A Regional Analysis of Low Back Pain Treatments in the Military Health System.

STUDY DESIGN: Claims-based analysis of cohorts of TRICARE Prime beneficiaries. OBJECTIVE: To compare rates of utilization of 5 low back pain (LBP) treatments (physical therapy (PT), manual therapy, behavioral therapies, opioid, and benzodiazepine prescription) across catchment areas and assess their association with the resolution of LBP. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND: Guidelines support focusing on nonpharmacologic management for LBP and reducing opioid use. Little is known about patterns of care for LBP across the Military Health System. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Incident LBP diagnoses were identified data using the International Classification of Diseases ninth revision before October 2015 and 10th revision after October 2015; beneficiaries with "red flag" diagnoses and those stationed overseas, eligible for Medicare, or having other health insurance were excluded. After exclusions, there were 159,027 patients remained in the final analytic cohort across 73 catchment areas. Treatment was defined by catchment-level rates of treatment to avoid confounding by indication at the individual level; the primary outcome was the resolution of LBP defined as an absence of administrative claims for LBP during a 6 to 12-month period after the index diagnosis. RESULTS: Adjusted rates of opioid prescribing across catchment areas ranged from 15% to 28%, physical therapy from 17% to 39%, and manual therapy from 5% to 26%. Multivariate logistic regression models showed a negative and marginally significant association between opioid prescriptions and LBP resolution (odds ratio: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.93-1.00; P = 0.051) but no significant association with physical therapy, manual therapy, benzodiazepine prescription, or behavioral therapies. When the analysis was restricted to the subset of only active-duty beneficiaries, there was a stronger negative association between opioid prescription and LBP resolution (odds ratio: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.89-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial variability across catchment areas within TRICARE for the treatment of LBP. Higher rates of opioid prescription were associated with worse outcomes.

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.

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.

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.

Orthopedic disease burden in adult patients with symptomatic lumbar scoliosis: results from a prospective multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: Although the health impact of adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis (ASLS) is substantial, these patients often have other orthopedic problems that have not been previously quantified. The objective of this study was to assess disease burden of other orthopedic conditions in patients with ASLS based on a retrospective review of a prospective multicenter cohort. METHODS: The ASLS-1 study is an NIH-sponsored prospective multicenter study designed to assess operative versus nonoperative treatment for ASLS. Patients were 40-80 years old with ASLS, defined as a lumbar coronal Cobb angle ≥ 30° and Oswestry Disability Index ≥ 20, or Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire score ≤ 4.0 in pain, function, and/or self-image domains. Nonthoracolumbar orthopedic events, defined as fractures and other orthopedic conditions receiving surgical treatment, were assessed from enrollment to the 4-year follow-up. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-six patients (mean age 60.3 years, 90% women) were enrolled, with 173 operative and 113 nonoperative patients, and 81% with 4-year follow-up data. At a mean (± SD) follow-up of 3.8 ± 0.9 years, 104 nonthoracolumbar orthopedic events were reported, affecting 69 patients (24.1%). The most common events were arthroplasty (n = 38), fracture (n = 25), joint ligament/cartilage repair (n = 13), and cervical decompression/fusion (n = 7). Based on the final adjusted model, patients with a nonthoracolumbar orthopedic event were older (HR 1.44 per decade, 95% CI 1.07-1.94), more likely to have a history of tobacco use (HR 1.63, 95% CI 1.00-2.66), and had worse baseline leg pain scores (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.19). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ASLS have high orthopedic disease burden, with almost 25% having a fracture or nonthoracolumbar orthopedic condition requiring surgical treatment during the mean 3.8 years following enrollment. Comparisons with previous studies suggest that the rate of total knee arthroplasty was considerably greater and the rates of total hip arthroplasty were at least as high in the ASLS-1 cohort compared with the similarly aged general US population. These conditions may further impact health-related quality of life and outcomes assessments of both nonoperative and operative treatment approaches in patients with ASLS.

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.

Initial Choice of Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain Leads to Reduced Long-term Risk of Adverse Drug Events Among Older Medicare Beneficiaries.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. OBJECTIVE: Opioid Analgesic Therapy (OAT) and Spinal Manipulative Therapy (SMT) are evidence-based strategies for treatment of chronic low back pain (cLBP), but the long-term safety of these therapies is uncertain. The objective of this study was to compare OAT versus SMT with regard to risk of adverse drug events (ADEs) among older adults with cLBP. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: We examined Medicare claims data spanning a 5-year period on fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 to 84 years, continuously enrolled under Medicare Parts A, B, and D for a 60-month study period, and with an episode of cLBP in 2013. We excluded patients with a diagnosis of cancer or use of hospice care. METHODS: All included patients received long-term management of cLBP with SMT or OAT. We assembled cohorts of patients who received SMT or OAT only, and cohorts of patients who crossed over from OAT to SMT or from SMT to OAT. We used Poisson regression to estimate the adjusted incidence rate ratio for outpatient ADE among patients who initially chose OAT as compared with SMT. RESULTS: With controlling for patient characteristics, health status, and propensity score, the adjusted rate of ADE was more than 42 times higher for initial choice of OAT versus initial choice of SMT (rate ratio 42.85, 95% CI 34.16-53.76, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Among older Medicare beneficiaries who received long-term care for cLBP the adjusted rate of ADE for patients who initially chose OAT was substantially higher than those who initially chose SMT.Level of Evidence: 2.

Cost-effectiveness of adult lumbar scoliosis surgery: an as-treated analysis from the adult symptomatic scoliosis surgery trial with 5-year follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal comparative cohort. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to report on the cost-effectiveness of surgical versus non-surgical treatment for Adult Symptomatic Lumbar Scoliosis (ASLS) using the as-treated data and provide a comparison to previously reported intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Adult spinal deformity is a relatively prevalent condition for which surgical treatment has become increasingly common but concerns surrounding complications, revision rates and cost-effectiveness remain unresolved. Of these issues, cost-effectiveness is perhaps the most difficult to quantify as the requisite data is difficult to obtain. The purpose of this study is to report on the cost-effectiveness of surgical versus non-surgical treatment for ASLS using the as-treated data and provide a comparison to previously reported ITT analysis. METHODS: Patients with at least 5-year follow-up data within the same treatment arm were included. Data collected every 3 months included use of nonoperative modalities, medications and employment status. Costs for surgeries and non-operative modalities were determined using Medicare Allowable rates. Medication costs were determined using the RedBook and indirect costs were calculated based on the reported employment status and income. Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) was determined using the SF-6D. RESULTS: Of 226 patients, 195 patients (73 Non-op, 122 Op) met inclusion criteria. At 5 years, 29 (24%) patients in the Op group had a revision surgery of whom two had two revisions and one had three revisions. The cumulative cost for the Op group was $111,451 with a cumulative QALY gain of 2.3. The cumulative cost for the Non-Op group was $29,124 with a cumulative QALY gain of 0.4. This results in an ICER of $44,033 in favor of Op treatment. CONCLUSION: This as-treated cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrates that surgical treatment for adult lumbar scoliosis becomes favorable at year-three, 1 year earlier than suggested by a previous intent-to-treat analysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Longitudinal Spending on Endovascular and Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular repair (EVR) has replaced open surgery as the procedure of choice for patients requiring elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Long-term outcomes of the 2 approaches are similar, making the relative cost of caring for these patients over time an important consideration. METHODS AND RESULTS: We linked Medicare claims to Vascular Quality Initiative registry data for patients undergoing elective EVR or open AAA repair from 2004 to 2015. The primary outcome was Medicare's cumulative disease-related spending, adjusted to 2015 dollars. Disease-related spending included the index operation and associated hospitalization, surveillance imaging, reinterventions (AAA-related and abdominal wall procedures), and all-cause admissions within 90 days. We compared the incidence of disease-related events and cumulative spending at 90 days and annually through 7 years of follow-up. The analytic cohort comprised 6804 EVR patients (median follow-up: 1.85 years; interquartile range: 0.82-3.22 years) and 1889 open repair patients (median follow-up: 2.62 years; interquartile range: 1.13-4.80 years). Spending on index surgery was significantly lower for EVR (median [interquartile range]: $25 924 [$22 280-$32 556] EVR versus $31 442 [$24 669-$40 419] open; P<0.001), driven by a lower rate of in-hospital complications (6.6% EVR versus 38.0% open; P<0.001). EVR patients underwent more surveillance imaging (1.8 studies per person-year EVR versus 0.7 studies per person-year open; P<0.001) and AAA-related reinterventions (4.0 per 100 person-years EVR versus 2.1 per 100 person-years open; P=0.041). Open repair patients had higher rates of 90-day readmission (12.9% EVR versus 17.8% open; P<0.001) and abdominal wall procedures (0.6 per 100 person-years EVR versus 1.5 per 100 person-years open; P<0.001). Overall, EVR patients incurred more disease-related spending in follow-up ($7355 EVR versus $2706 open through 5 years). There was no cumulative difference in disease-related spending between surgical groups by 5 years of follow-up (-$33 EVR [95% CI: -$1543 to $1476]). CONCLUSIONS: We observed no cumulative difference in disease-related spending on EVR and open repair patients 5 years after surgery. Generalized recommendations about which approach to offer elective AAA patients should not be based on relative cost.

Geographic Expansion of Federally Qualified Health Centers 2007-2014.

PURPOSE: Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), which were expanded under the Affordable Care Act, are federally funded health centers that aim to improve access to primary care in underserved areas. With continued federal support, the number of FQHCs in the United States has increased >80% within a decade. However, the expansion patterns and their impact on the population served are unknown. METHODS: A pre (2007)-post (2014) study of FQHC locations. FQHC locations were identified from the Provider of Services Files then linked to primary care service areas (PCSAs), which represent the service markets that FQHCs served. Road-based travel time was estimated from each 2007 FQHC to the nearest new FQHC as an indicator of geographic expansion in access. PCSA-level characteristics were used to compare 2007 and 2014 FQHC service markets. FINDINGS: Between 2007 and 2014, there was greater expansion in the number of FQHCs (3,489 vs 6,376; 82.7%) than in the number of service markets (1,835 vs 2,695; 46.9%). Nearly half of 2007 FQHCs (47%) had at least one new FQHC within 30 minutes travel time. Most newly certified FQHCs (81%) were located in urban areas. Compared to 2007 service markets, the new 2014 markets (N = 174) were much less likely to be in areas with >20% of the population below poverty (31.4% vs 14.9%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The latest expansion of FQHCs was less likely to be in rural or high poverty areas, suggesting the impact of expansion may have limitations in improving access to care among the most financially disadvantaged populations.

Retrolisthesis and lumbar disc herniation: a postoperative assessment of outcomes at 8-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Lumbar disc herniation and retrolisthesis have been shown to be significant degenerative changes that can be associated with back pain. Current literature has shown evidence that retrolisthesis is associated with similar baseline function in patients with L5-S1 disc herniation, but worse postoperative outcomes 2 years after lumbar discectomy. However, literature comparing long-term postoperative outcomes at 8-year follow-up in patients with L5-S1 disc herniation with retrolisthesis is lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study is to compare long-term postoperative outcomes at 8-year follow-up in patients with retrolisthesis and L5-S1 disc herniations to patients with L5-S1 disc herniations without retrolisthesis. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data from the Spine Patients Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) database. PATIENT SAMPLE: Sixty-five patients who underwent lumbar discectomy for L5-S1 disc herniations with 8-year follow-up from the SPORT. OUTCOME MEASURES: Short Form (SF)-36 bodily pain scale, SF-36 physical function scale, Oswestry Disability Index, Sciatica Bothersomeness Index, and reoperation rate. METHODS: Baseline surgical parameters, length of stay, complication rates, reoperation rates, and outcome measures were recorded in the SPORT database. Follow-up data were collected at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, 5 years, 6 years, 7 years, and 8 years. Retrolisthesis was defined as posterior subluxation ≥8%. Patients with and without retrolisthesis were compared using a mixed-effects model of longitudinal regression. Outcomes were calculated as time-weighted averages over 8 years. Reoperation rates were compared using the log-rank test based on time to first reoperation. RESULTS: One hundred-twenty five patients met inclusion criteria for the present study, including 29 patients with retrolisthesis (23.3%) and 96 patients who did not have retrolisthesis (76.7%). The greatest difference in clinical outcome measures was found at 2 years postoperatively. This was the only point at which both the Short Form-36 Bodily Pain scale (SF-36 BP) and PF showed significant differences between the retrolisthesis and nonretrolisthesis group. At 3 years, SF-36 BP was significantly lower in patients with retrolisthesis (39.9 vs. 52, p=.046). At 8-year follow-up, the presence of retrolisthesis in patients undergoing L5-S1 discectomy was not associated with worse outcome measure scores based on the area under the curve analysis for any metric investigated (SF-36 BP 41.4 vs. 47.1, p=.18; SF-36 Physical Function scale 38.9 vs. 45.4, p=.12; Oswestry Disability Index -39.4 vs. -34.8, p=.23; -11.6 vs. -10.4, p=.25) or a difference in reoperation rate (retrolisthesis group 10%, nonretrolisthesis group 17%, p=.41). CONCLUSIONS: While retrolisthesis can contribute to low back pain and dysfunction in patients undergoing lumbar discectomy for L5-S1 herniated nucleus pulposus in early follow-up, no significant difference was found in postoperative outcomes after 3 years. Additionally, retrolisthesis was not found to be associated with different reoperation rates at 8 years postoperatively.

Understanding the value of minimally invasive procedures for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: the case of interspinous spacer devices.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Minimally invasive lumbar spinal stenosis procedures have uncertain long-term value. PURPOSE: This study sought to characterize factors affecting the long-term cost-effectiveness of such procedures using interspinous spacer devices ("spacers") relative to decompression surgery as a case study. STUDY DESIGN: Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis. PATIENT SAMPLE: The Medicare Provider Analysis and Review database for the years 2005-2009 was used to model a group of 65-year-old patients with spinal stenosis who had no previous spine surgery and no contraindications to decompression surgery. OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost per QALY gained were the outcome measures. METHODS: A Markov model tracked health utility and costs over 10 years for a 65-year-old cohort under three care strategies: conservative care, spacer surgery, and decompression surgery. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) reported as cost per QALY gained included direct medical costsfor surgery. Medicare claims data were used to estimate complication rates, reoperation, and related costs within 3 years. Utilities and long-term reoperation rates for decompression were derived frompublished studies. Spacer failure requiring reoperation beyond 3 years and post-spacer health utilities are uncertain and were evaluated through sensitivity analyses. In the base-case, the spacer failure rate was held constant for years 4-10 (cumulative failure: 47%). In a "worst-case" analysis, the 10-year cumulative reoperation rate was increased steeply (to 90%). Threshold analyses were performed to determine the impact of failure and post-spacer health utility on the cost-effectiveness of spacer surgery. RESULTS: The spacer strategy had an ICER of $89,500/QALY gained under base-case assumptions, and remained under $100,000 as long as the 10-year cumulative probability of reoperation did not exceed 54%. Under worst-case assumptions, the spacer ICER was $482,000/QALY and fell below $100,000 only if post-spacer utility was 0.01 greater than post-decompression utility or the cost of spacer surgery was $1,600 less than the cost of decompression surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Spacers may provide a reasonably cost-effective initial treatment option for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Their value is expected to improve if procedure costs are lower in outpatient settings where these procedures are increasingly being performed. Decision analysis is useful for characterizing the long-term cost-effectiveness potential for minimally invasive spinal stenosis treatments and highlights the importance of complication rates and prospective health utility assessment.

Early Effects of Medicare's Bundled Payment for Care Improvement Program for Lumbar Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of Medicare claims linked to hospital participation in the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation's episode-based Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) program for lumbar fusion. OBJECTIVE: To describe the early effects of BPCI participation for lumbar fusion on 90-day reimbursement, procedure volume, reoperation, and readmission. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Initiated on January 1, 2013, BPCI's voluntary bundle payment program provides a predetermined payment for services related to a Diagnosis-Related Group-defined "triggering event" over a defined time period. As an alternative to fee-for-service, these reforms shift the financial risk of care on to hospitals. METHODS: We identified fee-for-service beneficiaries over age 65 undergoing a lumbar fusion in 2012 or 2013, corresponding to the years before and after BPCI initiation. Hospitals were grouped based on program participation status as nonparticipants, preparatory, or risk-bearing. Generalized estimating equation models adjusting for patient age, sex, race, comorbidity, and hospital size were used to compare changes in episode costs, procedure volume, and safety indicators based on hospital BPCI participation. RESULTS: We included 89,605 beneficiaries undergoing lumbar fusion, including 36% seen by a preparatory hospital and 7% from a risk-bearing hospital. The mean age of the cohort was 73.4 years, with 59% women, 92% White, and 22% with a Charlson Comorbidity Index of 2 or more. Participant hospitals had greater procedure volume, bed size, and total discharges. Relative to nonparticipants, risk-bearing hospitals had a slightly increased fusion procedure volume from 2012 to 2013 (3.4% increase vs. 1.6% decrease, P = 0.119), did not reduce 90-day episode of care costs (0.4% decrease vs. 2.9% decrease, P = 0.044), increased 90-day readmission rate (+2.7% vs. -10.7%, P = 0.043), and increased repeat surgery rates (+30.6% vs. +7.1% points, P = 0.043). CONCLUSION: These early, unintended trends suggest an imperative for continued monitoring of BPCI in lumbar fusion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Health-Related Quality of Life Scores Underestimate the Impact of Major Complications in Lumbar Degenerative Scoliosis Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: To examine Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCMI) as a marker for deterioration in health status not reflected in standard Health Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) measures. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: HRQOL has become a primary metric for assessing outcomes following spinal deformity surgery. However, studies have reported limited impact of complications on postoperative HRQOL outcomes. METHODS: We examined serial CCMI, complications, and HRQOL outcomes for 138 adult lumbar deformity patients treated surgically with a minimum two-year follow-up that included 126 females (91%) with a mean age of 59.8 years (range, 40.2-78.5). Patients with no, minor, or major complications were compared at baseline and at one and two years postoperation. RESULTS: Minor complications were observed in 26 patients (19%) and major complications in 15 (11%). Major complications included motor deficit (7), deep vein thrombosis (4), and respiratory failure (3). There was no difference in preoperative SF-36 Physical Component Summary or Scoliosis Research Society-22R (SRS-22R) scores among the groups at baseline. Preoperative CCMI was lowest in the No Complication group (3.52 ± 1.70) followed by the Major (4.00 ± 1.13) and Minor Complication groups (4.15 ± 1.71, p = .165). At one year, there was a significantly greater CCMI deterioration in the Major Complication group (0.80 ± 1.01) compared to both the Minor (0.08 ± 0.27) and No Complication groups (0.27 ± 0.47, p < .001). There was no significant difference in SF-36 Physical Component Summary or SRS-22R scores among the three groups. Similar findings were observed at two years. CONCLUSIONS: Despite similar one- and two-year HRQOL improvement, patients with major complications had greater deterioration in CCMI. As CCMI is predictive of medical and surgical risk, patients who sustained a major complication now carry a greater likelihood of adverse outcomes with future interventions, including any subsequent spinal surgery. Although this increased risk may not alter the patient's perception of his or her current health status, it may be important, and should be recognized as part of the shared decision-making process. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, high-quality prognostic study.

Validation of Using Claims Data to Measure Safety of Lumbar Fusion Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of patients undergoing elective lumbar fusion operations, comparing rates of repeat spine surgery based on method of ascertainment. OBJECTIVE: We report the accuracy of a claims-based approach for reporting repeat surgery compared with medical records abstraction as the "gold standard." SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous studies have reported the validity of a claims-based algorithm for grouping patients by surgical indication and classifying operative features, but their accuracy in measuring surgical quality indicators has not been widely examined. METHODS: We identified a subset of patients undergoing elective lumbar fusion operations at a single institution from 1996 to 2011, excluding those with spinal fracture, spinal cord injury, or cancer. From the medical record we abstracted the incidence of repeat spine operation or rehospitalization at 1 year. We cross-classified each event record with its corresponding value derived from claims. The sensitivity and specificity of the claims-based approach were calculated for reoperation within 30, 90, and 365 days, and all-cause hospital readmission within 30 days. RESULTS: Medical records linked to claims data were obtained for 520 patients undergoing elective lumbar fusion. Reoperation rates based on chart review were 1.0%, 1.3%, 3.6%, compared with 0.8%, 1.7%, and 3.8% based on the final claims methods at 30, 90, and 365 days, respectively. The claims-based algorithm had sensitivities of 80.0%, 100%, and 94.1% and specificities of 100%, 99.6%, 99.2% for repeat surgery within 30, 90, and 365 days, respectively. The sensitivity for all-cause readmission was 50%. CONCLUSION: Health care quality improvement efforts often rely on administrative data to report surgical safety. We found that claims-based ascertainment of safety at a single institution was very accurate. However, accuracy depended on careful attention to the timing of outcomes, as well as the definitions and coding of repeat surgery, including how orthopedic device removal codes are classified. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Screening Mammography Use Among Older Women Before and After the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain how changes in the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force breast cancer screening recommendations (from annual to biennial mammography screening in women aged 50-74 and grading the evidence as insufficient for screening in women aged 75 and older) have affected mammography use among Medicare beneficiaries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cohort study of 12 million Medicare fee-for-service women aged 65-74 and 75 and older to measure changes in 3-year screening use, 2007-2009 (before) and 2010-2012 (after), defined by two measures-proportion screened and frequency of screening by age, race/ethnicity, and hospital referral region. RESULTS: Fewer women were screened, but with similar frequency after 2009 for both age groups (after vs. before: age 65-74: 60.1% vs. 60.8% screened, 2.1 vs. 2.1 mammograms per screened woman; age 75 and older: 31.7% vs. 33.6% screened, 1.9 vs. 1.9 mammograms per screened woman; all p < 0.05). Black women were the only subgroup with an increase in screening use, and for both age groups (after vs. before: age 65-74: 55.4% vs. 54.0% screened and 2.0 vs. 1.9 mammograms per screened woman; age 75 and older: 28.5% vs. 27.9% screened and 1.8 vs. 1.8 mammograms per screened woman; all p < 0.05). Regional change patterns in screening were more similar between age groups (Pearson correlation r = 0.781 for proportion screened; r = 0.840 for frequency of screening) than between black versus nonblack women (Pearson correlation r = 0.221 for proportion screened; r = 0.212 for frequency of screening). CONCLUSIONS: Changes in screening mammography use for Medicare women are not fully aligned with the 2009 recommendations.

Interspinous spacers for lumbar spinal stenosis: commentary on van den Akker-van Marle et al.

COMMENTARY ON: van den Akker-van Marle ME, Moojen WA, Arts MP, Vleggeert-Lankamp CLAM, Peul WC, for the Leiden-The Hague Spine Intervention Prognostic Study Group (SIPS). Interspinous process devices versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: cost-utility analysis. Spine J 2016:16:702-10 (in this issue).

Characteristics and Service Use of Medicare Beneficiaries Using Federally Qualified Health Centers.

BACKGROUND: Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) provide primary care for millions of Americans, but little is known about Medicare beneficiaries who use FQHCs. OBJECTIVE: To compare patient characteristics and health care service use among Medicare beneficiaries stratified by FQHC use. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of 2011 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years and older. SUBJECTS: Subjects included beneficiaries with at least 1 evaluation and management (E&M) visit in 2011, categorized as FQHC users (≥1 E&M visit to FQHCs) or nonusers living in the same primary care service areas as FQHC users. Users were subclassified as predominant if the majority of their E&M visits were to FQHCs. MEASURES: Demographic characteristics, physician visits, and inpatient care use. RESULTS: Most FQHC users (56.6%) were predominant users. Predominant and nonpredominant users, compared with nonusers, markedly differed by prevalence of multiple chronic conditions (18.2%, 31.7% vs. 22.7%) and annual mortality (2.8%, 3.8% vs. 4.0%; all P<0.05). In adjusted analyses (reference: nonusers), predominant users had fewer physician visits (RR=0.81; 95% CI, 0.81-0.81) and fewer hospitalizations (RR=0.84; 95% CI, 0.84-0.85), whereas nonpredominant users had higher use of both types of service (RR=1.18, 95% CI, 1.18-1.18; RR=1.09, 95% CI, 1.08-1.10, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Even controlling for primary care delivery markets, nonpredominant FQHC users had a higher burden of chronic illness and service use than predominant FQHC users. It will be important to monitor Medicare beneficiaries using FQHCs to understand whether primary care only payment incentives for FQHCs could induce fragmented care.

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.

Effects of a Commercial Insurance Policy Restriction on Lumbar Fusion in North Carolina and the Implications for National Adoption.

STUDY DESIGN: An analysis of the State Inpatient Database of North Carolina, 2005 to 2012, and the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, including all inpatient lumbar fusion admissions from nonfederal hospitals. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to examine the influence of a major commercial policy change that restricted lumbar fusion for certain indications and to forecast the potential impact if the policy were adopted nationally. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Few studies have examined the effects of recent changes in commercial coverage policies that restrict the use of lumbar fusion. METHODS: We included adults undergoing elective lumbar fusion or re-fusion operations in North Carolina. We aggregated data into a monthly time series to report changes in the rates and volume of lumbar fusion operations for disc herniation or degeneration, spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, or revision fusions. Time series regression models were used to test for significant changes in the use of fusion operation following a major commercial coverage policy change initiated on January 1, 2011. RESULTS: There was a substantial decline in the use of lumbar fusion for disc herniation or degeneration following the policy change on January 1, 2011. Overall rates of elective lumbar fusion operations in North Carolina (per 100,000 residents) increased from 103.2 in 2005 to 120.4 in 2009, before declining to 101.9 by 2012. The population rate (per 100,000 residents) of fusion among those under age 65 increased from 89.5 in 2005 to 101.2 in 2009, followed by a sharp decline to 76.8 by 2012. There was no acceleration in the already increasing rate of fusion for spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, or revision procedures, but there was a coincident increase in decompression without fusion. CONCLUSION: This commercial insurance policy change had its intended effect of reducing fusion operations for indications with less evidence of effectiveness without changing rates for other indications or resulting in an overall reduction in spine surgery. Nevertheless, broader adoption of the policy could significantly reduce the national rates of fusion operations and associated costs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.