Risk of Treatment Escalation in Recipients vs Nonrecipients of Spinal Manipulation for Musculoskeletal Cervical Spine Disorders: An Analysis of Insurance Claims.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between treatment escalation and spinal manipulation in a retrospective cohort of people diagnosed with musculoskeletal disorders of the cervical spine. METHODS: We used retrospective analysis of insurance claims data (2012-2018) from a single Fortune 500 company. After isolating the first episode of care, we categorized 58 147 claims into 7951 unique patient episodes. Treatment escalation included claims where imaging, injection, emergency room, or surgery was present. Modified Poisson regression was used to determine the relative risk of treatment escalation comparing recipients vs nonrecipients of spinal manipulation, adjusted for age, sex, episode duration, and risk scores. RESULTS: The sample was 55% women, with a mean age of 44 years (range, 18-103). Treatment escalation was present in 42% of episodes overall: 2448 (46%) associated with other care and 876 (26%) associated with spinal manipulation. The estimated risk of any treatment escalation was 2.38 times higher in those who received other care than in those who received spinal manipulation (95% confidence interval, 2.22-2.55, P = .001). CONCLUSION: Among episodes of care associated with neck pain diagnoses, those associated with other care had twice the risk of any treatment escalation compared with those associated with spinal manipulation. In the United States, over 90% of spinal manipulation is provided by doctors of chiropractic; therefore, these findings are relevant and should be considered in addressing solutions for neck pain. Additional research investigating the factors influencing treatment escalation is necessary to moderate the use of high-cost and guideline-incongruent procedures in people with neck pain.

The cost impact of a quality-assured mechanical assessment in primary low back pain care.

Objectives: The escalating cost of low back pain (LBP) care has not improved outcomes. Our purpose: to compare costs between LBP care guided by a quality-assured mechanical assessment (MC) and usual community care (CC).Study Design: Administrative claims data analysis.Methods: Employees and dependents of a large self-insured manufacturer seeking care for LBP in 2013 chose between the company's primary care clinic (where MC was delivered) and community care.The claims of 5,036 were analyzed for one year following subjects' initial evaluation excluding only those with diagnostic codes for fractures, dislocations, or infections. MC included an advanced form of Mechanical Diagnosis & Therapy (MDT). CC varied based on each subjects' selection of providers. Primary outcome measure: one-year cost of each subject's care. Secondary: number of MRIs, spinal injections, and lumbar surgeries undertaken. The payer's proprietary risk-adjustment algorithm was utilized.Results: After risk adjustment, the average cost per MC subject was 51.48% lower than the CC average cost (p < .0279). The utilization of MRIs, injections, and surgeries was lower with MC by 49.75%, 39.44%, 78.38% with relative risks of 1.99, 1.64, and 4.73, respectively.Conclusions: This 51.5% cost-savings reflects the substantial reduction in downstream care-seeking with MC, including lower utilization of MRIs, injections, surgeries, and downstream care after six months from the initial visit. It is well documented that the MDT clinical examination typically elicit patterns of pain response that in turn identify how most can rapidly recover with self-care with no need for other intervention.Level of Evidence: 1b.