Beyond spinal manipulation: should Medicare expand coverage for chiropractic services? A review and commentary on the challenges for policy makers

Objectives: Private insurance plans typically reimburse doctors of chiropractic for a range of clinical services, but Medicare reimbursements are restricted to spinal manipulation procedures. Medicare pays for evaluations performed by medical and osteopathic physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, and occupational therapists; however, it does not reimburse the same services provided by chiropractic physicians. Advocates for expanded coverage of chiropractic services under Medicare cite clinical effectiveness and patient satisfaction, whereas critics point to unnecessary services, inadequate clinical documentation, and projected cost increases. To further inform this debate, the purpose of this commentary is to address the following questions: (1) What are the barriers to expand coverage for chiropractic services? (2) What could potentially be done to address these issues? (3) Is there a rationale for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to expand coverage for chiropractic services? Methods: A literature search was conducted of Google and PubMed for peer-reviewed articles and US government reports relevant to the provision of chiropractic care under Medicare. We reviewed relevant articles and reports to identify key issues concerning the expansion of coverage for chiropractic under Medicare, including identification of barriers and rationale for expanded coverage. Results: The literature search yielded 29 peer-reviewed articles and 7 federal government reports. Our review of these documents revealed 3 key barriers to full coverage of chiropractic services under Medicare: inadequate documentation of chiropractic claims, possible provision of unnecessary preventive care services, and the uncertain costs of expanded coverage. Our recommendations to address these barriers include the following: individual chiropractic physicians, as well as state and national chiropractic organizations, should continue to strengthen efforts to improve claims and documentation practices; and additional rigorous efficacy/effectiveness research and clinical studies for chiropractic services need to be performed. Research of chiropractic services should target the triple aim of high-quality care, affordability, and improved health. Conclusions: The barriers that were identified in this study can be addressed. To overcome these barriers, the chiropractic profession and individual physicians must assume responsibility for correcting deficiencies in compliance and documentation; further research needs to be done to evaluate chiropractic services; and effectiveness of extended episodes of preventive chiropractic care should be rigorously evaluated. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services policies related to chiropractic reimbursement should be reexamined using the same standards applicable to other health care providers. The integration of chiropractic physicians as fully engaged Medicare providers has the potential to enhance the capacity of the Medicare workforce to care for the growing population. We recommend that Medicare policy makers consider limited expansion of Medicare coverage to include, at a minimum, reimbursement for evaluation and management services by chiropractic physicians

Characteristics of US Adults Who Have Positive and Negative Perceptions of Doctors of Chiropractic and Chiropractic Care

AbstractObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare characteristics, likelihood to use, and actual use of chiropractic care for US survey respondents with positive and negative perceptions of doctors of chiropractic (DCs) and chiropractic care.MethodsFrom a 2015 nationally representative survey of 5422 adults (response rate, 29%), we used respondents' answers to identify those with positive and negative perceptions of DCs or chiropractic care. We used the χ2 test to compare other survey responses for these groups.ResultsPositive perceptions of DCs were more common than those for chiropractic care, whereas negative perceptions of chiropractic care were more common than those for DCs. Respondents with negative perceptions of DCs or chiropractic care were less likely to know whether chiropractic care was covered by their insurance, more likely to want to see a medical doctor first if they were experiencing neck or back pain, less likely to indicate that they would see a DC for neck or back pain, and less likely to have ever seen a DC as a patient, particularly in the recent past. Positive perceptions of chiropractic care and negative perceptions of DCs appear to have greater influence on DC utilization rates than their converses.ConclusionWe found that US adults generally perceive DCs in a positive manner but that a relatively high proportion has negative perceptions of chiropractic care, particularly the costs and number of visits required by such care. Characteristics of respondents with positive and negative perceptions were similar, but those with positive perceptions were more likely to plan to use—and to have already received—chiropractic care

Perspectives of older adults on co-management of low back pain by doctors of chiropractic and family medicine physicians: a focus group study.

BACKGROUND: While older adults may seek care for low back pain (LBP) from both medical doctors (MDs) and doctors of chiropractic (DCs), co-management between these providers is uncommon. The purposes of this study were to describe the preferences of older adults for LBP co-management by MDs and DCs and to identify their concerns for receiving care under such a treatment model. METHODS: We conducted 10 focus groups with 48 older adults who received LBP care in the past year. Interviews explored participants\u27 care seeking experiences, co-management preferences, and perceived challenges to successful implementation of a MD-DC co-management model. We analyzed the qualitative data using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Older adults considered LBP co-management by MDs and DCs a positive approach as the professions have complementary strengths. Participants wanted providers who worked in a co-management model to talk openly and honestly about LBP, offer clear and consistent recommendations about treatment, and provide individualized care. Facilitators of MD-DC co-management included collegial relationships between providers, arrangements between doctors to support interdisciplinary referral, computer systems that allowed exchange of health information between clinics, and practice settings where providers worked in one location. Perceived barriers to the co-management of LBP included the financial costs associated with receiving care from multiple providers concurrently, duplication of tests or imaging, scheduling and transportation problems, and potential side effects of medication and chiropractic care. A few participants expressed concern that some providers would not support a patient-preferred co-managed care model. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults are interested in receiving LBP treatment co-managed by MDs and DCs. Older adults considered patient-centered communication, collegial interdisciplinary interactions between these providers, and administrative supports such as scheduling systems and health record sharing as key components for successful LBP co-management

Effect of spinal manipulation on sensorimotor functions in back pain patients: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Low back pain (LBP) is a recognized public health problem, impacting up to 80% of US adults at some point in their lives. Patients with LBP are utilizing integrative health care such as spinal manipulation (SM). SM is the therapeutic application of a load to specific body tissues or structures and can be divided into two broad categories: SM with a high-velocity low-amplitude load, or an impulse "thrust", (HVLA-SM) and SM with a low-velocity variable-amplitude load (LVVA-SM). There is evidence that sensorimotor function in people with LBP is altered. This study evaluates the sensorimotor function in the lumbopelvic region, as measured by postural sway, response to sudden load and repositioning accuracy, following SM to the lumbar and pelvic region when compared to a sham treatment.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>A total of 219 participants with acute, subacute or chronic low back pain are being recruited from the Quad Cities area located in Iowa and Illinois. They are allocated through a minimization algorithm in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either 13 HVLA-SM treatments over 6 weeks, 13 LVVA-SM treatments over 6 weeks or 2 weeks of a sham treatment followed by 4 weeks of full spine "doctor's choice" SM. Sensorimotor function tests are performed before and immediately after treatment at baseline, week 2 and week 6. Self-report outcome assessments are also collected. The primary aims of this study are to 1) determine immediate pre to post changes in sensorimotor function as measured by postural sway following delivery of a single HVLA-SM or LVVA-SM treatment when compared to a sham treatment and 2) to determine changes from baseline to 2 weeks (4 treatments) of HVLA-SM or LVVA-SM compared to a sham treatment. Secondary aims include changes in response to sudden loads and lumbar repositioning accuracy at these endpoints, estimating sensorimotor function in the SM groups after 6 weeks of treatment, and exploring if changes in sensorimotor function are associated with changes in self-report outcome assessments.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This study may provide clues to the sensorimotor mechanisms that explain observed functional deficits associated with LBP, as well as the mechanism of action of SM.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>This trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, with the ID number of <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00830596">NCT00830596</a>, registered on January 27, 2009. The first participant was allocated on 30 January 2009 and the final participant was allocated on 17 March 2011.</p

A united statement of the global chiropractic research community against the pseudoscientific claim that chiropractic care boosts immunity.

BACKGROUND: In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the International Chiropractors Association (ICA) posted reports claiming that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. These claims clash with recommendations from the World Health Organization and World Federation of Chiropractic. We discuss the scientific validity of the claims made in these ICA reports. MAIN BODY: We reviewed the two reports posted by the ICA on their website on March 20 and March 28, 2020. We explored the method used to develop the claim that chiropractic adjustments impact the immune system and discuss the scientific merit of that claim. We provide a response to the ICA reports and explain why this claim lacks scientific credibility and is dangerous to the public. More than 150 researchers from 11 countries reviewed and endorsed our response. CONCLUSION: In their reports, the ICA provided no valid clinical scientific evidence that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. We call on regulatory authorities and professional leaders to take robust political and regulatory action against those claiming that chiropractic adjustments have a clinical impact on the immune system

Healthcare provider perspectives on integrating a comprehensive spine care model in an academic health system: a cross-sectional survey

Abstract Background Healthcare systems (HCS) are challenged in adopting and sustaining comprehensive approaches to spine care that require coordination and collaboration among multiple service units. The integration of clinicians who provide first line, evidence-based, non-pharmacological therapies further complicates adoption of these care pathways. This cross-sectional study explored clinician perceptions about the integration of guideline-concordant care and optimal spine care workforce requirements within an academic HCS. Methods Spine care clinicians from Duke University Health System (DUHS) completed a 26-item online survey via Qualtrics on barriers and facilitators to delivering guideline concordant care for low back pain patients. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. Results A total of 27 clinicians (57% response) responded to one or more items on the questionnaire, with 23 completing the majority of questions. Respondents reported that guidelines were implementable within DUHS, but no spine care guideline was used consistently across provider types. Guideline access and integration with electronic records were barriers to use. Respondents (81%) agreed most patients would benefit from non-pharmacological therapies such as physical therapy or chiropractic before receiving specialty referrals. Providers perceived spine patients expected diagnostic imaging (81%) and medication (70%) over non-pharmacological therapies. Providers agreed that receiving imaging (63%) and opioids (59%) benchmarks could be helpful but might not change their ordering practice, even if nudged by best practice advisories. Participants felt that an optimal spine care workforce would require more chiropractors and primary care providers and fewer neurosurgeons and orthopedists. In qualitative responses, respondents emphasized the following barriers to guideline-concordant care implementation: patient expectations, provider confidence with referral pathways, timely access, and the appropriate role of spine surgery. Conclusions Spine care clinicians had positive support for current tenets of guideline-concordant spine care for low back pain patients. However, significant barriers to implementation were identified, including mixed opinions about integration of non-pharmacological therapies, referral pathways, and best practices for imaging and opioid use

Be good, communicate, and collaborate: a qualitative analysis of stakeholder perspectives on adding a chiropractor to the multidisciplinary rehabilitation team

Abstract Background While chiropractors are integrating into multidisciplinary settings with increasing frequency, the perceptions of medical providers and patients toward adding chiropractors to existing healthcare teams is not well-understood. This study explored the qualities preferred in a chiropractor by key stakeholders in a neurorehabilitation setting. Methods This qualitative analysis was part of a multi-phase, organizational case study designed to evaluate the planned integration of a chiropractor into a multidisciplinary rehabilitation team. The setting was a 62-bed rehabilitation specialty hospital located in the northeastern United States. Participants included patients, families, community members, and professional staff of the administrative, medical, nursing, and therapy departments. Data collection consisted of audiotaped, individual interviews and profession-specific focus groups guided by a semi-structured interview schedule. Transcripts were imported into a qualitative data analysis program for data analysis. An iterative coding process using thematic content analysis categorized key themes and domains. Results Sixty participants were interviewed in June 2015, including 48 staff members, 6 patients, 4 family members, and 2 community members. Our analysis generated a conceptual model of The Preferred Chiropractor for Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation Settings composed of 5 domains and 13 themes. The central domain, Patient-Centeredness, or the provision of healthcare that is respectful, responsive, and inclusive of the patient’s values, preferences, and needs, was mentioned in all interviews and linked to all other themes. The Professional Qualities domain highlighted clinical acumen, efficacious treatment, and being a safe practitioner. Interpersonal Qualities encouraged chiropractors to offer patients their comforting patience, familiar connections, and emotional intelligence. Interprofessional Qualities emphasized teamwork, resourcefulness, and openness to feedback as characteristics to enhance the chiropractor’s ability to work within an interdisciplinary setting. Organizational Qualities, including personality fit, institutional compliance, and mission alignment were important attributes for working in a specific healthcare organization. Conclusions Our findings provide an expanded view of the qualities that chiropractors might bring to multidisciplinary healthcare settings. Rather than labeling stakeholder perceptions as good, bad or indifferent as in previous studies, these results highlight specific attributes chiropractors might cultivate to enhance the patient outcomes and the experience of healthcare, influence clinical decision-making and interprofessional teamwork, and impact healthcare organizations

Additional file 1 of Healthcare provider perspectives on integrating a comprehensive spine care model in an academic health system: a cross-sectional survey

Additional file 1. STROBE Statement—checklist of items that should be included in reports of observational studies