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.

Cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy, supervised exercise, and home exercise for older adults with chronic neck pain.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Chronic neck pain is a prevalent and disabling condition among older adults. Despite the large burden of neck pain, little is known regarding the cost-effectiveness of commonly used treatments. PURPOSE: This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of home exercise and advice (HEA), spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) plus HEA, and supervised rehabilitative exercise (SRE) plus HEA. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Cost-effectiveness analysis conducted alongside a randomized clinical trial (RCT) was performed. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 241 older adults (≥65 years) with chronic mechanical neck pain comprised the patient sample. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures were direct and indirect costs, neck pain, neck disability, SF-6D-derived quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) over a 1-year time horizon. METHODS: This work was supported by grants from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (#F32AT007507), National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (#P60AR062799), and Health Resources and Services Administration (#R18HP01425). The RCT is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (#NCT00269308). A societal perspective was adopted for the primary analysis. A healthcare perspective was adopted as a sensitivity analysis. Cost-effectivenesswas a secondary aim of the RCT which was not powered for differences in costs or QALYs. Differences in costs and clinical outcomes were estimated using generalized estimating equations and linear mixed models, respectively. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were calculated to assess the uncertainty surrounding cost-effectiveness estimates. RESULTS: Total costs for SMT+HEA were 5% lower than HEA (mean difference: -$111; 95% confidence interval [CI] -$1,354 to $899) and 47% lower than SRE+HEA (mean difference: -$1,932; 95% CI -$2,796 to -$1,097). SMT+HEA also resulted in a greater reduction of neck pain over the year relative to HEA (0.57; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.92) and SRE+HEA (0.41; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.76). Differences in disability and QALYs favored SMT+HEA. The probability that adding SMT to HEA is cost-effective at willingness to pay thresholds of $50,000 to $200,000 per QALY gained ranges from 0.75 to 0.81. If adopting a health-care perspective, costs for SMT+HEA were 66% higher than HEA (mean difference: $515; 95% CI $225 to $1,094), resulting in an ICER of $55,975 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: On average, SMT+HEA resulted in better clinical outcomes and lower total societal costs relative to SRE+HEA and HEA alone, with a 0.75 to 0.81 probability of cost-effectiveness for willingness to pay thresholds of $50,000 to $200,000 per QALY.

Cost analysis related to dose-response of spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain: outcomes from a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this analysis is to report the incremental costs and benefits of different doses of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). METHODS: We randomized 400 patients with chronic LBP to receive a dose of 0, 6, 12, or 18 sessions of SMT. Participants were scheduled for 18 visits for 6 weeks and received SMT or light massage control from a doctor of chiropractic. Societal costs in the year after study enrollment were estimated using patient reports of health care use and lost productivity. The main health outcomes were the number of pain-free days and disability-free days. Multiple regression was performed on outcomes and log-transformed cost data. RESULTS: Lost productivity accounts for most societal costs of chronic LBP. Cost of treatment and lost productivity ranged from $3398 for 12 SMT sessions to $3815 for 0 SMT sessions with no statistically significant differences between groups. Baseline patient characteristics related to increase in costs were greater age (P = .03), greater disability (P = .01), lower quality-adjusted life year scores (P = .01), and higher costs in the period preceding enrollment (P < .01). Pain-free and disability-free days were greater for all SMT doses compared with control, but only SMT 12 yielded a statistically significant benefit of 22.9 pain-free days (P = .03) and 19.8 disability-free days (P = .04). No statistically significant group differences in quality-adjusted life years were noted. CONCLUSIONS: A dose of 12 SMT sessions yielded a modest benefit in pain-free and disability-free days. Care of chronic LBP with SMT did not increase the costs of treatment plus lost productivity.

Symptomatic magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed lumbar disk herniation patients: a comparative effectiveness prospective observational study of 2 age- and sex-matched cohorts treated with either high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulative therapy or imaging-guided lumbar nerve root injections.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare self-reported pain and "improvement" of patients with symptomatic, magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed, lumbar disk herniations treated with either high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) or nerve root injections (NRI). METHODS: This prospective cohort comparative effectiveness study included 102 age- and sex-matched patients treated with either NRI or SMT. Numerical rating scale (NRS) pain data were collected before treatment. One month after treatment, current NRS pain levels and overall improvement assessed using the Patient Global Impression of Change scale were recorded. The proportion of patients, "improved" or "worse," was calculated for each treatment. Comparison of pretreatment and 1-month NRS scores used the paired t test. Numerical rating scale and NRS change scores for the 2 groups were compared using the unpaired t test. The groups were also compared for "improvement" using the χ(2) test. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Average direct procedure costs for each treatment were calculated. RESULTS: No significant differences for self-reported pain or improvement were found between the 2 groups. "Improvement" was reported in 76.5% of SMT patients and in 62.7% of the NRI group. Both groups reported significantly reduced NRS scores at 1 month (P = .0001). Average cost for treatment with SMT was Swiss Francs 533.77 (US $558.75) and Swiss Francs 697 (US $729.61) for NRI. CONCLUSIONS: Most SMT and NRI patients with radicular low back pain and magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed disk herniation matching symptomatic presentation reported significant and clinically relevant reduction in self-reported pain level and increased global perception of improvement. There were no significant differences in outcomes between NRI and SMT. When considering direct procedure costs, the average cost of SMT was slightly less expensive.

Efficacy of manual therapy treatments for people with cervicogenic dizziness and pain: protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cervicogenic dizziness is a disabling condition characterised by postural unsteadiness that is aggravated by cervical spine movements and associated with a painful and/or stiff neck. Two manual therapy treatments (Mulligan's Sustained Natural Apophyseal Glides (SNAGs) and Maitland's passive joint mobilisations) are used by physiotherapists to treat this condition but there is little evidence from randomised controlled trials to support their use. The aim of this study is to conduct a randomised controlled trial to compare these two forms of manual therapy (Mulligan glides and Maitland mobilisations) to each other and to a placebo in reducing symptoms of cervicogenic dizziness in the longer term and to conduct an economic evaluation of the interventions. METHODS: Participants with symptoms of dizziness described as imbalance, together with a painful and/or stiff neck will be recruited via media releases, advertisements and mail-outs to medical practitioners in the Hunter region of NSW, Australia. Potential participants will be screened by a physiotherapist and a neurologist to rule out other causes of their dizziness. Once diagnosed with cervciogenic dizziness, 90 participants will be randomly allocated to one of three groups: Maitland mobilisations plus range-of-motion exercises, Mulligan SNAGs plus self-SNAG exercises or placebo. Participants will receive two to six treatments over six weeks. The trial will have unblinded treatment but blinded outcome assessments. Assessments will occur at baseline, post-treatment, six weeks, 12 weeks, six months and 12 months post treatment. The primary outcome will be intensity of dizziness. Other outcome measures will be frequency of dizziness, disability, intensity of cervical pain, cervical range of motion, balance, head repositioning, adverse effects and treatment satisfaction. Economic outcomes will also be collected. DISCUSSION: This paper describes the methods for a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of two manual therapy techniques in the treatment of people with cervicogenic dizziness for which there is limited established evidence-based treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12611000073909.

Use of chiropractic spinal manipulation in older adults is strongly correlated with supply.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of administrative data. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between regional chiropractic supply and both use and utilization intensity of chiropractic services among Medicare beneficiaries. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Numerous studies have documented trends and patterns in the utilization of chiropractic services in the United States, but little is known about geographic variation in the relationship between chiropractic supply and utilization. METHODS: We analyzed Medicare claims data for services provided by chiropractic physicians in 2008. We aggregated the data to the hospital referral region level and used small area analysis techniques to generate descriptive statistics. We mapped geographic variations in chiropractic supply, use and utilization intensity (treatments per user), and quantified the variation by coefficient of variation and extremal ratio. We used Spearman rank correlation coefficient to correlate use with supply. We used a logistic regression model for chiropractic use and a multiple linear regression model for chiropractic utilization intensity. RESULTS: The average regional supply of chiropractic physicians was 21.5 per 100,000 adult capita. The average percentage of beneficiaries who used chiropractic was approximately 7.6 (SD, 3.9). The average utilization intensity was 10.6 (SD, 1.8). Regional chiropractic supply varied more than 14-fold, and chiropractic use varied more than 17-fold. Chiropractic supply and use were positively correlated (Spearman ρ, 0.68; P < 0.001). A low back or cervical spine problem was strongly associated with chiropractic use (odds ratios, 21.6 and 14.3, respectively). Increased chiropractic supply was associated with increased chiropractic use (odds ratio, 1.04) but not with increased chiropractic utilization intensity. CONCLUSION: Both the supply of chiropractors and the utilization of chiropractic by older US adults varied widely by region. Increased chiropractic supply was associated with increased chiropractic use but not with increased chiropractic utilization intensity. Utilization of chiropractic care is likely sensitive to both supply and patient preference.

Comparative effectiveness of exercise, acupuncture, and spinal manipulation for low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: We sought to answer the following clinical questions: (1) Is structured exercise more effective in the treatment of chronic low back pain (LBP) than spinal manipulative therapy (SMT)? (2) Is structured exercise more effective in the treatment of chronic LBP than acupuncture? (3) Is SMT more effective in the treatment of chronic LBP than acupuncture? (4) Do certain subgroups respond more favorably to specific treatments? (5) Are any of these treatments more cost-effective than the others? SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Exercise, SMT, and acupuncture are widely used interventions in the treatment of chronic LBP. There is evidence that all of these approaches may offer some benefit for patients with chronic LBP when compared with usual care or no treatment. The relative benefits or cost-effectiveness of any one of these treatments when compared with the others are less well-defined, and it is difficult to identify specific subgroups of those with chronic LBP who may preferentially respond to a particular treatment modality. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify randomized controlled trials comparing a structured exercise program, SMT, or acupuncture with one another in patients with chronic LBP. RESULTS: Two studies were identified comparing the use of structured exercise with SMT that met our inclusion criteria. Although these studies utilized different approaches for the exercise and SMT treatment groups, patients in both groups improved in terms of pain and function in both studies. Using random-effects modeling, there was no difference between the exercise and SMT groups when the data from these studies were pooled. We identified no studies meeting our inclusion criteria that compared acupuncture with either structured exercise or SMT or that addressed the relative cost-effectiveness of these approaches in the treatment of patients with chronic LBP. CONCLUSION: The studies identified indicate that structured exercise and SMT appear to offer equivalent benefits in terms of pain and functional improvement for those with chronic LBP with clinical benefits evident within 8 weeks of care. However, the level of evidence is low. There is insufficient evidence to comment on the relative benefit of acupuncture compared with either structured exercise or SMT or to address the differential effects of structured exercise, SMT, or acupuncture for specific subgroups of individuals with chronic LBP. There is also insufficient evidence regarding the relative cost-effectiveness of structured exercise, SMT, or acupuncture in the treatment of chronic LBP. CLINICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: Structured exercise and SMT appear to offer equivalent benefits in the management of pain and function for patients with nonspecific chronic LBP. If no clinical benefit is appreciated after using one of these approaches for 8 weeks, then the treatment plan should be reevaluated and consideration should be given to modifying the treatment approach or using alternate forms of care. Strength of recommendation: Weak.There is insufficient evidence regarding the relative benefits of the acupuncture compared with either structured exercise or SMT in the treatment of chronic LBP.There is insufficient evidence to address differential effects of structured exercise, SMT, or acupuncture for specific subgroups of individuals with chronic LBP. There is insufficient evidence regarding the relative cost-effectiveness of structured exercise, SMT, or acupuncture in the treatment of chronic LBP.

UK Back pain Exercise And Manipulation (UK BEAM) trial--national randomised trial of physical treatments for back pain in primary care: objectives, design and interventions [ISRCTN32683578].

BACKGROUND: Low back pain has major health and social implications. Although there have been many randomised controlled trials of manipulation and exercise for the management of low back pain, the role of these two treatments in its routine management remains unclear. A previous trial comparing private chiropractic treatment with National Health Service (NHS) outpatient treatment, which found a benefit from chiropractic treatment, has been criticised because it did not take treatment location into account. There are data to suggest that general exercise programmes may have beneficial effects on low back pain. The UK Medical Research Council (MRC) has funded this major trial of physical treatments for back pain, based in primary care. It aims to establish if, when added to best care in general practice, a defined package of spinal manipulation and a defined programme of exercise classes (Back to Fitness) improve participant-assessed outcomes. Additionally the trial compares outcomes between participants receiving the spinal manipulation in NHS premises and in private premises. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial using a 3 x 2 factorial design. METHODS: We sought to randomise 1350 participants with simple low back pain of at least one month's duration. These came from 14 locations across the UK, each with a cluster of 10-15 general practices that were members of the MRC General Practice Research Framework (GPRF). All practices were trained in the active management of low back pain. Participants were randomised to this form of general practice care only, or this general practice care plus manipulation, or this general practice care plus exercise, or this general practice care plus manipulation followed by exercise. Those randomised to manipulation were further randomised to receive treatment in either NHS or private premises. Follow up was by postal questionnaire one, three and 12 months after randomisation. The primary analysis will consider the main treatment effects before interactions between the two treatment packages. Economic analysis will estimate the cost per unit of health utility gained by adding either or both of the treatment packages to general practice care.

A review of the evidence for the effectiveness, safety, and cost of acupuncture, massage therapy, and spinal manipulation for back pain.

BACKGROUND: Few treatments for back pain are supported by strong scientific evidence. Conventional treatments, although widely used, have had limited success. Dissatisfied patients have, therefore, turned to complementary and alternative medical therapies and providers for care for back pain. PURPOSE: To provide a rigorous and balanced summary of the best available evidence about the effectiveness, safety, and costs of the most popular complementary and alternative medical therapies used to treat back pain. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. STUDY SELECTION: Systematic reviews of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) that were published since 1995 and that evaluated acupuncture, massage therapy, or spinal manipulation for nonspecific back pain and RCTs published since the reviews were conducted. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently extracted data from the reviews (including number of RCTs, type of back pain, quality assessment, and conclusions) and original articles (including type of pain, comparison treatments, sample size, outcomes, follow-up intervals, loss to follow-up, and authors' conclusions). DATA SYNTHESIS: Because the quality of the 20 RCTs that evaluated acupuncture was generally poor, the effectiveness of acupuncture for treating acute or chronic back pain is unclear. The three RCTs that evaluated massage reported that this therapy is effective for subacute and chronic back pain. A meta-regression analysis of the results of 26 RCTs evaluating spinal manipulation for acute and chronic back pain reported that spinal manipulation was superior to sham therapies and therapies judged to have no evidence of a benefit but was not superior to effective conventional treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Initial studies have found massage to be effective for persistent back pain. Spinal manipulation has small clinical benefits that are equivalent to those of other commonly used therapies. The effectiveness of acupuncture remains unclear. All of these treatments seem to be relatively safe. Preliminary evidence suggests that massage, but not acupuncture or spinal manipulation, may reduce the costs of care after an initial course of therapy.

Single-blind randomised controlled trial of chemonucleolysis and manipulation in the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation.

This single-blind randomised clinical trial compared osteopathic manipulative treatment with chemonucleolysis (used as a control of known efficacy) for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation. Forty patients with sciatica due to this diagnosis (confirmed by imaging) were treated either by chemonucleolysis or manipulation. Outcomes (leg pain, back pain and self-reported disability) were measured at 2 weeks, 6 weeks and 12 months. The mean values for all outcomes improved in both groups. By 12 months, there was no statistically significant difference in outcome between the treatments, but manipulation produced a statistically significant greater improvement for back pain and disability in the first few weeks. A similar number from both groups required additional orthopaedic intervention; there were no serious complications. Crude cost analysis suggested an overall financial advantage from manipulation. Because osteopathic manipulation produced a 12-month outcome that was equivalent to chemonucleolysis, it can be considered as an option for the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation, at least in the absence of clear indications for surgery. Further study into the value of manipulation at a more acute stage is warranted.

Tunnel vision information: a paradox of ethics, economics, politics and science.

BACKGROUND: Improvement in vision with spinal manipulation was first observed in the early 1970s. Reports of the phenomenon appeared in the 1980s in the popular press and at scientific meetings, but it was not until the mid-1990s that general discussion of the potential value of this knowledge occurred. Considering the far-reaching implications of the possible ability to improve brain function by spinal manipulation, the delay in consideration and implementation of this concept is a paradox in general terms and a total mystery in the case of the chiropractic profession. OBJECTIVE: To provide explanations for the delay in scientific assessment of the discovery that vision improves, in appropriate patients, when the spine is manipulated and to discuss the implications of this finding. This discovery is now called the "tunnel vision information." DISCUSSION: A schema of pathological hierarchy is depicted in which the level of intervention of spinal manipulation outranks other forms of treatment. The significance of this precedence is portrayed. Possible reasons for the failure to address this hierarchy in light of the tunnel vision information are discussed with reference to established protocols, medical politics, the presentation of the data, the failure of scientific editorship and the illogical aspects of the illness itself. CONCLUSION: In the future, the delay from the initial observation of the tunnel vision discovery to its free discussion in scientific literature may seem incongruous, particularly if the health benefits which it augurs are realized.