Cost of chiropractic versus medical management of adults with spine-related musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The cost of spine-related pain in the United States is estimated at $134.5 billion. Spinal pain patients have multiple options when choosing healthcare providers, resulting in variable costs. Escalation of costs occurs when downstream costs are added to episode costs of care. The purpose of this review was to compare costs of chiropractic and medical management of patients with spine-related pain. METHODS: A Medline search was conducted from inception through October 31, 2022, for cost data on U.S. adults treated for spine-related pain. The search included economic studies, randomized controlled trials and observational studies. All studies were independently evaluated for quality and risk of bias by 3 investigators and data extraction was performed by 3 investigators. RESULTS: The literature search found 2256 citations, of which 93 full-text articles were screened for eligibility. Forty-four studies were included in the review, including 26 cohort studies, 17 cost studies and 1 randomized controlled trial. All included studies were rated as high or acceptable quality. Spinal pain patients who consulted chiropractors as first providers needed fewer opioid prescriptions, surgeries, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, specialist referrals and injection procedures. CONCLUSION: Patients with spine-related musculoskeletal pain who consulted a chiropractor as their initial provider incurred substantially decreased downstream healthcare services and associated costs, resulting in lower overall healthcare costs compared with medical management. The included studies were limited to mostly retrospective cohorts of large databases. Given the consistency of outcomes reported, further investigation with higher-level designs is warranted.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Role of Chiropractic Care in Providing Health Promotion and Clinical Preventive Services for Adult Patients with Musculoskeletal Pain: A Clinical Practice Guideline.

Objective: To develop evidence-based recommendations on best practices for delivery of clinical preventive services by chiropractors and to offer practical resources to empower provider applications in practice. Design: Clinical practice guideline based on evidence-based recommendations of a panel of practitioners and experts on clinical preventive services. Methods: Synthesizing the results of a literature search for relevant clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews, a multidisciplinary steering committee with training and experience in health promotion, clinical prevention, and/or evidence-based chiropractic practice drafted a set of recommendations. A Delphi panel of experienced practitioners and faculty, primarily but not exclusively chiropractors, rated the recommendations by using the formal consensus methodology established by the RAND Corporation/University of California. Results: The Delphi consensus process was conducted during January-February 2021. The 65-member Delphi panel reached a high level of consensus on appropriate application of clinical preventive services for screening and health promotion counseling within the chiropractic scope of practice. Interprofessional collaboration for the successful delivery of clinical preventive services was emphasized. Recommendations were made on primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary prevention of musculoskeletal pain. Conclusions: Application of this guideline in chiropractic practice may facilitate consistent and appropriate use of screening and preventive services and foster interprofessional collaboration to promote clinical preventive services and contribute to improved public health.

Chiropractic Practice in the Continent of Africa: A Structured Online Survey of 608 Chiropractors.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the status, supply, demographics, and characteristics of chiropractic practice in the continent of Africa. METHODS: A survey consisting of questions on demographics, clinical practice, and patient profile was administered to 608 chiropractors practicing in the different countries of the African continent. Chiropractic association officers of each country were contacted via e-mail for assistance in the distribution of the survey link to chiropractors in their country. The initial questionnaire was pretested with a small group of chiropractors from 2 African countries-4 from Ethiopia and 6 from Botswana-to assess the validity of the questions. The legal status of the chiropractic practice was obtained from online resources. Descriptive statistics were conducted in Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: Of the 54 countries in the continent of Africa, 23 countries were identified to have chiropractors. One hundred twenty-four surveys were returned from 15 countries with an overall response rate of 20.3% by clinicians with varying years in clinical practice. Nearly 84% of the chiropractors were between ages 26 and 50. More than 69% reported being a graduate of 1 of the 2 academic institutions located in Africa. Most chiropractors practice in South Africa. Most chiropractors practice in privately owned clinics, and 38% practice in multidisciplinary clinics. Nearly 92% reported using diversified technique and 27% used McKenzie exercises for treatment. Patients presented with a variety of conditions, predominantly chronic pain (59%). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a general overview on the status, supply, demographics, and characteristics of chiropractic practice in the continent of Africa. The supply of chiropractors in Africa is scarce and unevenly distributed. Although in the early stages of recognition, chiropractors in Africa are contributing to the care of people with musculoskeletal and spine-related disorders. Considering the high burden of spine pain, there appears to be potential for growth for chiropractic in the continent of Africa.

Experiences and Attitudes About Chiropractic Care and Prescription Drug Therapy Among Patients With Back Pain: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine experiences and attitudes toward care offered by chiropractors and prescription drug therapy offered by medical physicians for patients who have back pain. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey measured patients with back pain (n = 150) seeking care within an academic primary care setting. A survey assessed patient experiences, beliefs, and attitudes regarding chiropractic care and prescription drug therapy. Two samples of patients in the New Hampshire region included 75 patients treated by a doctor of chiropractic (DC) and 75 treated by a medical primary care physician (PCP). The 30-item survey was sent to existing and new patients between February 2019 and January 2020. Between-group comparisons were examined to test rates of reporting and to determine the mean difference in the total number of office visits between the 2 samples. RESULTS: Patients treated by both DCs and PCPs reported high overall satisfaction with chiropractic care received for low back pain with no significant differences between groups. The majority in both groups reported that seeing a DC for back pain made sense to them (95% of patients treated by a DC and 75% of patients treated by a PCP) whereas the minority reported that taking prescription drugs for back pain made sense (25% of patients treated by a DC and 41% of patients treated by a PCP). There was no statistical difference between groups when patients were asked if seeing a chiropractor changed their beliefs or behaviors about taking pain medication. Significant differences were found between groups for agreement that chiropractic care would be a suitable treatment for back pain (79% of patients treated by a DC and 45% of patients treated by a PCP). There were 7% of patients treated by PCP and 23% of the patients treated by DC who agreed that a DC would be the first health care provider they would like to see for their general health needs. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of patients, patient satisfaction regarding chiropractic care received for back pain was high. There were differences between patient groups about preferences for treatment for back pain. Our results indicate that patients reported that seeing a DC for back pain did not change their beliefs or behaviors regarding prescription drug therapy provided by their medical PCP.

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.

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.

Cost comparison of two approaches to chiropractic care for patients with acute and sub-acute low Back pain care episodes: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) imposes a costly burden upon patients, healthcare insurers, and society overall. Spinal manipulation as practiced by chiropractors has been found be cost-effective for treatment of LBP, but there is wide variation among chiropractors in their approach to clinical care, and the most cost-effective approach to chiropractic care is uncertain. To date, little has been published regarding the cost effectiveness of different approaches to chiropractic care. Thus, the current study presents a cost comparison between chiropractic approaches for patients with acute or subacute care episodes for low back pain. METHODS: We employed a retrospective cohort design to examine costs of chiropractic care among patients diagnosed with acute or subacute low back pain. The study time period ranged between 07/01/2016 and 12/22/2017. We compared cost outcomes for patients of two cohorts of chiropractors within health care system: Cohort 1) a general network of providers, and Cohort 2) a network providing conservative evidence-based care for rapid resolution of pain. We used generalized linear regression modeling to estimate the comparative influence of demographic and clinical factors on expenditures. RESULTS: A total of 25,621 unique patients were included in the analyses. The average cost per patient for Cohort 2 (mean allowed amount $252) was lower compared to Cohort 1 (mean allowed amount $326; 0.77, 95% CI 0.75-0.79, p < .001). Patient and clinician related factors such as health plan, provider region, and sex also significantly influenced costs. CONCLUSIONS: This study comprehensively analyzed cost data associated with the chiropractic care of adults with acute or sub-acute low back pain cared by two cohorts of chiropractic physicians. In general, providers in Cohort 2 were found to be significantly associated with lower costs for patient care as compared to Cohort 1. Utilization of a clinical model characterized by a patient-centered clinic approach and standardized, best-practice clinical protocols may offer lower cost when compared to non-standardized clinical approaches to chiropractic care.

Cervical Vertebral Body Erosion Due to Vascular Abnormality: A Case Report.

OBJECTIVE: The occurrence of cervical vertebral erosion due to vertebral artery (VA) abnormalities such as tortuosity/loop formation and pseudoaneurysm is rare, but both abnormalities are potentially fatal. There are few reports of cervical vertebral body erosion due to VA abnormality. We report a case of a 92-year-old woman who presented to her primary care physician with neck pain and was referred for chiropractic care. CLINICAL FEATURES: The patient complained of headaches, left-sided neck pain, limited range of motion with radiating pain, and bilateral weakness of the upper extremities. On examination, cervical ranges of motion were decreased with moderate pain, along with sensory, motor, and deep tendon reflex deficits. The initial magnetic resonance imaging report obtained was nonconclusive. Axial T2, sagittal T1, sagittal T2, coronal T2, sagittal STIR, and axial GE sequences of the cervical spine were obtained for a reread. A reread of the magnetic resonance images suggested a diagnosis of a tortuosity of the VA, resulting in a chronic erosion of the C5 vertebral body; however, a pseudoaneurysm of the VA would be considered a possible differential cause for the vertebral body erosion. INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME: Management of cervical vertebral body erosion due to VA abnormality is often complicated and must be tailored to each patient's individual clinical presentation and symptoms. The patient in this case was managed with anticoagulant medication, close monitoring, and acupuncture treatment, which resulted in a reduction in pain intensity. CONCLUSION: Vertebral artery abnormality and subsequent erosion of the vertebral body is a rare occurrence and can mimic symptoms of musculoskeletal neck pain and cervical radiculopathy. It is important to recognize features of VA abnormalities on magnetic resonance imaging.

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.