multiply-comorbid Medicare beneficiaries with an episode of chronic low back pain (cLBP). METHODS: We conducted an observational, retrospective study of 2006 to 2012 Medicare fee-for-service reimbursements for 72326 multiply-comorbid patients aged 66 and older with cLBP episodes and 1 of 4 treatment exposures: chiropractic manipulative treatment (CMT) alone, CMT followed or preceded by conventional medical care, or conventional medical care alone. We used propensity score weighting to address selection bias. RESULTS: After propensity score weighting, total and per-episode day Part A, Part B, and Part D Medicare reimbursements during the cLBP treatment episode were lowest for patients who used CMT alone; these patients had higher rates of healthcare use for low back pain but lower rates of back surgery in the year following the treatment episode. Expenditures were greatest for patients receiving medical care alone; order was irrelevant when both CMT and medical treatment were provided. Patients who used only CMT had the lowest annual growth rates in almost all Medicare expenditure categories. While patients who used only CMT had the lowest Part A and Part B expenditures per episode day, we found no indication of lower psychiatric or pain medication expenditures associated with CMT. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that older multiply-comorbid patients who used only CMT during their cLBP episodes had lower overall costs of care, shorter episodes, and lower cost of care per episode day than patients in the other treatment groups. Further, costs of care for the episode and per episode day were lower for patients who used a combination of CMT and conventional medical care than for patients who did not use any CMT. These findings support initial CMT use in the treatment of, and possibly broader chiropractic management of, older multiply-comorbid cLBP patients.

Risk of stroke after chiropractic spinal manipulation in medicare B beneficiaries aged 66 to 99 years with neck pain.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to quantify risk of stroke after chiropractic spinal manipulation, as compared to evaluation by a primary care physician, for Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 to 99 years with neck pain. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort analysis of a 100% sample of annualized Medicare claims data on 1 157 475 beneficiaries aged 66 to 99 years with an office visit to either a chiropractor or primary care physician for neck pain. We compared hazard of vertebrobasilar stroke and any stroke at 7 and 30 days after office visit using a Cox proportional hazards model. We used direct adjusted survival curves to estimate cumulative probability of stroke up to 30 days for the 2 cohorts. RESULTS: The proportion of subjects with stroke of any type in the chiropractic cohort was 1.2 per 1000 at 7 days and 5.1 per 1000 at 30 days. In the primary care cohort, the proportion of subjects with stroke of any type was 1.4 per 1000 at 7 days and 2.8 per 1000 at 30 days. In the chiropractic cohort, the adjusted risk of stroke was significantly lower at 7 days as compared to the primary care cohort (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.45), but at 30 days, a slight elevation in risk was observed for the chiropractic cohort (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.19). CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicare B beneficiaries aged 66 to 99 years with neck pain, incidence of vertebrobasilar stroke was extremely low. Small differences in risk between patients who saw a chiropractor and those who saw a primary care physician are probably not clinically significant.

Comparing Propensity Score Methods for Creating Comparable Cohorts of Chiropractic Users and Nonusers in Older, Multiply Comorbid Medicare Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: Patients who use complementary and integrative health services like chiropractic manipulative treatment (CMT) often have different characteristics than do patients who do not, and these differences can confound attempts to compare outcomes across treatment groups, particularly in observational studies when selection bias may occur. The purposes of this study were to provide an overview on how propensity scoring methods can be used to address selection bias by balancing treatment groups on key variables and to use Medicare data to compare different methods for doing so. METHODS: We described 2 propensity score methods (matching and weighting). Then we used Medicare data from 2006 to 2012 on older, multiply comorbid patients who had a chronic low back pain episode to demonstrate the impact of applying methods on the balance of demographics of patients between 2 treatment groups (those who received only CMT and those who received no CMT during their episodes). RESULTS: Before application of propensity score methods, patients who used only CMT had different characteristics from those who did not. Propensity score matching diminished observed differences across the treatment groups at the expense of reduced sample size. However, propensity score weighting achieved balance in patient characteristics between the groups and allowed us to keep the entire sample. CONCLUSIONS: Although propensity score matching and weighting have similar effects in terms of balancing covariates, weighting has the advantage of maintaining sample size, preserving external validity, and generalizing more naturally to comparisons of 3 or more treatment groups. Researchers should carefully consider which propensity score method to use, as using different methods can generate different results.

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.

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.

Aging baby boomers and the rising cost of chronic back pain: secular trend analysis of longitudinal Medical Expenditures Panel Survey data for years 2000 to 2007.

OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this study were to analyze data from the longitudinal Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (MEPS) to evaluate the impact of an aging population on secular trends in back pain and chronicity and to provide estimates of treatment costs for patients who used only ambulatory services. METHODS: Using the MEPS 2-year longitudinal data for years 2000 to 2007, we analyzed data from all adult respondents. Of the total number of MEPS respondent records analyzed (N = 71,838), we identified 12,104 respondents with back pain and further categorized 3842 as chronic cases and 8262 as nonchronic cases. RESULTS: Secular trends from the MEPS data indicate that the prevalence of back pain has increased by 29%, whereas chronic back pain increased by 64%. The average age among all adults with back pain increased from 45.9 to 48.2 years; the average age among adults with chronic back pain increased from 48.5 to 52.2 years. Inflation-adjusted (to 2010 dollars) biennial expenditures on ambulatory services for chronic back pain increased by 129% over the same period, from $15.6 billion in 2000 to 2001 to $35.7 billion in 2006 to 2007. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of back pain, especially chronic back pain, is increasing. To the extent that the growth in chronic back pain is caused, in part, by an aging population, the growth will likely continue or accelerate. With relatively high cost per adult with chronic back pain, total expenditures associated with back pain will correspondingly accelerate under existing treatment patterns. This carries implications for prioritizing health policy, clinical practice, and research efforts to improve care outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness and for health workforce planning.

Racial disparities in the use of chiropractic care under Medicare.

CONTEXT: Medicare covers chiropractic care, but the health-care community knows little about the demographic characteristics of older adults who use chiropractic services under the Medicare program. Researchers do not know the demographic composition of chiropractic users under Medicare, how the demographics of chiropractic use and rates of use have changed over time, and how users' characteristics vary geographically across the United States. An understanding of the demographics of chiropractic users can help chiropractic organizations, policy makers, and other stakeholders plan for an equitable allocation of resources to meet the chiropractic health-care needs of all of Medicare's beneficiaries. OBJECTIVE: The study intended to evaluate Medicare administrative data to determine (1) longitudinal trends in the demographic composition of the population that used chiropractic services, (2) longitudinal trends in rates of chiropractic use by demographic group, and (3) geographic variations in chiropractic use among minorities. DESIGN: The research team used a serial cross-sectional design to analyze administrative data for beneficiaries of Medicare during the years 2002 to 2008, using a 20% random sample that provided those beneficiaries' racial and geographical characteristics. The team restricted the study's actual sample to adults aged 65 to 99 and defined chiropractic users as beneficiaries who had at least one paid claim for chiropractic care on a date of service in an analyzed calendar year. OUTCOME MEASURE(S): For each state in the United States and the District of Columbia for each of the 7 years studied, the team determined the number of chiropractic users in total and the number of users in selected demographic categories and calculated percentage estimates and averages for each category. The team analyzed 2008 data for rates of use within racial groups and for geographic variations in those rates and quantified variations in rates by state using the coeffcient of variation (CV). The team mapped race-specific rates for selected minorities, categorized by quintiles, to illustrate geographic variations by state. RESULTS: Analysis by beneficiary's race showed that the proportion of chiropractic users who were white hovered at 96% to 97% throughout the time period studied, while 1% to 2% were black. Each of the other racial categories comprised 1% or less of users, and the percentages showed little change over time. Rates among racial minorities showed greater geographic variation than did rates for whites. The greatest geographic variations in use by specific racial minorities occurred among Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans. CONCLUSION: The research team's results showed little longitudinal variation in the demographics of chiropractic use under Medicare but a striking difference in rates of use between whites and minorities, and substantial geographic variations in user rates among racial minorities. The research team's findings suggest the possibility that barriers may exist for minorities' access to chiropractic care. As minority populations in the United States continue to grow, the health-care community can expect that any impact on population health that these barriers cause will grow as well.

Geographic variations in availability and use of chiropractic under medicare.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to measure geographic variations in the availability and use of chiropractic under Medicare. METHODS: A cross-sectional design was used to analyze a large nationally representative sample of Medicare data. Data from a 20% representative sample of all paid Medicare Part B fee-for-service claims for 2007 were merged with files containing beneficiary and provider data. The sample was restricted to adults aged 65 to 99 years. Measures of chiropractic availability and use were described and selectively mapped by state. Geographic variations were quantified. Spearman test was used to evaluate for correlation between chiropractic availability and use. RESULTS: The average number of doctors of chiropractic (DC) by state was 1135; average DC per 1000 beneficiaries was 2.5 (SD, 1.1). The average number of chiropractic users by state was 34,502 (SD, 30,844); average chiropractic users per 1000 beneficiaries was 76 (SD, 41). Chiropractic availability by state varied 6-fold, and chiropractic use varied nearly 30-fold. Availability was strongly correlated with use (Spearman ρ, 0.86; P < .001). Expenditures per DC were highest in the upper Midwest and lowest in the far West; expenditures per user were highest in New England and New York, and lowest in the West. CONCLUSION: Chiropractic availability and use by older adults under Medicare predominated in rural states in the North Central United States. Expenditures were higher in the East and Midwest and lower in the far West. Chiropractic availability and use by state were highly correlated. Future analyses should use small-area analysis and statistical modeling to identify factors predictive of chiropractic use.

Efficiency of primary spine care as compared to conventional primary care: a retrospective observational study at an Academic Medical Center.

BACKGROUND: Primary Spine Care (PSC) is an innovative model for the primary management of patients with spine-related disorders (SRDs), with a focus on the use of non-pharmacological therapies which now constitute the recommended first-line approach to back pain. PSC clinicians serve as the initial or early point of contact for spine patients and utilize evidence-based spine care pathways to improve outcomes and reduce escalation of care (EoC; e.g., spinal injections, diagnostic imaging, hospitalizations, referrals to a specialist). The present study examined 6-month outcomes to evaluate the efficiency of care for patients who received PSC as compared to conventional primary care. We hypothesized that patients seen by a PSC clinician would have lower rates of EoC compared to patients who received usual care by a primary care (PC) clinician. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study. We evaluated 6-month outcomes for two groups seen and treated for an SRD between February 01, 2017 and January 31, 2020. Patient groups were comprised of N = 1363 PSC patients (Group A) and N = 1329 PC patients (Group B). We conducted Pearson chi-square and logistic regression (adjusting for patient characteristics that were unbalanced between the two groups) to determine associations between the two groups and 6-month outcomes. RESULTS: Within six months of an initial visit for an SRD, a statistically significantly smaller proportion of PSC patients utilized healthcare resources for spine care as compared to the PC patients. When adjusting for patient characteristics, those who received care from the PSC clinician were less likely within 6 months of an initial visit to be hospitalized (OR = .47, 95% CI .23-.97), fill a prescription for an opioid analgesic (OR = .43; 95% CI .29-.65), receive a spinal injection (OR = .56, 95% CI .33-.95), or have a visit with a specialist (OR = .48, 95% CI .35-.67) as compared to those who received usual primary care. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received PSC in an academic primary care clinic experienced significantly less escalation of their spine care within 6 months of their initial visit. The PSC model may offer a more efficient approach to the primary care of spine problems for patients with SRDs, as compared to usual primary care.

Association between chiropractic care and use of prescription opioids among older medicare beneficiaries with spinal pain: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: The burden of spinal pain can be aggravated by the hazards of opioid analgesics, which are still widely prescribed for spinal pain despite evidence-based clinical guidelines that identify non-pharmacological therapies as the preferred first-line approach. Previous studies have found that chiropractic care is associated with decreased use of opioids, but have not focused on older Medicare beneficiaries, a vulnerable population with high rates of co-morbidity and polypharmacy. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the association between chiropractic utilization and use of prescription opioids among older adults with spinal pain. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study in which we examined a nationally representative multi-year sample of Medicare claims data, 2012-2016. The study sample included 55,949 Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with spinal pain, of whom 9,356 were recipients of chiropractic care and 46,593 were non-recipients. We measured the adjusted risk of filling a prescription for an opioid analgesic for up to 365 days following diagnosis of spinal pain. Using Cox proportional hazards modeling and inverse weighted propensity scoring to account for selection bias, we compared recipients of both primary care and chiropractic to recipients of primary care alone regarding the risk of filling a prescription. RESULTS: The adjusted risk of filling an opioid prescription within 365 days of initial visit was 56% lower among recipients of chiropractic care as compared to non-recipients (hazard ratio 0.44; 95% confidence interval 0.40-0.49). CONCLUSIONS: Among older Medicare beneficiaries with spinal pain, use of chiropractic care is associated with significantly lower risk of filling an opioid prescription.

Initial Choice of Spinal Manipulation Reduces Escalation of Care for Chronic Low Back Pain Among Older Medicare Beneficiaries.

STUDY DESIGN: We combined elements of cohort and crossover-cohort design. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare longterm outcomes for spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and opioid analgesic therapy (OAT) regarding escalation of care for patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Current evidence-based guidelines for clinical management of cLBP include both OAT and SMT. For long-term care of older adults, the efficiency and value of continuing either OAT or SMT are uncertain. METHODS: We examined Medicare claims data spanning a five-year period. We included older Medicare beneficiaries with an episode of cLBP beginning in 2013. All patients were continuously enrolled under Medicare Parts A, B, and D. We analyzed the cumulative frequency of encounters indicative of an escalation of care for cLBP, including hospitalizations, emergency department visits, advanced diagnostic imaging, specialist visits, lumbosacral surgery, interventional pain medicine techniques, and encounters for potential complications of cLBP. RESULTS: SMT was associated with lower rates of escalation of care as compared to OAT. The adjusted rate of escalated care encounters was approximately 2.5 times higher for initial choice of OAT vs. initial choice of SMT (with weighted propensity scoring: rate ratio 2.67, 95% confidence interval 2.64-2.69, P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Among older Medicare beneficiaries who initiated long-term care for cLBP with opioid analgesic therapy, the adjusted rate of escalated care encounters was significantly higher as compared to those who initiated care with spinal manipulative therapy.Level of Evidence: 3.