Productivity outcomes from chronic pain management interventions in the working age population; a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Productivity loss because of chronic pain in the working age population is a widespread concern internationally. Interventions for chronic pain in working age adults might be expected to achieve enhanced productivity in terms of reduced costs of workers' compensation insurance, reduced disability support, and improved rates of return to work for injured workers. This would require the use of measures of productivity in the evaluation of chronic pain management interventions. The aim of this review was to identify and interpret the productivity outcomes of randomised controlled trials reported by studies that conducted economic evaluations (eg, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility) of chronic pain management interventions in the working age population published from database inception to March 2023. Econlit, Embase, and Pubmed electronic databases were searched, yielding 12 studies that met the selection criteria. All 12 studies used absenteeism to measure productivity, translating return to work measures into indirect costs. Only one study included return to work as a primary outcome. Ten studies found no statistically significant improvements in productivity-related costs. Despite evidence for reduced pain-related disability after pain management interventions, this review suggests that the use of measures for assessing productivity gains is lacking. Including such measures would greatly assist administrators and payers when considering the broader societal benefits of such interventions.

Effect of a Biopsychosocial Intervention or Postural Therapy on Disability and Health Care Spending Among Patients With Acute and Subacute Spine Pain: The SPINE CARE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Low back and neck pain are often self-limited, but health care spending remains high. Objective: To evaluate the effects of 2 interventions that emphasize noninvasive care for spine pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, cluster, randomized clinical trial conducted at 33 centers in the US that enrolled 2971 participants with neck or back pain of 3 months' duration or less (enrollment, June 2017 to March 2020; final follow-up, March 2021). Interventions: Participants were randomized at the clinic-level to (1) usual care (n = 992); (2) a risk-stratified, multidisciplinary intervention (the identify, coordinate, and enhance [ICE] care model that combines physical therapy, health coach counseling, and consultation from a specialist in pain medicine or rehabilitation) (n = 829); or (3) individualized postural therapy (IPT), a postural therapy approach that combines physical therapy with building self-efficacy and self-management (n = 1150). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were change in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score at 3 months (range, 0 [best] to 100 [worst]; minimal clinically important difference, 6) and spine-related health care spending at 1 year. A 2-sided significance threshold of .025 was used to define statistical significance. Results: Among 2971 participants randomized (mean age, 51.7 years; 1792 women [60.3%]), 2733 (92%) finished the trial. Between baseline and 3-month follow-up, mean ODI scores changed from 31.2 to 15.4 for ICE, from 29.3 to 15.4 for IPT, and from 28.9 to 19.5 for usual care. At 3-month follow-up, absolute differences compared with usual care were -5.8 (95% CI, -7.7 to -3.9; P < .001) for ICE and -4.3 (95% CI, -5.9 to -2.6; P < .001) for IPT. Mean 12-month spending was $1448, $2528, and $1587 in the ICE, IPT, and usual care groups, respectively. Differences in spending compared with usual care were -$139 (risk ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.87 to 0.997]; P = .04) for ICE and $941 (risk ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.45]; P < .001) for IPT. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute or subacute spine pain, a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention or an individualized postural therapy intervention, each compared with usual care, resulted in small but statistically significant reductions in pain-related disability at 3 months. However, compared with usual care, the biopsychosocial intervention resulted in no significant difference in spine-related health care spending and the postural therapy intervention resulted in significantly greater spine-related health care spending at 1 year. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03083886.

Efficacy and safety of acupuncture treatment as an adjunctive therapy after knee replacement: Single-center, pragmatic, randomized, assessor blinded, pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: Total knee replacement (TKR) is a surgical procedure that is being increasingly performed as a result of population aging and the increased average human life expectancy in South Korea. Consistent with the growing number of TKR procedures, the number of patients seeking acupuncture for relief from adverse effects, effective pain management, and the enhancement of rehabilitative therapy effects and bodily function after TKR has also been increasing. Thus, an objective examination of the evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of acupuncture treatments is essential. The aim of this study is to verify the hypothesis that the concurrent use of acupuncture treatment and usual care after TKR is more effective, safe, and cost-effective for the relief of TKR symptoms than usual care therapy alone. METHODS/DESIGN: This is an open-label, parallel, assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial that includes 50 patients with TKR. After screening the patients and receiving informed consent, the patients are divided into two groups (usual care + acupuncture group and usual care group); the patients will then undergo TKR surgery and will be hospitalized for 2 weeks. The patients will receive a total of 8 acupuncture treatments over 2 weeks after surgery and will be followed up at 3, 4, and 12 weeks after the end of the intervention. The primary outcome is assessed using the Korean version of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (K-WOMAC), and the secondary outcome is measured using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Risk of Fall, and Range of Motion (ROM). Moreover, the cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) is adopted as a primary economic outcome for economic evaluation, and the cost per NRS is adopted as a secondary economic outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has received complete ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of Catholic Kwandong University International St. Mary's Hospital (IS17ENSS0063). We intend to submit the results to a peer-reviewed journal and/or conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03633097.

Opioid Prescriptions by Pain Medicine Physicians in the Medicare Part D Program: A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Pain medicine physicians (PMP) are a group of physicians with background training in various primary specialties with interest and expertise in managing chronic pain disorders. Our objective is to analyze prescription drug (PD) claims from the Medicare Part D program associated with PMP to gain insights into patterns, associated costs, and potential cost savings areas. METHODS: The primary data source for Part D claims data is the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Chronic Conditions Data Warehouse, which contains Medicare Part D prescription drug events (PDE) records received through the claims submission cutoff date. Only providers with taxonomies of pain management (PM) and interventional pain management (IPM) were included in the study. The analysis of PDE was restricted to drugs with >250 claims. The distribution of claims and costs were analyzed based on drug class and provider specialty. Subsequently, we explored claims and expenses for opioid drug prescriptions in detail. Prescribing characteristics of the top 5% of providers by costs and claims were examined to gain additional insights. The costs and claims were explored for the top 10 drugs prescribed by PMP in 2017. RESULTS: There were a total of unique 3280 PMP-prescribed drugs with an associated expense of 652 million dollars in the 2017 Medicare Part D program. Prescriptions related to PMP account for a tiny fraction of the program's drug expenditure (0.4%). Opioids, anticonvulsants, and gabapentinoids were associated with the largest number of claims and the largest expenses within this fraction. Among opioid drug prescriptions, brand-named drugs account for a small fraction of claims (8%) compared to generic drugs. However, the expenses associated with brand name drugs were higher than generic drugs. Prescribers in the top 5% by PD costs had a higher number of claims, prescribed a higher proportion of branded medications, and had prescriptions associated with longer day supply compared to an average PMP. There were several opioid medications in the top 10 PD list by cost associated with PMP. CONCLUSIONS: Opioids were the most common medications among Medicare part D claims prescribed by PMP. Only 12% of the total opioid PD claims were by PMP. The top 5% of PMP prescribers had 10 times more claims than the average PMP.

Hospital-physician integration and Medicare's site-based outpatient payments.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between Medicare's site-based outpatient billing policy and hospital-physician integration. DATA SOURCES: National Medicare claims data from 2010 to 2016. STUDY DESIGN: For each physician-year, we calculated the disparity between Medicare reimbursement under hospital ownership and under physician ownership. Using logistic regression analysis, we estimated the relationship between these payment differences and hospital-physician integration, adjusting for region, market concentration, and time fixed effects. We measured integration status using claims data and legal tax names. DATA COLLECTION: The study included integrated and non-integrated physicians who billed Medicare between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2016 (n = 2 137 245 physician-year observations). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Medicare reimbursement for physician services would have been $114 000 higher per physician per year if a physician were integrated compared to being non-integrated. Primary care physicians faced a 78% increase, medical specialists 74%, and surgeons 224%. These payment differences exhibited a modest positive relationship to hospital-physician vertical integration. An increase in this outpatient payment differential equivalent to moving from the 25th to 75th percentile was associated with a 0.20 percentage point increase in the probability of integrating with a hospital (95% CI: 0.0.10-0.30). This effect was slightly larger among primary care physicians (0.27, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.35) and medical specialists (0.26, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.48), while not significantly different from zero among surgeons (-0.02; 95% CI: -0.27 to 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: The payment differences between outpatient settings were large and grew over time. Even routine annual outpatient payment updates from Medicare may prompt some hospital-physician vertical integration, particularly among primary care physicians and medical specialists.

Declining Utilization and Inflation-Adjusted Expenditures for Epidural Procedures in Chronic Spinal Pain in the Medicare Population.

BACKGROUND: Despite epidurals being one of the most common interventional pain procedures for managing chronic spinal pain in the United States, expenditure analysis lacks assessment in correlation with utilization patterns. OBJECTIVES: This investigation was undertaken to assess expenditures for epidural procedures in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population from 2009 to 2018. STUDY DESIGN: The present study was designed to assess expenditures in all settings, for all providers in the FFS Medicare population from 2009 to 2018 in the United States. In this manuscript: • A patient was described as receiving epidural procedures throughout the year.• A visit was considered to include all regions treated during the visit. • An episode was considered as one treatment per region utilizing primary codes only.• Services or procedures were considered as all procedures including bilateral and multiple levels. A standard 5% national sample of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) physician outpatient billing claims data for those enrolled in the FFS Medicare program from 2009 to 2018 was utilized. All the expenditures were presented with allowed costs and adjusted to inflation to 2018 US dollars. RESULTS: Total expenditures were $723,981,594 in 2009, whereas expenditures of 2018 were $829,987,636, with an overall 14.6% increase, or an annual increase of 1.5%. However, the inflation-adjusted rate was $847,058,465 in 2009, compared to $829,987,636 in 2018, a reduction overall of 2% and an annual reduction of 0.2%. Inflation-adjusted per patient annual costs decreased from $988.93 in 2009 to $819.27 in 2018 with a decrease of 17.2% or an annual decline of 2.1%. In addition, inflation-adjusted costs per procedure decreased from $399.77 to $377.94, or 5.5% overall and 0.6% annually. Per procedure, episode, visit, and patient expenses were higher for transforaminal epidural procedures than lumbar interlaminar/caudal epidural procedures. Overall, costs of transforaminal epidurals increased 27.6% or 2.7% annually, whereas lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections cost were reduced 2.7%, or 0.3% annually. Inflation-adjusted costs for transforaminal epidurals increased 9.1% or 1.0% annually and declined 16.9 or 2.0% annually for lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections. LIMITATIONS: Expenditures for epidural procedures in chronic spinal pain were assessed only in the FFS Medicare population. This excluded over 30% of the Medicare population, which is enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for inflation, there was a decrease of expenditures for epidural procedures of 2%, or 0.2% annually, from 2009 to 2018. However, prior to inflation, the increases were noted at 14.6% and 1.5%. Inflation-adjusted costs per patient, per visit, and per procedure also declined. The proportion of Medicare patients per 100,000 receiving epidural procedures decreased 9.1%, or 1.1% annually. However, assessment of individual procedures showed higher costs for transforaminal epidural procedures compared to lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural procedures.

Socioeconomic Disparities in the Utilization of Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy in Patients with Chronic Pain.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapies are used in the management of patients with complex regional pain syndrome I (CRPS I) and failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). The purpose of this study was to investigate the racial and health insurance inequalities with SCS therapy in patients with chronic pain who had CRPS I and FBSS. METHODS: Patients with chronic pain who had a discharge diagnosis of FBSS and CRPS I were identified using the National Inpatient Sample database. Our primary outcome was defined as the history of SCS utilization by race/ethnicity, income quartile, and insurance status. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the variables associated with utilization of SCS therapy. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2015, 40,858 patients who were hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of FBSS and/or CRPS I were identified. Of these patients, 1,082 (2.7%) had a history of SCS therapy. Multivariable regression analysis revealed that compared to White patients, Black and Hispanic patients had higher odds of having SCS therapy (Black patients: odds ratio [OR] = 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12 to 1.77; P = 0.003; Hispanic patients: OR = 1.41; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.81; P = 0.007). Patients with private insurance had significantly higher odds of having SCS therapy compared with those with Medicare (OR = 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.43; P = 0.003). Compared to patients with Medicare, Medicaid patients had lower odds of having SCS therapy (OR = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.70; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that socioeconomic disparities may exist in the utilization of SCS among hospitalized patients with CRPS I and FBSS the United States. However, confirming these data from other administrative databases, in the outpatient setting, may shed more insight.

Development and Impact of an Institutional Enhanced Recovery Program on Opioid Use, Length of Stay, and Hospital Costs Within an Academic Medical Center: A Cohort Analysis of 7774 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced Recovery (ER) is a change management framework in which a multidisciplinary team of stakeholders utilizes evidence-based medicine to protocolize all aspects of a surgical care to allow more rapid return of function. While service-specific reports of ER adoption are common, institutional-wide adoption is complex, and reports of institution-wide ER adoption are lacking in the United States. We hypothesized that ER principles were generalizable across an institution and could be implemented across a multitude of surgical disciplines with improvements in length of stay, opioid consumption, and cost of care. METHODS: Following the establishment of a formal institutional ER program, ER was adopted in 9 distinct surgical subspecialties over 5 years at an academic medical center. We compared length of stay, opioid consumption, and total cost of care in all surgical subspecialties as a function of time using a segmented regression/interrupted time series statistical model. RESULTS: There were 7774 patients among 9 distinct surgical populations including 2155 patients in the pre-ER cohort and 5619 patients in the post-ER cohort. The introduction of an ER protocol was associated with several significant changes: a reduction in length of stay in 5 of 9 specialties; reduction in opioid consumption in 8 specialties; no change or reduction in maximum patient-reported pain scores; and reduction or no change in hospital costs in all specialties. The ER program was associated with an aggregate increase in profit over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Institution-wide efforts to adopt ER can generate significant improvements in patient care, opioid consumption, hospital capacity, and profitability within a large academic medical center.

Acupuncture in the management of trigeminal neuralgia.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the standing of acupuncture as a clinical tool in the management of trigeminal neuralgia against the current first-line drug treatment (carbamazepine) and the most effective surgery (microvascular decompression (MVD)). METHODS: Data regarding efficacy, side effects and cost were compiled for each of these three modalities from the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases. Patient stress was estimated according to Holmes and Rahe's Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS). RESULTS: Acupuncture was not significantly more effective than its corresponding control (p = 0.088), but had the greatest efficacy (mean ± 95% confidence interval) of the modalities considered (86.5% ± 5.6% compared to surgery (79.3% ± 7.7%) and pharmacotherapy (71.7% ± 2.5%), respectively). Acupuncture also had fewer mean reported side effects (22.7% ± 5.9%) compared with surgery (25.3% ± 12.6%) and pharmacotherapy (88.8% ± 25.0%), and the lowest cost; after 5 years, the cost of acupuncture was estimated to be £750, compared to £1507.73 for carbamazepine and £4878.42 for MVD. Acupuncture was the least stressful according to the SRRS (53 points), whereas surgery was second most stressful (153 points) and pharmacotherapy was the most stressful intervention to patients (217 points). CONCLUSION: Acupuncture appears more effective than pharmacotherapy or surgery. Statistical analysis of side effects was not possible due to inconsistent reporting protocols, but the data suggest that acupuncture is considerably safer than pharmacotherapy or surgery. Acupuncture also appears to be the least expensive therapeutic modality to deliver long-term (65 weeks onwards), and our analysis indicated that it was less stressful to patients than pharmacotherapy or surgery. Further study into these areas and the practicality of its availability in the UK National Health Service (NHS) and other health systems is recommended.

The contemporary management of neck pain in adults.

Neck pain is a common condition with a high prevalence worldwide. Neck pain is associated with significant levels of disability and is widely considered an important public health problem. Neck pain is defined as pain perceived between the superior nuchal line and the spinous process of the first thoracic vertebra. In some types of neck conditions, the pain can be referred to the head, trunk and upper limbs. This article aims to provide an overview of the available evidence on prevalence, costs, diagnosis, prognosis, risk factors, prevention and management of patients with neck pain.

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of an Internet-delivered Pain Management Program Delivered With Different Levels of Clinician Support: Results From a Randomised Controlled Trial.

There is growing interest in the potential of internet-delivered pain management programs (PMPs) to increase access to care for people with chronic pain. However, very few economic evaluations of these interventions have been reported. Using existing data, the current study examined the cost-effectiveness of an internet-delivered PMP for a mixed group chronic pain patients (n = 490) provided with different levels of clinician support. The findings indicated that each additional clinical outcome (defined as a ≥ 30% reduction in disability, depression, anxiety, and pain) was associated with cost-savings when the intervention was provided in a self-guided format (ICER range: -$404--$808 AUD) or an optional-guided format (ICER range: -$314--$541 AUD), and a relatively small fixed cost when provided in the clinician-guided format (ICER range: $88-$225 AUD). The results were driven by a reduction in service use costs among the treatment groups, which offset the costs of providing the internet-delivered PMP in the self-guided and optional-guided formats. The same general pattern of results was found when more stringent clinical outcomes (defined as a ≥ 50% reduction) were employed. These findings suggest that carefully developed and administered internet-delivered PMPs, provided with different levels of clinician support, can be highly cost effective for patients with a broad range of pain conditions. PERSPECTIVE: This study examines the cost-effectiveness of an internet-delivered PMP provided to adults with a broad range of chronic pain conditions. Evidence of cost-effectiveness was found across a broad range of clinical outcomes and with different levels of clinician support.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound ablation for palliation of refractory painful bone metastases.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine if magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) is cost-effective compared with medication, for refractory pain from bone metastases in the United States. METHODS: We constructed a Markov state transition model using TreeAge Pro software (TreeAge Software, Inc., Williamstown, MA, USA) to model costs, outcomes, and the cost-effectiveness of a treatment strategy using MRgFUS for palliative treatment of painful bone metastases compared with a Medication Only strategy (Figure 1). Model transition state probabilities, costs (in 2018 US$), and effectiveness data (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) were derived from available literature, local expert opinion, and reimbursement patterns at two U.S. tertiary academic medical centers actively performing MRgFUS. Costs and QALYs, discounted at three percent per year, were accumulated each month over a 24-month time horizon. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the MRgFUS treatment strategy costs an additional $11,863 over the 2-year time horizon to accumulate additional 0.22 QALYs, equal to a $54,160/QALY ICER, thus making MRgFUS the preferred strategy. One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrate that for the base-case analysis, the crossover point at which Medication Only would instead become the preferred strategy is $23,341 per treatment. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrate that 67 percent of model iterations supported the conclusion of the base case. CONCLUSIONS: Our model demonstrates that MRgFUS is cost-effective compared with Medication Only for palliation of painful bone metastases for patients with medically refractory metastatic bone pain across a range of sensitivity analyses.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of motion style acupuncture treatment (MSAT) for acute neck pain: A multi-center randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Neck pain is a common complaint in the general population. Despite the consistent ongoing pain and the resulting economic burden on affected individuals, there have only been a few studies investigating the treatment of acute neck pain. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of the motion style acupuncture treatment (MSAT) and acupuncture treatment for acute neck pain. METHODS: This 2-armed, parallel, multi-centered randomized controlled trial will be conducted at 4 community-based hospitals in Korea. A total of 128 subjects will be randomly assigned, at a 1:1 ratio, to the MSAT and the acupuncture treatment groups. Treatment will be administered 2 to 3 times a week for 2 weeks. The primary outcome will be the visual analog scale of neck pain on movement. The secondary outcomes will be the numeric rating scale of the neck, neck disability index, Northwick Park questionnaire, patient global impression of change, range of motion of the neck, 5-level EuroQol-5 dimension, 12-item Short-Form Health Survey, and EuroQol visual analogue scale. This protocol has been registered at the Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04539184). DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this study is the first well-designed multi-centered randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of MSAT on acute neck pain. The results of this study will be useful for clinicians in primary medical institutions that frequently treat acute neck pain patients and for policymakers working with national health insurance.

Effects of pain, sedation and delirium monitoring on clinical and economic outcome: A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Significant improvements in clinical outcome can be achieved by implementing effective strategies to optimise pain management, reduce sedative exposure, and prevent and treat delirium in ICU patients. One important strategy is the monitoring of pain, agitation and delirium (PAD bundle). We hypothesised that there is no sufficient financial benefit to implement a monitoring strategy in a Diagnosis Related Group (DRG)-based reimbursement system, therefore we expected better clinical and decreased economic outcome for monitored patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study using routinely collected data. We used univariate and multiple linear analysis, machine-learning analysis and a novel correlation statistic (maximal information coefficient) to explore the association between monitoring adherence and resulting clinical and economic outcome. For univariate analysis we split patients in an adherence achieved and an adherence non-achieved group. RESULTS: In total 1,323 adult patients from two campuses of a German tertiary medical centre, who spent at least one day in the ICU between admission and discharge between 1. January 2016 and 31. December 2016. Adherence to PAD monitoring was associated with shorter hospital LoS (e.g. pain monitoring 13 vs. 10 days; p<0.001), ICU LoS, duration of mechanical ventilation shown by univariate analysis. Despite the improved clinical outcome, adherence to PAD elements was associated with a decreased case mix per day and profit per day shown by univariate analysis. Multiple linear analysis did not confirm these results. PAD monitoring is important for clinical as well as economic outcome and predicted case mix better than severity of illness shown by machine learning analysis. CONCLUSION: Adherence to PAD bundles is also important for clinical as well as economic outcome. It is associated with improved clinical and worse economic outcome in comparison to non-adherence in univariate analysis but not confirmed by multiple linear analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT02265263, Registered 15 October 2014.

Postoperative Opioid Analgesia Impacts Resource Utilization in Infants Undergoing Pyloromyotomy.

BACKGROUND: Opioid analgesia is often avoided in infants undergoing pyloromyotomy. Previous studies highlight an association between opioid use and prolonged hospitalization after pyloromyotomy. However, the impact of opioid use on healthcare resource utilization and cost is unknown. We hypothesized that use of opioids after pyloromyotomy is associated with increased resource utilization and costs. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted identifying healthy infants aged <6 mo with a diagnosis of pyloric stenosis who underwent pyloromyotomy from 2005 to 2015 among 47 children's hospitals using the Pediatric Health Information System database. Time of opioid exposure was categorized as day of surgery (DOS) alone, postoperative use alone, or combined DOS and postoperative use. Primary outcomes were the standardized unit cost, a proxy for resource utilization, billed charges to the patient/insurer, and hospital costs. A multivariable log-linear mixed-effects model was used to adjust for patient and hospital level factors. RESULTS: Overall, 11,008 infants underwent pyloromyotomy with 2842 (26%) receiving perioperative opioids. Most opioid use was confined to the DOS alone (n = 2,158, 19.6%). Infants who received opioids on DOS and postoperatively exhibited 13% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7%-20%, P-value <0.001) higher total resource utilization compared with infants who did not receive any opioids. Billed charges were 3% higher (95% CI: 0%-5%, P-value = 0.034) for infants receiving opioids isolated to the postoperative period alone and 6% higher (95% CI: 2%-11%, P-value = 0.004) for infants receiving opioids on the DOS and postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative opioid use among infants who underwent pyloromyotomy was associated with increased resource utilization and costs.

Trends of Expenditures and Utilization of Facet Joint Interventions in Fee-For-Service (FFS) Medicare Population from 2009-2018.

BACKGROUND: The trends of the expenditures of facet joint interventions have not been specifically assessed in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population since 2009. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this investigation is to assess trends of expenditures and utilization of facet joint interventions in FFS Medicare population from 2009 to 2018. STUDY DESIGN: The study was designed to analyze trends of expenditures and utilization of facet joint interventions in FFS Medicare population from 2009-2018 in the United States. In this manuscript: • A patient was considered as undergoing facet joint interventions throughout the year. • A visit included all regions treated during the visit. • An episode was considered as one per region utilizing primary codes only. • Services or procedures were considered all procedures (multiple levels). Data for the analysis was obtained from the standard 5% national sample of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) physician outpatient billing claims for those enrolled in the FFS Medicare program from 2009 to 2018. All the expenditures were presented with allowed costs and also were inflation adjusted to 2018 US dollars. RESULTS: This analysis showed expenditures increased by 79% from 2009 to 2018 in the form of total cost for facet joint interventions, at an annual rate of 6.7%. Cervical and lumbar radiofrequency neurotomy procedures increased 185% and 169%. However, inflation-adjusted expenditures with 2018 US dollars showed an overall increase of 53% with an annual increase of 4.9%. In addition, using inflation-adjusted expenditures per procedures increased, the overall 6% with an annual increase of 0.7%. Overall, per patient costs, with inflation adjustment, decreased from $1,925 to $1,785 with a decline of 7% and an annual decline of 0.8%. Allowed charges per visit also declined after inflation adjustment from $951.76 to $849.86 with an overall decline of 11% and an annual decline of 1.3%. Staged episodes of radiofrequency neurotomy were performed in 23.9% of patients and more than 2 episodes for radiofrequency neurotomy in 6.9%, in lumbar spine and 19.6% staged and 5.1% more than 2 episodes in cervical spine of patients in 2018. LIMITATIONS: This analysis is limited by inclusion of only the FFS Medicare population, without adding utilization patterns of Medicare Advantage plans, which constitutes almost 30% of the Medicare population. CONCLUSIONS: Even after adjusting for inflation, there was a significant increase for the expenditures of facet joint interventions with an overall 53% increase. Costs per patient and cost per visit declined. Inflation-adjusted cost per year declined 7% overall and 0.8% annually from $1,925 to $1,785, and inflation-adjusted cost per visit also declined 11% annually and 1.3% per year from $952 in 2009 to $850 in 2018. KEY WORDS: Facet joint interventions, facet joint nerve blocks, facet joint neurolysis, facet joint injections, Medicare expenditures.

Evaluation of Treatment Patterns and Direct Costs Associated with the Management of Neuropathic Pain.

Background: Neuropathic pain has a prevalence of 2-17% in the general population. Diagnosis and treatment of neuropathic pain are not fully described in different populations. The aim was to determine the treatment patterns and direct costs of care associated with the management of neuropathic pain from the onset of the first symptom to up to two years after diagnosis. Methods: From a drug-claim database, a cohort of randomly selected outpatients diagnosed with neuropathic pain was obtained from an insurer in Colombia and followed up for two years after diagnosis. The clinical records were reviewed individually to identify the study variables, including the time needed to make the diagnosis, the medical and paraclinical resources used, the pharmacological therapy for pain management, and the direct costs associated with care. Results: We identified 624 patients in 49 cities, with a mean age of 50.3 ± 14.1 years, of which 324 were men (51.9%). An average of 90 days passed from the initial consultation until the diagnosis of neuropathic pain, the most frequent being lumbosacral radiculopathy (57.9%). 34.5% of the cohort had at least one diagnostic imaging procedure, and 16% had an electromyography. On average, they were treated by a general practitioner twice. 91.7% received initial treatment with tramadol, carbamazepine, amitriptyline, imipramine, or pregabalin, and 60.4% received combined therapy. The mean cost of care for two years for each patient was US$246.3. Conclusions: Patients with neuropathic pain in Colombia are being diagnosed late, are using therapeutic agents not recommended as first-line treatment by clinical practice guidelines, and are being treated for short periods of time.

Interdisciplinary approach to chronic pain management.

Chronic pain is a significant and costly problem all over the world. Despite significant progress in identifying the best treatment approaches, there are still significant obstacles that must be overcome in order for the treatment to be truly beneficial. There is evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of interdisciplinary treatment programs for patients with chronic pain. Creating an interdisciplinary service is not easy and certainly is much more complicated than simply placing different services in one clinic. However, when such interdisciplinary programs are instituted, they increase the effectiveness of chronic pain management significantly; bring satisfaction to doctors and are economically attractive (interdisciplinary treatment programs for patients suffering from pain not only provide the best clinical treatment, but are also the most cost-effective in the long run).

Cost-effectiveness of pain management services for chronic low back pain: a systematic review of published studies.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a highly prevalent condition that has substantial impact on patients, the healthcare system and society. Pain management services (PMS), which aim to address the complex nature of back pain, are recommended in clinical practice guidelines to manage CLBP. Although the effectiveness of such services has been widely investigated in relation to CLBP, the quality of evidence underpinning the use of these services remains moderate. Therefore the aim is to summarize and critically appraise the current evidence for the cost effectiveness of pain management services for managing chronic back pain. METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from their inception to February 2019. Full economic evaluations undertaken from any perspective conducted alongside randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or based on decision analysis models were included. Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG) risk assessment and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist were used to assess the methodological quality of eligible studies. RESULTS: Five studies fulfilled eligibility criteria. The interventions varied significantly between studies in terms of the number and types of treatment modalities, intensity and the duration of the program. Interventions were compared with either standard care, which varied according to the country and the setting; or to surgical interventions. Three studies showed that pain management services are cost effective, while two studies showed that these services are not cost effective. In this review, three out of five studies had a high risk of bias based on the design of the randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In addition, there were limitations in the statistical and sensitivity analyses in the economic evaluations. Therefore, the results from these studies need to be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSION: Pain management services may be cost effective for the management of low back pain. However, this systematic review highlights the variability of evidence supporting pain management services for patients with back pain. This is due to the quality of the published studies and the variability of the setting, interventions, comparators and outcomes.