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.

Trends in Insurance Coverage for Complementary Health Care Services.

Introduction: Complementary health care professionals deliver a substantial component of clinical services in the United States, but insurance coverage for many such services may be inadequate. The objective of this project was to follow up on an earlier single-year study with an evaluation of trends in reimbursement for complementary health care services over a 7-year period. Methods: The authors employed a retrospective serial cross-sectional design to analyze health insurance claims for services provided by licensed acupuncturists, chiropractors, and naturopaths in New Hampshire (NH) from 2011 to 2017. They restricted the analyses to claims in nonemergent outpatient settings for Current Procedural Terminology code 99213, which is one of the most commonly used clinical procedure codes across all specialties. They evaluated by year the likelihood of reimbursement, as compared with primary care physicians as the gold standard. A generalized estimating equation model was used to account for within-person correlations among the separate claim reimbursement indicators for individuals used in the analysis, using an exchangeable working covariance structure among claims for the same individual. Reimbursement was defined as payment >0 dollars. Results: The total number of clinical services claimed was 26,725 for acupuncture, 8317 for naturopathic medicine, 2,539,144 for chiropractic, and 1,860,271 for primary care. Initially, likelihood of reimbursement for naturopathic physicians was higher relative to primary care physicians, but was lower from 2014 onward. Odds of reimbursement for both acupuncture and chiropractic claims remained lower throughout the study period. In 2017, as compared with primary care the likelihood of reimbursement was 77% lower for acupuncturists, 72% lower for chiropractors, and 64% lower for naturopaths. Conclusion: The likelihood of reimbursement for complementary health care services is significantly lower than that for primary care physicians in NH. Lack of insurance coverage may result in reduced patient access to such services.

Association Between Utilization of Chiropractic Services for Treatment of Low-Back Pain and Use of Prescription Opioids.

OBJECTIVE: Pain relief resulting from services delivered by doctors of chiropractic may allow patients to use lower or less frequent doses of opioids, leading to reduced risk of adverse effects. The objective of this investigation was to evaluate the association between utilization of chiropractic services and the use of prescription opioid medications. DESIGN: The authors used a retrospective cohort design to analyze health insurance claims data. SETTING: The data source was the all payer claims database administered by the State of New Hampshire. The authors chose New Hampshire because health claims data were readily available for research, and in 2015, New Hampshire had the second-highest age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths in the United States. SUBJECTS: The study population comprised New Hampshire residents aged 18-99 years, enrolled in a health plan, and with at least two clinical office visits within 90 days for a primary diagnosis of low-back pain. The authors excluded subjects with a diagnosis of cancer. OUTCOME MEASURES: The authors measured likelihood of opioid prescription fill among recipients of services delivered by doctors of chiropractic compared with nonrecipients. They also compared the cohorts with regard to rates of prescription fills for opioids and associated charges. RESULTS: The adjusted likelihood of filling a prescription for an opioid analgesic was 55% lower among recipients compared with nonrecipients (odds ratio 0.45; 95% confidence interval 0.40-0.47; p < 0.0001). Average charges per person for opioid prescriptions were also significantly lower among recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Among New Hampshire adults with office visits for noncancer low-back pain, the likelihood of filling a prescription for an opioid analgesic was significantly lower for recipients of services delivered by doctors of chiropractic compared with nonrecipients. The underlying cause of this correlation remains unknown, indicating the need for further investigation.