Federal and Statewide Coverage for Opioid-Sparing Chronic Pain Treatments.

BACKGROUND: With increased hospitalizations and deaths related to opioid use disorder, there is an impetus for federal and private insurance companies to provide coverage for integrative treatments that address pain. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the current literature recommend that nonpharmacological and nonopioid treatments must be considered for chronic pain management. The continued examination of potential coverage and cost-effectiveness for opioid-sparing alternatives with proven efficacy is critical for physicians who treat chronic pain. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of coverage policies for 10 alternative chronic back pain therapies was completed using the most up-to-date publicly available information from federal and state databases until September 2021. OBJECTIVES: To determine coverage for opioid-sparing treatments for chronic back pain across federal and state healthcare systems. METHODS: We selected the alternative therapies from the National Institute of Health's National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) (www.nccih.nih.gov). We then collected and analyzed coverage policies for federal and state healthcare plans, including Medicare, Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Indian Health Services (IHS), and Medicaid, by accessing federal databases and state policy databases via the department of health and human services (HHS). RESULTS: The 2 most commonly covered nonpharmacologic therapies for chronic back pain are physical therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy. Other more novel therapies have a heterogenous distribution among federal and state healthcare coverage. Assessment of regional differences determined that the median number of treatments in the Northeast and Midwest was 3, while in the South and West, it was 2. LIMITATIONS: Several provider manuals included varying degrees of information regarding their services. Some states included all pertinent information, such as the definition of treatment, the exact number of service visits allowed annually, and whether prior authorization was necessary. Many manuals provided less information than this. Each state's Medicaid document contained inherent variability, especially with respect to when they were updated or published. Some states had updated information available for 2021, while the most updated policies for other states included documents that were last updated in 2008. CONCLUSIONS: Integrative treatments for chronic back pain are currently available, yet coverage varies widely depending on the patient's Medicare or Medicaid status. Different states cover different therapies, which may lead to unequal healthcare outcomes for patients with chronic pain.

Comparisons of Monopolar Lesion Volumes with Hypertonic Saline Solution in Radiofrequency Ablation: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Ex Vivo Study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic degeneration of the zygapophyseal joints in the cervical or lumbar spine are common causes of axial back pain. Radiofrequency (RF) ablation is a treatment modality in the denervation of facet joint-related pain. Although multiple factors have been theorized to contribute to the size of the optimal RF lesion, the addition of hypertonic saline solution has been posited to create larger RF lesion sizes. OBJECTIVES: This study compares lesion of 20-gauge RF monopolar probe using 2% lidocaine, 0.9% normal saline solution, and 3% saline solution administered through the RF needle prior to ablation, with subsequent lesion sizes recorded. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, double-blinded, ex vivo study using clinically relevant conditions. SETTING: Procedural laboratory in an academic institution. METHODS: RF ablation lesions were reproduced in room temperature (21°C ± 2°C) chicken breast specimens with 20-gauge monopolar RF probes inserted. RF was applied for 90 seconds at 80°C after injection of 1 mL of either 2% lidocaine, 2% lidocaine and 0.9% normal saline solution in a 1:1 ratio, or 2% lidocaine and 3% saline solution in a 1:1 ratio. Tissues were dissected, measured, and ellipsoid volumes of burn calculated. Homogeneity of variances was assessed via the Bartlett's test, and heteroskedasticity with the studentized Breusch-Pagan test. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (alpha of 0.05) was used to evaluate statistical significance between volume means across groups. When the null hypothesis of no difference in burn volume between samples could not be rejected, a predefined equivalence volume of ± 0.05 cm3 was used with Welch's 2 one-sided t-tests (TOST) with a Bonferroni adjusted alpha of 0.0167 to evaluate for null acceptance. RESULTS: The mean lesion volume for monopolar RF with 1 mL 2% lidocaine was 0.16 cm3. Monopolar RF with 1 mL 2% lidocaine + 0.9% normal saline solution had a mean lesion volume of 0.15 cm3, and treatment with 1 mL 2% lidocaine + 3% saline solution measured 0.17 cm3. ANOVA failed to reject the null, and TOST accepted as equivalent all 3 comparisons. LIMITATIONS: In vivo anatomy and physiology of a human organism was not used for this study. Samples were not warmed to physiologic temperature. Randomization resulted in slightly unequal sample sizes, although all groups were of sufficient size that the central limit theorem should apply. CONCLUSIONS: Three commonly used solutions were found to have equivalent lesion sizes from monopolar probe RF ablation. KEY WORDS: Radiofrequency, ablation, lesion shape, lesion size, monopolar RF, hypertonic saline solution.