The primary spine practitioner as a new role in healthcare systems in North America.

BACKGROUND: In an article published in 2011, we discussed the need for a new role in health care systems, referred to as the Primary Spine Practitioner (PSP). The PSP model was proposed to help bring order to the chaotic nature of spine care. Over the past decade, several efforts have applied the concepts presented in that article. The purpose of the present article is to discuss the ongoing need for the PSP role in health care systems, present persistent barriers, report several examples of the model in action, and propose future strategies. MAIN BODY: The management of spine related disorders, defined here as various disorders related to the spine that produce axial pain, radiculopathy and other related symptoms, has received significant international attention due to the high costs and relatively poor outcomes in spine care. The PSP model seeks to bring increased efficiency, effectiveness and value. The barriers to the implementation of this model have been significant, and responses to these barriers are discussed. Several examples of PSP integration are presented, including clinic systems in primary care and hospital environments, underserved areas around the world and a program designed to reduce surgical waiting lists. Future strategies are proposed for overcoming the continuing barriers to PSP implementation in health care systems more broadly. CONCLUSION: Significant progress has been made toward integrating the PSP role into health care systems over the past 10 years. However, much work remains. This requires substantial effort on the part of those involved in the development and implementation of the PSP model, in addition to support from various stakeholders who will benefit from the proposed improvements in spine care.

Variations in Patterns of Utilization and Charges for the Care of Headache in North Carolina, 2000-2009: A Statewide Claims' Data Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to compare patterns of utilization and charges generated by medical doctors (MDs), doctors of chiropractic (DCs), and physical therapists (PTs) for the treatment of headache in North Carolina. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of claims data from the North Carolina State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees from 2000 to 2009. Data were extracted from Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina for the North Carolina State Health Plan using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, diagnostic codes for headache. The claims were separated by individual provider type, combination of provider types, and referral patterns. RESULTS: The majority of patients and claims were in the MD-only or MD plus referral patterns. Chiropractic patterns represented less than 10% of patients. Care patterns with single-provider types and no referrals incurred the least charges on average for headache. When care did not include referral providers or services, MD with DC care was generally less expensive than MD care with PT. However, when combined with referral care, MD care with PT was generally less expensive. Compared with MD-only care, risk-adjusted charges (available 2006-2009) for patients in the middle risk quintile were significantly less for DC-only care. CONCLUSIONS: Utilization and expenditures for headache treatment increased from 2000 to 2009 across all provider groups. MD care represented the majority of total allowed charges in this study. MD care and DC care, alone or in combination, were overall the least expensive patterns of headache care. Risk-adjusted charges were significantly less for DC-only care.

Variations in Patterns of Utilization and Charges for the Care of Neck Pain in North Carolina, 2000 to 2009: A Statewide Claims' Data Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to compare utilization and charges generated by medical doctors (MD), doctors of chiropractic (DC) and physical therapists (PT) by provider patterns of care for the treatment of neck pain in North Carolina. METHODS: This was an analysis of neck-pain-related closed claim data from the North Carolina State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees (NCSHP) from 2000 to 2009. Data were extracted from Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina for the NCSHP using ICD-9 diagnostic codes for uncomplicated neck pain (UNP) and complicated neck pain (CNP). RESULTS: Care patterns with single-provider types and no referrals incurred the least average charges for both UNP and CNP. When care did not include referral providers or services, for either UNP or CNP, MD care with PT was generally less expensive than MD care with DC care. However, when care involved referral providers or services, MD and PT care was on average more expensive than MD and DC care for either UNP or CNP. Risk-adjusted charges for patients in the middle quintile of risk (available 2006-2009) were lower for chiropractic patients with or without medical care or referral care to other providers. CONCLUSIONS: Chiropractic care alone or DC with MD care incurred appreciably fewer charges for UNP or CNP compared to MD care with or without PT care, when care included referral providers or services. This finding was reversed when care did not include referral providers or services. Risk-adjusted charges for UNP and CNP patients were lower for DC care patterns.

Variations in Patterns of Utilization and Charges for the Care of Low Back Pain in North Carolina, 2000 to 2009: A Statewide Claims' Data Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to compare utilization and charges generated by medical doctors (MD), doctors of chiropractic (DC) and physical therapists (PT) by patterns of care for the treatment of low back pain in North Carolina. METHODS: This was an analysis of low-back-pain-related closed claim data from the North Carolina State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees from 2000 to 2009. Data were extracted from Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina for the North Carolina State Health Plan using International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision diagnostic codes for uncomplicated low back pain (ULBP) and complicated low back pain (CLBP). RESULTS: Care patterns with single-provider types and no referrals incurred the least charges on average for both ULBP and CLBP. When care did not include referral providers or services, for ULBP, MD and DC care was on average $465 less than MD and PT care. For CLBP, MD and DC care averaged $965 more than MD and PT care. However, when care involved referral providers or services, MD and DC care was on average $1600 less when compared to MD and PT care for ULBP and $1885 less for CLBP. Risk-adjusted charges (available 2006-2009) for patients in the middle quintile of risk were significantly less for DC care patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Chiropractic care alone or DC with MD care incurred appreciably fewer charges for ULBP than MD care with or without PT care. This finding was reversed for CLBP. Adjusted charges for both ULBP and CLBP patients were significantly lower for DC patients.

Exploratory Analysis of Clinical Predictors of Outcomes of Nonsurgical Treatment in Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore potential baseline physical examination and demographic predictors of clinical outcomes in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of data obtained from a pilot randomized controlled trial. Primary and secondary outcome measures were the Swiss Spinal Stenosis (SSS) Questionnaire and visual analog scale (VAS) for leg pain. Multiple regression models were used to assess 2 different outcomes: SSS at completion of care and VAS at completion of care. Separate regression models were built for each of the 2 outcomes to identify the best subset of variables that predicted improvement. Predictors with a significant contribution were retained in a final "best" model. RESULTS: Three variables were identified as having an association with SSS score at completion of care: baseline SSS score, qualitative description of leg pain, and age (adjusted R(2) = 33.2). Four variables were identified as having an association with VAS score at completion of care: baseline VAS score, qualitative description of leg pain, body mass index, and age (adjusted R(2) = 38.3). CONCLUSION: This study provides preliminary evidence supporting an association between certain baseline characteristics and nonsurgical clinical outcomes in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

The 2008 prevalence of chiropractic use in the US adult population.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to produce prevalence estimates and identify determinants of variability in chiropractic use in the US adult population. METHODS: The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey was used to estimate prevalence for the adult population and subpopulations according to several sociodemographic, geographic, and health characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression model was used to explore the effects of the independent predictors on chiropractic use. RESULTS: The 2008 chiropractic prevalence of use was estimated to be 5.2% (95% confidence interval, 4.7-5.6). The adjusted odds of using chiropractic services were approximately 46% less for Asians, 63% less for Hispanics, and 73% less for blacks compared with whites; 21% less for men than women; and 68% higher for those with arthritis compared with those without. Persons from high-income families have greater odds of using chiropractic services compared with those from middle-income (42%) and low-income (67%) families. There was a significant interaction between Census region and urban-rural location. The results showed the prevalence of chiropractic use to be highest in small metro areas in the Midwest (10.5%) and Northeast (10.4%) as well as micropolitan/noncore areas in the West (10.8%) and Midwest (10.1%). CONCLUSIONS: This study validates previous findings showing the prevalence of use is higher for whites, women, and persons with higher family income or reported arthritis. The results of this study also indicate that chiropractic use varies across the urban-rural landscape depending on the region of the country, suggesting that the effect of geographic location may be more complex than previously reported.

Clinical, demographic, and geographic determinants of variation in chiropractic episodes of care for adults using the 2005-2008 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.

OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to report nationally representative estimates of the visit utilization, per visit expenditures, and total expenditures for chiropractic episodes of care in the US adult population. The secondary aim was to identify clinical, demographic, geographic, and payment factors associated with variation in the levels of utilization and expenditures. METHODS: Data from the 2005-2008 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey were used to construct complete episodes of chiropractic care (n = 1639) for the civilian, noninstitutionalized adult population. Bivariate descriptive statistics were calculated for visit utilization, per visit expenditures, and total expenditures per episode of care by several clinical, demographic, geographic, and payment variables. Multivariable regression models were used to evaluate the effects of the independent variables on each of the 3 dependent variables. RESULTS: The unadjusted mean number of visits per episode was 5.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.3-6.4] and varied significantly by race/ethnicity, perceived mental health, urban-rural location, and source of payment. The mean total expenditures per visit per episode were estimated to be $69 (95% CI, $65-$73). There was variation associated with the census region, urban-rural location, and source of payment variables. Total expenditures for an episode of care were estimated to be $424 (95% CI, $371-$477] with variation according to urban-rural location and source of payment. During 29% of the episodes all expenditures were paid with out-of-pocket funds. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in the utilization and expenditures during chiropractic episodes of care is primarily associated with payment source and geographic factors.