BACKGROUND: Health care costs associated with use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by patients with spine problems have not been studied in a national sample. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the total and spine-specific medical expenditures among CAM and non-CAM users with spine problems. RESEARCH DESIGN: Analysis of the 2002-2008 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. SUBJECTS: Adults (above 17 y) with self-reported neck and back problems who did or did not use CAM services. MEASURES: Survey-weighted generalized linear regression and propensity matching to examine expenditure differences between CAM users and non-CAM users while controlling for patient, socioeconomic, and health characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 12,036 respondents with spine problems were included, including 4306 (35.8%) CAM users (40.8% in weighted sample). CAM users had significantly better self-reported health, education, and comorbidity compared with non-CAM users. Adjusted annual medical costs among CAM users was $424 lower (95% confidence interval: $240, $609; P<0.001) for spine-related costs, and $796 lower (95% confidence interval: $121, $1470; P = 0.021) for total health care cost than among non-CAM users. Average expenditure for CAM users, based on propensity matching, was $526 lower for spine-specific costs (P<0.001) and $298 lower for total health costs (P = 0.403). Expenditure differences were primarily due to lower inpatient expenditures among CAM users. CONCLUSIONS: CAM users did not add to the overall medical spending in a nationally representative sample with neck and back problems. As the causal associations remain unclear in these cross-sectional data, future research exploring these cost differences might benefit from research designs that minimize confounding.
BACKGROUND: Health care costs associated with use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by patients with spine problems have not been studied in a national sample. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the total and spine-specific medical expenditures among CAM and non-CAM users with spine problems. RESEARCH DESIGN: Analysis of the 2002-2008 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. SUBJECTS: Adults (above 17 y) with self-reported neck and back problems who did or did not use CAM services. MEASURES: Survey-weighted generalized linear regression and propensity matching to examine expenditure differences between CAM users and non-CAM users while controlling for patient, socioeconomic, and health characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 12,036 respondents with spine problems were included, including 4306 (35.8%) CAM users (40.8% in weighted sample). CAM users had significantly better self-reported health, education, and comorbidity compared with non-CAM users. Adjusted annual medical costs among CAM users was $424 lower (95% confidence interval: $240, $609; P<0.001) for spine-related costs, and $796 lower (95% confidence interval: $121, $1470; P = 0.021) for total health care cost than among non-CAM users. Average expenditure for CAM users, based on propensity matching, was $526 lower for spine-specific costs (P<0.001) and $298 lower for total health costs (P = 0.403). Expenditure differences were primarily due to lower inpatient expenditures among CAM users. CONCLUSIONS: CAM users did not add to the overall medical spending in a nationally representative sample with neck and back problems. As the causal associations remain unclear in these cross-sectional data, future research exploring these cost differences might benefit from research designs that minimize confounding.
Authors: Antonio P Legorreta; R Douglas Metz; Craig F Nelson; Saurabh Ray; Helen Oster Chernicoff; Nicholas A Dinubile Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2004-10-11
Authors: Taeho Greg Rhee; Brent D Leininger; Neha Ghildayal; Roni L Evans; Jeffery A Dusek; Pamela Jo Johnson Journal: Complement Ther Med Date: 2015-11-25 Impact factor: 2.446
Authors: William B Weeks; Brent Leininger; James M Whedon; Jon D Lurie; Tor D Tosteson; Rand Swenson; Alistair J O'Malley; Christine M Goertz Journal: J Manipulative Physiol Ther Date: 2016-02-19 Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: Ian D Coulter; Cindy Crawford; Howard Vernon; Eric L Hurwitz; Raheleh Khorsan; Marika Suttorp Booth; Patricia M Herman Journal: Pain Physician Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Cathy D Sherbourne; Gery W Ryan; Margaret D Whitley; Carlos I Gutierrez; Ron D Hays; Patricia M Herman; Ian D Coulter Journal: J Manipulative Physiol Ther Date: 2019-11-23 Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: Charles Elder; Lynn DeBar; Cheryl Ritenbaugh; John Dickerson; William M Vollmer; Richard A Deyo; Eric S Johnson; Mitchell Haas Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-06-25 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Matthew A Davis; Olga Yakusheva; Haiyin Liu; Joshua Tootoo; Marita G Titler; Julie P W Bynum Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Patricia M Herman; Mallika Kommareddi; Melony E Sorbero; Carolyn M Rutter; Ron D Hays; Lara G Hilton; Gery W Ryan; Ian D Coulter Journal: J Manipulative Physiol Ther Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 1.437