Article

Where the United States Spends Its Spine Dollars Expenditures on Different Ambulatory Services for the Management of Back and Neck Conditions

The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, NH 03766, USA.
Spine (Impact Factor: 2.45). 03/2012; 37(19):1693-701. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182541f45
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Serial, cross-sectional, nationally representative surveys of noninstitutionalized US adults.
To examine expenditures on common ambulatory health services for the management of back and neck conditions.
Although it is well recognized that national costs associated with back and neck conditions have grown considerably in recent years, little is known about the costs of care for specific ambulatory health services that are used to manage this population.
We used the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey to examine adult (aged 18 yr or older) respondents from 1999 to 2008 who sought ambulatory health services for the management of back and neck conditions. We used complex survey design methods to make national estimates of mean inflation-adjusted annual expenditures on medical care, chiropractic care, and physical therapy per user for back and neck conditions.
Approximately 6% of US adults reported an ambulatory visit for a primary diagnosis of a back or neck condition (13.6 million in 2008). Between 1999 and 2008, the mean inflation-adjusted annual expenditures on medical care for these patients increased by 95% (from $487 to $950); most of the increase was accounted for by increased costs for medical specialists, as opposed to primary care physicians. During the study period, the mean inflation-adjusted annual expenditures on chiropractic care were relatively stable; although physical therapy was the most costly service overall, in recent years those costs have contracted.
Although this study did not explore the relative effectiveness of different ambulatory services, recent increasing costs associated with providing medical care for back and neck conditions (particularly subspecialty care) are contributing to the growing economic burden of managing these conditions.

0 Followers
 · 
162 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Neck pain is a common musculoskeletal complaint responsive to manual therapies. Doctors of chiropractic commonly use manual cervical distraction, a mobilization procedure, to treat neck pain patients. However, it is unknown if clinicians can consistently apply standardized cervical traction forces, a critical step toward identifying an optimal therapeutic dose. PURPOSE: To assess clinicians' proficiency in delivering manually applied traction forces within specified ranges to neck pain patients. STUDY DESIGN: An observational study nested within a randomized clinical trial. SAMPLE: Two research clinicians provided study interventions to 48 participants with neck pain. OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinician proficiency in delivering cervical traction forces within three specified ranges (low force, less than 20 N; medium force, 21-50 N; and high force 51-100 N). METHODS: Participants were randomly allocated to three force-based treatment groups. Participants received five manual cervical distraction treatments over 2 weeks while lying prone on a treatment table instrumented with force sensors. Two clinicians delivered manual traction forces according to treatment groups. Clinicians treated participants first without real-time visual feedback displaying traction force and then with visual feedback. Peak traction force data were extracted and descriptively analyzed. RESULTS: Clinicians delivered manual cervical distraction treatments within the prescribed traction force ranges 75% of the time without visual feedback and 97% of the time with visual feedback. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that doctors of chiropractic can successfully deliver prescribed traction forces while treating neck pain patients, enabling the capability to conduct force-based dose response clinical studies. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    The Spine Journal 04/2015; 15(4):570-6. DOI:10.1016/j.spinee.2014.10.016. · 2.80 Impact Factor
  • Article: Spine J
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Neck pain is a common musculoskeletal complaint responsive to manual therapies. Doctors of chiropractic commonly use manual cervical distraction, a mobilization procedure, to treat neck pain patients. However, it is unknown if clinicians can consistently apply standardized cervical traction forces, a critical step toward identifying an optimal therapeutic dose. PURPOSE: To assess clinicians' proficiency in delivering manually applied traction forces within specified ranges to neck pain patients. STUDY DESIGN: An observational study nested within a randomized clinical trial. SAMPLE: Two research clinicians provided study interventions to 48 participants with neck pain. OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinician proficiency in delivering cervical traction forces within three specified ranges (low force, less than 20 N; medium force, 21-50 N; and high force 51-100 N). METHODS: Participants were randomly allocated to three force-based treatment groups. Participants received five manual cervical distraction treatments over 2 weeks while lying prone on a treatment table instrumented with force sensors. Two clinicians delivered manual traction forces according to treatment groups. Clinicians treated participants first without real-time visual feedback displaying traction force and then with visual feedback. Peak traction force data were extracted and descriptively analyzed. RESULTS: Clinicians delivered manual cervical distraction treatments within the prescribed traction force ranges 75% of the time without visual feedback and 97% of the time with visual feedback. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that doctors of chiropractic can successfully deliver prescribed traction forces while treating neck pain patients, enabling the capability to conduct force-based dose response clinical studies. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    The Spine Journal 04/2015; 15(4):570-576. DOI:10.1016/j.spinee.2014.10.016 · 2.80 Impact Factor
  • BMC Health Services Research 12/2015; 15(1). DOI:10.1186/s12913-015-0686-6 · 1.66 Impact Factor