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

Pilot Comparative Effectiveness Study of Surface Perturbation Treadmill Training to Prevent Falls in Older Adults

Falls are the leading cause of fatal and non-fatal injuries among older adults. Exercise programs appear to reduce fall risk, but the optimal type, frequency, and duration of exercise is unknown. External perturbations such as tripping and slipping are a major contributor to falls, and task-specific perturbation training to enhance dynamic stability has emerged as a promising approach to modifying fall risk. The purpose of this pilot study was 1) to determine the feasibility of conducting a large pragmatic randomized trial comparing a multidimensional exercise program inclusive of the surface perturbation treadmill training (SPTT) to multidimensional exercise alone (Standard PT); and 2) to assess fall outcomes between the two groups to determine whether an effect size large enough to warrant further study might be present

Effectiveness of Surgery for Lumbar Stenosis and Degenerative Spondylolisthesis in the Octogenarian Population: Analysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) Data.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine whether surgery is an effective option for the treatment of stenosis of the lumbar spine and degenerative spondylolisthesis in the octogenarian population. METHODS: An as-treated analysis of patients with lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis enrolled in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) was performed. Patients who were at least eighty years of age (n = 105) were compared with those younger than eighty years (n = 1130). Baseline patient and clinical characteristics were noted, and the difference in improvement from baseline between operative and nonoperative treatment was determined for each group at each follow-up time period up to four years. RESULTS: There were no significant baseline differences in the primary or secondary patient-reported clinical outcome measures between the two patient age groups. Patients at least eighty years of age had higher prevalences of multilevel stenosis, severe stenosis, and asymmetric motor weakness. Patients at least eighty years of age also had higher prevalences of hypertension, heart disease, osteoporosis, and joint problems at baseline, but they had a lower body mass index and lower prevalences of depression and smoking. Fifty-eight of the 105 patients at least eighty years of age and 749 of the 1130 younger patients underwent operative management. There were no differences in the rates of intraoperative or postoperative complications, reoperation, or postoperative mortality between the older and younger groups. Averaged over a four-year follow-up period, operatively treated patients at least eighty years of age had significantly greater improvement in all primary and secondary outcome measures compared with nonoperatively treated patients. The treatment effects in patients at least eighty years of age were similar to those in younger patients for all primary and secondary measures except the SF-36 (Short Form-36) bodily pain domain and the percentage who self-rated their progress as a major improvement, in both of which the treatment effect was significantly smaller. CONCLUSIONS: Operative treatment of lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis offered a significant benefit over nonoperative treatment in patients at least eighty years of age (p \u3c 0.05). There were no significant increases in the complication and mortality rates following surgery in this patient population compared with younger patients (p \u3e 0.05). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence

MRI-based Surgical Planning for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

The most common reason for spinal surgery in elderly patients is lumbar spinal stenosis(LSS). For LSS, treatment decisions based on clinical and radiological information as well as personal experience of the surgeon shows large variance. Thus a standardized support system is of high value for a more objective and reproducible decision. In this work, we develop an automated algorithm to localize the stenosis causing the symptoms of the patient in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). With 22 MRI features of each of five spinal levels of 321 patients, we show it is possible to predict the location of lesion triggering the symptoms. To support this hypothesis, we conduct an automated analysis of labeled and unlabeled MRI scans extracted from 788 patients. We confirm quantitatively the importance of radiological information and provide an algorithmic pipeline for working with raw MRI scans

Effects of a Commercial Insurance Policy Restriction on Lumbar Fusion in North Carolina and the Implications for National Adoption

Analysis of the State Inpatient Database of North Carolina, 2005–2012, and the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, including all inpatient lumbar fusion admissions from non-federal hospitals

The effect of iliac crest autograft on the outcome of fusion in the setting of degenerative spondylolisthesis: a subgroup analysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT).

BACKGROUND: There is considerable controversy about the long-term morbidity associated with the use of posterior autologous iliac crest bone graft for lumbar spine fusion procedures compared with the use of bone-graft substitutes. The hypothesis of this study was that there is no long-term difference in outcome for patients who had posterior lumbar fusion with or without iliac crest autograft. METHODS: The study population includes patients enrolled in the degenerative spondylolisthesis cohort of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial who underwent lumbar spinal fusion. Patients were divided according to whether they had or had not received posterior autologous iliac crest bone graft. RESULTS: There were 108 patients who had fusion with iliac crest autograft and 246 who had fusion without iliac crest autograft. There were no baseline differences between groups in demographic characteristics, comorbidities, or baseline clinical scores. At baseline, the group that received iliac crest bone graft had an increased percentage of patients who had multilevel fusions (32% versus 21%; p=0.033) and L5-S1 surgery (37% versus 26%; p=0.031) compared with the group without iliac crest autograft. Operative time was higher in the iliac crest bone-graft group (233.4 versus 200.9 minutes; p CONCLUSIONS: The outcome scores associated with the use of posterior iliac crest bone graft for lumbar spinal fusion were not significantly lower than those after fusion without iliac crest autograft. Conversely, iliac crest bone-grafting was not associated with an increase in the complication rates or rates of reoperation. On the basis of these results, surgeons may choose to use iliac crest bone graft on a case-by-case basis for lumbar spinal fusion

The Impact of Epidural Steroid Injections on the Outcomes of Patients Treated for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Subgroup Analysis of the SPORT Trial.

BACKGROUND: The Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) is a prospective, multicenter study of operative versus nonoperative treatment of lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. It has been suggested that epidural steroid injections may help improve patient outcomes and lower the rate of crossover to surgical treatment. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-four patients included in the intervertebral disc herniation arm of the SPORT who had received an epidural steroid injection during the first three months of the study and no injection prior to the study (the ESI group) were compared with 453 patients who had not received an injection during the first three months of the study or prior to the study (the No-ESI group). RESULTS: There was a significant difference in the preference for surgery between groups (19% in the ESI group compared with 56% in the No-ESI group, p \u3c 0.001). There was no difference in primary or secondary outcome measures at four years between the groups. A higher percentage of patients changed from surgical to nonsurgical treatment in the ESI group (41% versus 12% in the No-ESI, p \u3c 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with lumbar disc herniation treated with epidural steroid injection had no improvement in short or long-term outcomes compared with patients who were not treated with epidural steroid injection. There was a higher prevalence of crossover to nonsurgical treatment among surgically assigned ESI-group patients, although this was confounded by the increased baseline desire to avoid surgery among patients in the ESI group. Given these data, we concluded that more studies are necessary to establish the value of epidural steroid injection for symptomatic lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence

Rates of Advanced Spinal Imaging and Spine Surgery

Study Design. Small area analysis. Objectives. To determine the association between the rates of advanced spinal imaging and spine surgery across geographic areas. Summary of Background Data. The rates of spine surgery in the United States have increased along with a concurrent rise in the use of advanced spinal imaging: CT and MRI. Spine surgery rates vary six-fold across geographic areas of the United States. Differences in patient populations and health care supply have explained only about 10% of this variation. Methods. We used a random 5% sample of Medicare's National Claims History Part B files for 1996 and 1997 to determine procedure rates across 306 Hospital Referral Regions. We analyzed the association between spinal imaging and spine surgery using linear regression. Main outcome measures were rates of procedures and coefficients of determination (R 2 ). Results. The rates of advanced spinal imaging (CT and MRI combined) varied 5.5-fold across geographic areas. Areas with higher rates of MRI had higher rates of spine surgery overall (r ϭ 0.46) and spinal stenosis surgery specifically (r ϭ 0.37). The rates of advanced spinal imaging accounted for 22% of the variability in overall spine surgery rates (R 2 ϭ 0.22, P Ͻ 0.001) and 14% of the variability in lumbar stenosis surgery rates (R 2 ϭ 0.14, P Ͻ 0.001). A simulation model showed that MRIs obtained in the patients undergoing surgery accounted for only a small part of the correlation between MRI and total spine surgery rates. Conclusions. A significant proportion of the variation in rates of spine surgery can be explained by differences in the rates of advanced spinal imaging. The indications for advanced spinal imaging are not firmly agreed on, and the appropriateness of many of these imaging studies has been questioned. Improved consensus on the use and interpretation of advanced spinal imaging studies could have an important effect on variation in spine surgery rates. Spine 2003;28:616 -62

Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Surgery for spinal stenosis is widely performed, but its effectiveness as compared with nonsurgical treatment has not been shown in controlled trials. METHODS: Surgical candidates with a history of at least 12 weeks of symptoms and spinal stenosis without spondylolisthesis (as confirmed on imaging) were enrolled in either a randomized cohort or an observational cohort at 13 U.S. spine clinics. Treatment was decompressive surgery or usual nonsurgical care. The primary outcomes were measures of bodily pain and physical function on the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form General Health Survey (SF-36) and the modified Oswestry Disability Index at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 and 2 years. RESULTS: A total of 289 patients were enrolled in the randomized cohort, and 365 patients were enrolled in the observational cohort. At 2 years, 67% of patients who were randomly assigned to surgery had undergone surgery, whereas 43% of those who were randomly assigned to receive nonsurgical care had also undergone surgery. Despite the high level of nonadherence, the intention-to-treat analysis of the randomized cohort showed a significant treatment effect favoring surgery on the SF-36 scale for bodily pain, with a mean difference in change from baseline of 7.8 (95% confidence interval, 1.5 to 14.1); however, there was no significant difference in scores on physical function or on the Oswestry Disability Index. The as-treated analysis, which combined both cohorts and was adjusted for potential confounders, showed a significant advantage for surgery by 3 months for all primary outcomes; these changes remained significant at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: In the combined as-treated analysis, patients who underwent surgery showed significantly more improvement in all primary outcomes than did patients who were treated nonsurgically. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000411 [ClinicalTrials.gov].)

Predictors of Long-Term Opioid Use Among Patients With Painful Lumbar Spine Conditions

Our objective was to assess predictors of self-reported opioid use among patients with back pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis. Data was from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT), a multi-site observational study and randomized trial. We examined characteristics shown or hypothesized to be associated with opioid use. Using generalized estimating equations, we modeled associations of each potential predictor with opioid use at 12 and 24 months. At baseline, 42% of participants reported opioid use. Of these participants, 25% reported continued use at 12 months and 21% reported use at 24 months. In adjusted models, smoking (RR=1.9, p<0.001 at 12 months; RR=1.5, p=0.043 at 24 months) and non-surgical treatment (RR=1.7, p<0.001 at 12 months; RR=1.8, p=0.003 at 24 months) predicted long-term opioid continuation. Among participants not using opioids at baseline, incident use was reported by 8% at 12 and 7% at 24 months. We found no significant predictors of incident use at 12 or 24 months in the main models. In conclusion, nonsurgical treatment and smoking independently predicted long-term continued opioid use. To our knowledge, this is the first longitudinal study to assess predictors of long-term and incident opioid use among patients with lumbar spine conditions