Visit Frequency and Outcomes for Patients Using Ongoing Chiropractic Care for Chronic Low-Back and Neck Pain: An Observational Longitudinal Study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spinal pain is prevalent and long-lasting. Although provider-based nonpharmacologic therapies, such as chiropractic care, have been recommended, healthcare and coverage policies provide little guidance or evidence regarding long-term use of this care. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationships between visit frequency and outcomes for patients using ongoing chiropractic care for chronic spinal pain. STUDY DESIGN: Observational 3-month longitudinal study. SETTING: Data collected from patients of 124 chiropractic clinics in 6 United States regions. METHODS: We examined the impact of visit frequency and patient characteristics on pain (pain 0-10 numeric rating scale) and functional outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] for low-back pain and Neck Disability Index [NDI] for neck pain, both 0-100 scale) using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) in a large national sample of chiropractic patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and/or chronic neck pain (CNP). This study was approved by the RAND Human Subjects Protection Committee and registered under ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03162952. RESULTS: One thousand, three hundred, sixty-two patients with CLBP and 1,214 with CNP were included in a series of HLM models. Unconditional (time-only) models showed patients on average had mild pain and function, and significant, but slight improvements in these over the 3-month observation period: back and neck pain decreased by 0.40 and 0.44 points, respectively; function improved by 2.7 (ODI) and 3.0 points (NDI) (all P < 0.001). Adding chiropractic visit frequency to the models revealed that those with worse baseline pain and function used more visits, but only visits more than once per week for those with CLBP were associated with significantly better improvement. These relationships remained when other types of visits and baseline patient characteristics were included. LIMITATIONS: This is an observational study based on self-reported data from a sample representative of chiropractic patients, but not all patients with CLBP or CNP. CONCLUSIONS: This 3-month window on chiropractic patients with CLBP and/or CNP revealed that they were improving, although slowly; may have reached maximum therapeutic improvement; and are possibly successfully managing their chronic pain using a variety of chiropractic visit frequencies. These results may inform payers when building coverage policies for ongoing chiropractic care for patients with chronic pain.

Predictors of visit frequency for patients using ongoing chiropractic care for chronic low back and chronic neck pain; analysis of observational data.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spinal pain is prevalent, expensive and long-lasting. Several provider-based nonpharmacologic therapies have now been recommended for chronic low-back pain (CLBP) and chronic neck pain (CNP). However, healthcare and coverage policies provide little guidance or evidence regarding the long-term use of this care. To provide one glimpse into the long-term use of nonpharmacologic provider-based care, this study examines the predictors of visit frequency in a large sample of patients with CLBP and CNP using ongoing chiropractic care. METHODS: Observational data were collected from a large national sample of chiropractic patients in the US with non-specific CLBP and CNP. Visit frequency was defined as average number of chiropractic visits per month over the 3-month study period. Potential baseline predictor variables were entered into two sets of multi-level models according to a defined causal theory-in this case, Anderson's Behavioral Model of Health Services Use. RESULTS: Our sample included 852 patients with CLBP and 705 with CNP. Visit frequency varied significantly by chiropractor/clinic, so our models controlled for this clustering. Patients with either condition used an average of 2.3 visits per month. In the final models visit frequency increased (0.44 visits per month, p = .008) for those with CLBP and some coverage for chiropractic, but coverage had little effect on visits for patients with CNP. Patients with worse function or just starting care also had more visits and those near to ending care had fewer visits. However, visit frequency was also determined by the chiropractor/clinic where treatment was received. Chiropractors who reported seeing more patients per day also had patients with higher visit frequency, and the patients of chiropractors with 20 to 30 years of experience had fewer visits per month. In addition, after controlling for both patient and chiropractor characteristics, the state in which care was received made a difference, likely through state-level policies and regulations. CONCLUSIONS: Chiropractic patients with CLBP and CNP use a range of visit frequencies for their ongoing care. The predictors of these frequencies could be useful for understanding and developing policies for ongoing provider-based care.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Chronic Spinal Pain Patients with Different Hopes (Treatment Goals) for Ongoing Chiropractic Care.

Objectives: The treatment goals of patients successfully using ongoing provider-based care for chronic spinal pain can help inform health policy related to this care. Design: Multinomial logistical hierarchical linear models were used to examine the characteristics of patients with different treatment goals for their ongoing care. Settings/Location: Observational data from a large national sample of patients from 125 chiropractic clinics clustered in 6 U.S. regions. Subjects: Patients with nonwork-injury-related nonspecific chronic low-back pain (CLBP) and chronic neck pain (CNP). Interventions: All were receiving ongoing chiropractic care. Outcome measures: Primary outcomes were patient endorsement of one of four goals for their treatment. Explanatory variables included pain characteristics, pain beliefs, goals for mobility/flexibility, demographics, and other psychological variables. Results: Across our sample of 1614 patients (885 with CLBP and 729 with CNP) just under one-third endorsed a treatment goal of having their pain go away permanently (cure). The rest had goals of preventing their pain from coming back (22% CLBP, 16% CNP); preventing their pain from getting worse (14% CLBP, 12% CNP); or temporarily relieving their pain (31% CLBP, 41% CNP). In univariate analysis across these goals, patients differed significantly on almost all variables. In the multinomial logistic models, a goal of cure was associated with shorter pain duration and more belief in a medical cure; a goal of preventing pain from coming back was associated with lower pain levels; and those with goals of preventing their pain from getting worse or temporarily relieving pain were similar, including in having their pain longer. Conclusions: Although much of health policy follows a curative model, the majority of these CLBP and CNP patients have goals of pain management (using ongoing care) rather than "cure" (care with a specific end) for their chiropractic care. This information could be useful in crafting policy for patients facing provider-based nonpharmacologic care for chronic pain.

Spillover effects of community uninsurance on awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension among insured adults.

BACKGROUND: Although studies have shown that a high rate of uninsurance in a community reduces access to and satisfaction with health care among the insured population, little is known about whether the community uninsurance rate also affects quality of care and clinical outcomes among the insured. OBJECTIVE: To assess the spillover effects of the rate of uninsurance in a community on the awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension, a chronic condition responsible for substantial morbidity and mortality in the United States, among insured adults. RESEARCH DESIGN: NHANES III (1988-1994) and the 1999-2010 NHANES were linked to data from the Current Population Survey, Area Resource File, and InterStudy Competitive Edge. Multivariate probit regression models used 2 alternative estimation approaches: (1) maximum likelihood estimation, and (2) 2-stage residual inclusion estimation, an instrumental variables method. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Six dichotomous outcomes included: awareness among all subjects with hypertension; treatment among all subjects with hypertension and among subjects who were aware of their condition; and control among all subjects with hypertension, among subjects who were aware of their condition, and among subjects receiving treatment. RESULTS: A 10 percentage point increase in the community uninsurance rate reduced the probability of receiving antihypertensive medications by 4.2 percentage points among insured hypertensive adults and by 5.5 percentage points among insured hypertensive adults who were aware of their hypertension. A 10 percentage point increase in the community uninsurance rate also resulted in a 6.8 percentage point decline in the probability of blood pressure control among insured hypertensive adults who were aware of their condition. CONCLUSIONS: Nationally, the Affordable Care Act is expected to reduce the number of uninsured by >30 million by 2016, although changes will be experienced by communities to a greater or lesser extent depending on the existing numbers and characteristics of the uninsured in the area and the ways in which health care reform is implemented. Our results suggest that reductions in the community uninsurance rate have the potential to improve quality of care and clinical outcomes among the insured.

Income eligibility thresholds, premium contributions, and children's coverage outcomes: a study of CHIP expansions.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the effects of Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) income eligibility thresholds and premium contribution requirements on health insurance coverage outcomes among children. DATA SOURCES: 2002-2009 Annual Social and Economic Supplements of the Current Population Survey linked to data from multiple secondary data sources. STUDY DESIGN: We use a selection correction model to simultaneously estimate program eligibility and coverage outcomes conditional upon eligibility. We simulate the effects of three premium schedules representing a range of generosity levels and the effects of income eligibility thresholds ranging from 200 to 400 percent of the federal poverty line. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Premium contribution requirements decrease enrollment in public coverage and increase enrollment in private coverage, with larger effects for greater contribution levels. Our simulation results suggest minimal changes in coverage outcomes from eligibility expansions to higher income families under premium schedules that require more than a modest contribution (medium or high schedules). CONCLUSIONS: Our simulation results are useful counterpoints to previous research that has estimated the average effect of program expansions as they were implemented without disentangling the effects of premiums or other program features. The sensitivity to premiums observed suggests that although contribution requirements may be effective in reducing crowd-out, they also have the potential, depending on the level of contribution required, to nullify the effects of CHIP expansions entirely. The persistence of uninsurance among children under the range of simulated scenarios points to the importance of Affordable Care Act provisions designed to make the process of obtaining coverage transparent and navigable.

Take-up of public insurance and crowd-out of private insurance under recent CHIP expansions to higher income children.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the effects of states' expansions of Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) eligibility to children in higher income families on health insurance coverage outcomes. DATA SOURCES: 2002-2009 Current Population Survey linked to multiple secondary data sources. STUDY DESIGN: Instrumental variables estimation of linear probability models. Outcomes are whether the child had any public insurance, any private insurance, or no insurance coverage during the year. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Among children in families with incomes between two and four times the federal poverty line (FPL), four enrolled in CHIP for every 100 who became eligible. Roughly half of the newly eligible children who took up public insurance were previously uninsured. The upper bound "crowd-out" rate was estimated to be 46 percent. CONCLUSIONS: The CHIP expansions to children in higher income families were associated with limited uptake of public coverage. Our results additionally suggest that there was crowd-out of private insurance coverage.