James M Whedon1, Anupama Kizhakkeveettil2, Andrew Toler2, Todd A MacKenzie3, Jon D Lurie3, Serena Bezdjian4, Scott Haldeman5, Eric Hurwitz5, Ian Coulter5. 1. Health Services Research, Southern California University of Health Sciences, Whittier, California. Electronic address: jameswhedon@scuhs.edu. 2. Eastern Medicine Department, Southern California University of Health Sciences, Whittier, California. 3. The Dartmouth Institute, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire. 4. Health Services Research, Southern California University of Health Sciences, Whittier, California. 5. Southern California University of Health Sciences, Whittier, California.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare Medicare healthcare expenditures for patients who received long-term treatment of chronic low back pain (cLBP) with either opioid analgesic therapy (OAT) or spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study using a cohort design for analysis of Medicare claims data. The study population included Medicare beneficiaries enrolled under Medicare Parts A, B, and D from 2012 through 2016. We assembled cohorts of patients who received long-term management of cLBP with OAT or SMT (such as delivered by chiropractic or osteopathic practitioners) and evaluated the comparative effect of OAT vs SMT upon expenditures, using multivariable regression to control for beneficiary characteristics and measures of health status, and propensity score weighting and binning to account for selection bias. RESULTS: The study sample totaled 28,160 participants, of whom 77% initiated long-term care of cLBP with OAT, and 23% initiated care with SMT. For care of low back pain specifically, average long-term costs for patients who initiated care with OAT were 58% lower than those who initiated care with SMT. However, overall long-term healthcare expenditures under Medicare were 1.87 times higher for patients who initiated care via OAT compared with those initiated care with SMT (95% CI 1.65-2.11; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Adults aged 65 to 84 who initiated long-term treatment for cLBP via OAT incurred lower long-term costs for low back pain but higher long-term total healthcare costs under Medicare compared with patients who initiated long-term treatment with SMT.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare Medicare healthcare expenditures for patients who received long-term treatment of chronic low back pain (cLBP) with either opioid analgesic therapy (OAT) or spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study using a cohort design for analysis of Medicare claims data. The study population included Medicare beneficiaries enrolled under Medicare Parts A, B, and D from 2012 through 2016. We assembled cohorts of patients who received long-term management of cLBP with OAT or SMT (such as delivered by chiropractic or osteopathic practitioners) and evaluated the comparative effect of OAT vs SMT upon expenditures, using multivariable regression to control for beneficiary characteristics and measures of health status, and propensity score weighting and binning to account for selection bias. RESULTS: The study sample totaled 28,160 participants, of whom 77% initiated long-term care of cLBP with OAT, and 23% initiated care with SMT. For care of low back pain specifically, average long-term costs for patients who initiated care with OAT were 58% lower than those who initiated care with SMT. However, overall long-term healthcare expenditures under Medicare were 1.87 times higher for patients who initiated care via OAT compared with those initiated care with SMT (95% CI 1.65-2.11; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Adults aged 65 to 84 who initiated long-term treatment for cLBP via OAT incurred lower long-term costs for low back pain but higher long-term total healthcare costs under Medicare compared with patients who initiated long-term treatment with SMT.
Authors: Kelsey L Corcoran; Lori A Bastian; Craig G Gunderson; Catherine Steffens; Alexandria Brackett; Anthony J Lisi Journal: Pain Med Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Roger Chou; Judith A Turner; Emily B Devine; Ryan N Hansen; Sean D Sullivan; Ian Blazina; Tracy Dana; Christina Bougatsos; Richard A Deyo Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-02-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Benjamin J Keeney; Deborah Fulton-Kehoe; Judith A Turner; Thomas M Wickizer; Kwun Chuen Gary Chan; Gary M Franklin Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Patricia M Herman; Tara A Lavelle; Melony E Sorbero; Eric L Hurwitz; Ian D Coulter Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2019-10-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Brook I Martin; Judith A Turner; Sohail K Mirza; Michael J Lee; Bryan A Comstock; Richard A Deyo Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2009-09-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Richard A Deyo; Samuel F Dworkin; Dagmar Amtmann; Gunnar Andersson; David Borenstein; Eugene Carragee; John Carrino; Roger Chou; Karon Cook; Anthony DeLitto; Christine Goertz; Partap Khalsa; John Loeser; Sean Mackey; James Panagis; James Rainville; Tor Tosteson; Dennis Turk; Michael Von Korff; Debra K Weiner Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2014-06-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Sidney M Rubinstein; Annemarie de Zoete; Marienke van Middelkoop; Willem J J Assendelft; Michiel R de Boer; Maurits W van Tulder Journal: BMJ Date: 2019-03-13
Authors: Lily H Kim; Daniel Vail; Tej D Azad; Jason P Bentley; Yi Zhang; Allen L Ho; Paras Fatemi; Austin Feng; Kunal Varshneya; Manisha Desai; Anand Veeravagu; John K Ratliff Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-05-03