Factors influencing Australian chiropractors who choose not to join national professional associations: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Professional associations (PAs) are perceived to promote their professions and support their members. Despite these advantages, about 1 in 3 Australian chiropractors choose not to belong to either of the two PAs. Our study had two objectives: 1) to explore the views of non-member chiropractors about PAs in general; 2) seek to understand the motivations of non-member Australian chiropractors about not joining a PA. METHODS: This qualitative descriptive study utilised in-depth semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions for thematic analysis and was conducted from January to April 2020. Nine participants were interviewed before no new themes were articulated. Participants had to be registered chiropractors who had not been members of a PA for at least three years. Recruitment was through a Facebook advertisement and snowball sampling. Interviews were transcribed and imported into NVivo qualitative analysis software, allowing identification of key concepts surrounding non-membership of chiropractic PAs. RESULTS: Five themes were identified. 1) A tarnished image, suggested the profession has a poor standing in the eyes of the public and other health professionals. 2) Not worth the money, expressed the annual membership dues were not viewed as good value for money. 3) Going it alone / what's in it for me? indicated there was no direct benefit or anything deemed essential for practice. 4) Two warring factions, reflected not wanting to be seen to be part of the internal conflict between conservative and evidence-based practitioners. 5) Lack of visibility, described no visible presence or strong communication that clearly displayed the advantages of membership. CONCLUSIONS: Non-members are looking for PAs to enhance the respectability of the profession in a manner that ultimately results in increased patient volume and the provision of readily accessible day-to-day resources and information. These results can inform the construction of a survey for the broader chiropractic non-membership community to confirm and expand upon these findings and potentially improve PAs.

Service utilisation trends in the manual therapy professions within the Australian private healthcare setting between 2008 and 2017.

BACKGROUND: Better understanding of the dynamics and temporal changes in manual therapy service utilisation may assist with healthcare planning and resource allocation. The objectives of this study were to quantify, describe, and compare service utilisation trends in the manual therapy professions within the Australian private healthcare setting between 2008 and 2017. METHODS: Data regarding the number of services, total cost, and benefits paid were extracted for each manual therapy profession (i.e. chiropractic, osteopathy, and physiotherapy) for the period 2008-2017 from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. The number of registered providers for each profession were obtained from the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. Descriptive statistics were produced for two time periods (i.e. 2008-2012 and 2013-2017) for each manual therapy profession. Annual percentage change during each time period was estimated by fitting Poisson regression models. Test for the equality of regression coefficients was used to compare the trends in the two time periods within each profession, and to compare the trends across professions within a time period. RESULTS: A cumulative total of 198.6 million manual therapy services with a total cost of $12.8 billion was provided within the Australian private healthcare setting between 2008 and 2017. Although service utilisation and total cost increased throughout the ten-year period, the annual growth was significantly lower during 2013-2017 than 2008-2012. Whereas osteopathy and physiotherapy experienced significant annual growth in the number of services and total cost during 2013-2017, negative growth in the number of services was observed for chiropractic during the same period. The annual number of services per provider declined significantly for chiropractic and physiotherapy between 2013 and 2017. CONCLUSION: Service provision under private health insurance general treatment cover constitute a major source of revenue for manual therapy professions in Australia. Although manual therapy service utilisation increased throughout the ten-year period from 2008 to 2017, the annual growth declined. There were diverging trends across the three professions, including significantly greater decline in annual growth for chiropractic than for osteopathy and physiotherapy.

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.

Chiropractic maintenance care - what's new? A systematic review of the literature.

Background: Maintenance Care is a traditional chiropractic approach, whereby patients continue treatment after optimum benefit is reached. A review conducted in 1996 concluded that evidence behind this therapeutic strategy was lacking, and a second review from 2008 reached the same conclusion. Since then, a systematic research program in the Nordic countries was undertaken to uncover the definition, indications, prevalence of use and beliefs regarding Maintenance Care to make it possible to investigate its clinical usefulness and cost-effectiveness. As a result, an evidence-based clinical study could be performed. It was therefore timely to review the evidence. Method: Using the search terms "chiropractic OR manual therapy" AND "Maintenance Care OR prevention", PubMed and Web of Science were searched, and the titles and abstracts reviewed for eligibility, starting from 2007. In addition, a search for "The Nordic Maintenance Care Program" was conducted. Because of the diversity of topics and study designs, a systematic review with narrative reporting was undertaken. Results: Fourteen original research articles were included in the review. Maintenance Care was defined as a secondary/tertiary preventive approach, recommended to patients with previous pain episodes, who respond well to chiropractic care. Maintenance Care is applied to approximately 30% of Scandinavian chiropractic patients. Both chiropractors and patients believe in the efficacy of Maintenance Care. Four studies investigating the effect of chiropractic Maintenance Care were identified, with disparate results on pain and disability of neck and back pain. However, only one of these studies utilized all the existing evidence when selecting study subjects and found that Maintenance Care patients experienced fewer days with low back pain compared to patients invited to contact their chiropractor 'when needed'. No studies were found on the cost-effectiveness of Maintenance Care. Conclusion: Knowledge of chiropractic Maintenance Care has advanced. There is reasonable consensus among chiropractors on what Maintenance Care is, how it should be used, and its indications. Presently, Maintenance Care can be considered an evidence-based method to perform secondary or tertiary prevention in patients with previous episodes of low back pain, who report a good outcome from the initial treatments. However, these results should not be interpreted as an indication for Maintenance Care on all patients, who receive chiropractic treatment.

At-risk advertising by Australian chiropractors and physiotherapists.

Background: Society expects professionals to promote their businesses in an ethical manner, refraining from misleading or deceptive marketing due to the potential to harm members of the community. In Australia this expectation resides in the Australian registration board advertising guidelines or the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. Registration board data indicate there are many health care professionals failing to meet these expectations. The aims of this research were to determine the frequency, type and nature of at-risk advertising by Australian chiropractors and physiotherapists and whether there is a correlation between professional association membership and advertising guideline compliance. Method: A cross sectional audit examining practitioner advertising was performed on representative samples of Australian chiropractors and physiotherapists. Two auditors examined advertising by 380 physiotherapists and 359 chiropractors for material potentially in breach of the regulatory authorities' advertising guidelines. The advertising appeared on practitioner websites and linked Facebook pages. Results: Two-hundred and fifty-eight (72%) audited chiropractors and 231 (61%) audited physiotherapists had breaches of the Advertising Guidelines on their websites and linked Facebook pages. The frequency of breaches by chiropractors was higher. The type and nature of the breaches by chiropractors was potentially more harmful. Membership in a professional association influenced neither the frequency nor the severity of breaches with chiropractors. Discussion: Advertising breaches were common in both samples even though regulators and professional associations provide practitioners with explicit information on how to comply with advertising guidelines. Breaches by chiropractors were more numerous and more serious due to their greater potential to lead consumers to make inappropriate and potentially harmful healthcare decisions.Stronger enforcement strategies may have a positive effect on compliance.

Effectiveness, costs and cost-effectiveness of chiropractic care and physiotherapy compared with information and advice in the treatment of non-specific chronic low back pain: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a global public health problem and a leading cause of disability all over the world. The lifetime prevalence of low back pain is 70-80% and a significant proportion of people affected develop chronic low back pain (CLBP). Besides a severe negative impact on people's health and health-related quality of life, CLBP is associated with substantial costs for society. Medical costs for the management of CLBP and costs for production losses due to absenteeism from work are sizeable. Pharmaceuticals, physical activity, manipulation, and multidisciplinary rehabilitation interventions are examples of widely used treatments for CLBP. However, the scientific basis to recommend the use of one treatment over another is limited and more research is needed to study the effects, costs and cost-effectiveness of treatments for CLBP in clinical practice. The aim of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness (back pain-related functional limitation, back pain intensity, general health, health-related quality of life, and working status), costs (medical costs and costs for production losses) and cost-effectiveness of chiropractic care and physiotherapy when added to information and advice in the treatment of patients with non-specific CLBP in Sweden. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial, where participants are recruited through six primary care rehabilitation units (PCRUs) in Stockholm County Council, Sweden. Individuals with non-specific CLBP are individually randomised to one of four treatment groups: 'information and advice'; 'physiotherapy, and information and advice'; 'chiropractic care, and information and advice'; or 'chiropractic care, physiotherapy, and information and advice'. A sample size of 600 participants will be recruited during a period of 33 months. A computer-based questionnaire is used to collect data on back pain-related functional limitation (Oswestry Disability Index), pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale), general health (self-rated health), health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-3L), and working status (measured as percentage of full-time work). Data will be collected at baseline, and at 3, 6, and 12 months after baseline. DISCUSSION: The results from our study should be considered when producing evidence-based guidelines and recommendations on which treatment strategies to use for CLBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ID: ISRCTN15830360 . Registered prospectively on 2 February 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Effects of Expanded Coverage for Chiropractic Services on Medicare Costs in a CMS Demonstration.

BACKGROUND: Moderately convincing evidence supports the benefits of chiropractic manipulations for low back pain. Its effectiveness in other applications is less well documented, and its cost-effectiveness is not known. These questions led the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) to conduct a two-year demonstration of expanded Medicare coverage for chiropractic services in the treatment of beneficiaries with neuromusculoskeletal (NMS) conditions affecting the back, limbs, neck, or head. METHODS: The demonstration was conducted in 2005-2007 in selected counties of Illinois, Iowa, and Virginia and the entire states of Maine and New Mexico. Medicare claims were compiled for the preceding year and two demonstration years for the demonstration areas and matched comparison areas. The impact of the demonstration was analyzed through multivariate regression analysis with a difference-in-difference framework. RESULTS: Expanded coverage increased Medicare expenditures by $50 million or 28.5% in users of chiropractic services and by $114 million or 10.4% in all patients treated for NMS conditions in demonstration areas during the two-year period. Results varied widely among demonstration areas ranging from increased costs per user of $485 in Northern Illinois and Chicago counties to decreases in costs per user of $59 in New Mexico and $178 in Scott County, Iowa. CONCLUSION: The demonstration did not assess possible decreases in costs to other insurers, out-of-pocket payments by patients, the need for and costs of pain medications, or longer term clinical benefits such as avoidance of orthopedic surgical procedures beyond the two-year period of the demonstration. It is possible that other payers or beneficiaries saved money during the demonstration while costs to Medicare were increased.

A systematic review comparing the costs of chiropractic care to other interventions for spine pain in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Although chiropractors in the United States (US) have long suggested that their approach to managing spine pain is less costly than other health care providers (HCPs), it is unclear if available evidence supports this premise. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using a comprehensive search strategy to uncover studies that compared health care costs for patients with any type of spine pain who received chiropractic care or care from other HCPs. Only studies conducted in the US and published in English between 1993 and 2015 were included. Health care costs were summarized for studies examining: 1. private health plans, 2. workers' compensation (WC) plans, and 3. clinical outcomes. The quality of studies in the latter group was evaluated using a Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. RESULTS: The search uncovered 1276 citations and 25 eligible studies, including 12 from private health plans, 6 from WC plans, and 7 that examined clinical outcomes. Chiropractic care was most commonly compared to care from a medical physician, with few details about the care received. Heterogeneity was noted among studies in patient selection, definition of spine pain, scope of costs compared, study duration, and methods to estimate costs. Overall, cost comparison studies from private health plans and WC plans reported that health care costs were lower with chiropractic care. In studies that also examined clinical outcomes, there were few differences in efficacy between groups, and health care costs were higher for those receiving chiropractic care. The effects of adjusting for differences in sociodemographic, clinical, or other factors between study groups were unclear. CONCLUSIONS: Although cost comparison studies suggest that health care costs were generally lower among patients whose spine pain was managed with chiropractic care, the studies reviewed had many methodological limitations. Better research is needed to determine if these differences in health care costs were attributable to the type of HCP managing their care.

Effectiveness and economic evaluation of chiropractic care for the treatment of low back pain: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Chiropractic care is a common treatment for low back pain (LBP). Previous studies have failed to clarify the relative cost-effectiveness of chiropractic care in comparison with other commonly used approaches because previous attempts to synthetize the economic literature has only included partial economic evaluations. The objective of this project is to estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of chiropractic care compared to other commonly used care approaches among adult patients with non-specific LBP. METHODS/DESIGN: Two systematic reviews will be conducted to identify 1) randomized controlled trials and 2) full economic evaluations of chiropractic care for low back pain compared to standard care provided by other healthcare providers. We will conduct searches in specialized electronic databases for randomized controlled trials and full economic evaluations published between 1990 and 2014 using a combination of keywords and MeSH terms. This will be supplemented by a search of the gray literature. Citations, abstracts, and relevant papers will be screened for eligibility by two reviewers independently. Studies will be critically appraised using 1) the Cochrane risk of bias tool and 2) the Drummond (BMJ) checklist. Results will be summarized using Slavin's qualitative best-evidence synthesis approach. Data relating to the primary outcomes of the effectiveness study will be evaluated for inclusion in meta-analyses. The costs will be standardized to the same currency (USD) and adjusted to the same year for inflation. The incremental cost-effectiveness, incremental net benefit, and relevant confidant intervals will be recalculated in order to facilitate comparison between studies. DISCUSSION: Our review will evaluate both the clinical effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness associated with chiropractic care for LBP. A more precise estimate of the cost-effectiveness of chiropractic care for LBP relative to other forms of conservative care is needed for decision-makers and third-party payers to offer best care options for LBP. Our results will facilitate evidence-based management of patients with LBP and identify key areas for future research. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The protocol is registered on PROSPERO ( CRD42014008746 ).

Paying for quality not quantity: a wisconsin health maintenance organization proposes an incentive model for reimbursement of chiropractic services.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to describe a reimbursement model that was developed by one Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) to transition from fee-for-service to add a combination of pay for performance and reporting model of reimbursement for chiropractic care. METHODS: The previous incentive program used by the HMO provided best-practice education and additional reimbursement incentives for achieving the National Committee for Quality Assurance Back Pain Recognition Program (NCQA-BPRP) recognition status. However, this model had not leveled costs between doctors of chiropractic (DCs). Therefore, the HMO management aimed to develop a reimbursement model to incentivize providers to embrace existing best-practice models and report existing quality metrics. The development goals included the following: it should (1) be as financially predictable as the previous system, (2) cost no more on a per-member basis, (3) meet the coverage needs of its members, and (4) be able to be operationalized. The model should also reward DCs who embraced best practices with compensation, not simply tied to providing more procedures, the new program needed to (1) cause little or no disruption in current billing, (2) be grounded achievable and defined expectations for improvement in quality, and (3) be voluntary, without being unduly punitive, should the DC choose not to participate in the program. RESULTS: The generated model was named the Comprehensive Chiropractic Quality Reimbursement Methodology (CCQRM; pronounced "Quorum"). In this hybrid model, additional reimbursement, beyond pay-for-procedures will be based on unique payment interpretations reporting selected, existing Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) codes, meaningful use of electronic health records, and achieving NCQA-BPRP recognition. This model aims to compensate providers using pay-for-performance, pay-for-quality reporting, pay-for-procedure methods. CONCLUSION: The CCQRM reimbursement model was developed to address the current needs of one HMO that aims to transition from fee-for-service to a pay-for-performance and quality reporting for reimbursement for chiropractic care. This model is theoretically based on the combination of a fee-for-service payment, pay for participation (NCQA Back Pain Recognition Program payment), meaningful use of electronic health record payment, and pay for reporting (PQRS-BPMG payment). Evaluation of this model needs to be implemented to determine if it will achieve its intended goals.

An independent review of NCCAM-funded studies of chiropractic.

To promote an independent and critical evaluation of 11 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of chiropractic funded by the National Centre for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM). Electronic searches were conducted to identify all relevant RCTs. Key data were extracted and the risk of bias of each study was determined. Ten RCTs were included, mostly related to chiropractic spinal manipulation for musculoskeletal problems. Their quality was frequently questionable. Several RCTs failed to report adverse effects and the majority was not described in sufficient detail to allow replication. The criticism repeatedly aimed at NCCAM seems justified, as far as their RCTs of chiropractic is concerned. It seems questionable whether such research is worthwhile.

Medicare part B claims for chiropractic spinal manipulation, 1998 to 2004.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the volume and rate of Medicare Part B claims for chiropractic spinal manipulation longitudinally from 1998 to 2004. METHODS: A descriptive retrospective analysis was performed on Medicare part B claims from 1998 to 2004 using the Medicare Part B Standard Analytical Variable Length File. Using a 5% random sample of Medicare part B claims, the total number of claims were determined for chiropractic spinal manipulation procedures, and the rate of chiropractic spinal manipulation procedures per 1000 beneficiaries. RESULTS: From 1998 through 2003, the number of chiropractic spinal manipulation claims increased by 38% (from 824,249 total claims in 1998 to 1,133,872 in 2003) followed by a 24% decline from 2003 to 2004. The rate of total chiropractic spinal manipulation claims rose 29% from 649 claims per 1000 beneficiaries per year in 1998 to a high of 839 claims per 1000 beneficiaries per year in 2003 and then declined by 25% to 632 claims per 1000 beneficiaries per year in 2004. CONCLUSION: Medicare Part B claims for chiropractic spinal manipulation increased significantly from 1998 to 2003 and then abruptly declined from 2003 to 2004. Estimates for 2004 are at variance with earlier published estimates.

Cost of care for common back pain conditions initiated with chiropractic doctor vs medical doctor/doctor of osteopathy as first physician: experience of one Tennessee-based general health insurer.

OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to determine if there are differences in the cost of low back pain care when a patient is able to choose a course of treatment with a medical doctor (MD) versus a doctor of chiropractic (DC), given that his/her insurance provides equal access to both provider types. METHODS: A retrospective claims analysis was performed on Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee's intermediate and large group fully insured population between October 1, 2004 and September 30, 2006. The insured study population had open access to MDs and DCs through self-referral without any limit to the number of visits or differences in co-pays to these 2 provider types. Our analysis was based on episodes of care for low back pain. An episode was defined as all reimbursed care delivered between the first and the last encounter with a health care provider for low back pain. A 60 day window without an encounter was treated as a new episode. We compared paid claims and risk adjusted costs between episodes of care initiated with an MD with those initiated with a DC. RESULTS: Paid costs for episodes of care initiated with a DC were almost 40% less than episodes initiated with an MD. Even after risk adjusting each patient's costs, we found that episodes of care initiated with a DC were 20% less expensive than episodes initiated with an MD. CONCLUSIONS: Beneficiaries in our sampling frame had lower overall episode costs for treatment of low back pain if they initiated care with a DC, when compared to those who initiated care with an MD.

Trends and predictors of publicly subsidized chiropractic service use among adults age 50+.

OBJECTIVES: This article examines trends in and predictors of publicly subsidized chiropractic use from 1991 to 2000, a decade characterized by health care system reforms throughout North America. SAMPLE: The sample included adults age 50+ who visited a publicly subsidized chiropractor in the Canadian province of British Columbia during the study period. DESIGN: Administrative claims data for chiropractic service use were drawn from the Medical Services Plan (MSP) Master file in the British Columbia Linked Health Data resource. The MSP Master file contains claims reported for every provincially insured medical service and supplementary health benefit including chiropractic visits. RESULTS: Joinpoint regression analyses demonstrate that while annual rates of chiropractic users did not change over the decade, visit rates decreased during this period. Predictors of a greater number of chiropractic visits include increasing age, female gender, urban residence, low to moderate income, and use of chiropractic services earlier in the decade. CONCLUSIONS: The trend toward decreasing visit rates over the 1990s both conflicts with and is consistent with findings from other North American chiropractic studies using similar time periods. Results indicating that low and moderate income and advancing age predict more frequent chiropractic service are novel. However, given that lower income and older individuals were exempted from chiropractic service limits during this period, these results suggest support for the responsive nature of chiropractic use to financial barriers.

The chiropractic care of children.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to characterize the practice of pediatric chiropractic. DESIGN: The study design was a cross-sectional descriptive survey. SETTINGS/LOCATION: The settings were private practices throughout the United States, Canada, and Europe. PARTICIPANTS: The participants were 548 chiropractors, the majority of whom are practicing in the United States, Canada, and Europe. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Practitioner demographics (i.e., gender, years in practice, and chiropractic alma mater), practice characteristics (i.e., patient visits per week, practice income reimbursement), and chiropractic technique were surveyed. The practitioners were also asked to indicate common indicators for pediatric presentation, their practice activities (i.e., use of herbal remedies, exercise and rehabilitation, prayer healing, etc.), and referral patterns. RESULTS: A majority of the responders were female with an average practice experience of 8 years. They attended an average of 133 patient visits per week, with 21% devoted to the care of children (<18 years of age). Practice income was derived primarily from out-of-pocket reimbursement with charges of an average of $127 and $42 for the first and subsequent visits, respectively. These visits were reimbursed to address common conditions of childhood (i.e., asthma, ear infections, etc.). Approach to patient care was spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) augmented with herbal remedies, exercises, rehabilitation, and so on. Wellness care also figured prominently as a motivator for chiropractic care. Fifty-eight percent (58%) indicated an established relationship with an osteopathic or medical physician. Eighty percent (80%) of the responders indicated referring patients to medical practitioners while only 29% indicated receiving a referral from a medical/osteopathic physician. CONCLUSIONS: The chiropractic care of children is a significant aspect of the practice of chiropractic. Further research is warranted to examine the safety and effectiveness of this popular nonallopathic approach to children's health.

Comparative effectiveness research and the chiropractic profession.

The purpose of this article is to discuss comparative effectiveness research (CER) as it relates to the chiropractic profession. This article reviews CER priorities as determined by the Institute of Medicine and suggests actions for the chiropractic profession to become more involved in CER.

Cost minimization analysis of low back pain claims data for chiropractic vs medicine in a managed care organization.

OBJECTIVE: A managed care organization (MCO) examined differences in allowed cost for managing low back pain by medical providers vs chiropractors in an integrated care environment. The purpose of this study is to provide a retrospective cost analysis of administrative data of chiropractic vs medical management of low back pain in a managed care setting. METHODS: All patients with a low back pain-related diagnosis presenting for health care from January 2004 to June 2004 who were insured by an MCO in northeast Wisconsin were tracked. The cumulative health care costs incurred by this MCO during the 2-year period from January 2004 to December 2005 related to these back pain diagnoses were collected. RESULTS: Allowed costs of chiropractic treatment were 12% greater than medical primary care and 60% less per case than other types of medical care combined, on a per-case basis: median cost of medical primary care was $365.00, chiropractic care was $417.00, and medical nonprimary care was $669.00. CONCLUSION: This study of an MCO's low back pain allowed costs may be better redirected to primary care or chiropractic, given equivalent levels of case complexity. This study suggests chiropractic management as less expensive compared with medical management of back pain when care extends beyond primary care. Primary care management alone is virtually indistinguishable from chiropractic management in terms of costs.