Health Resource Utilization and Cost Impact of Integrative Medicine Services for Newly Diagnosed Chronic Pain Patients.

Background: Integrative medicine (IM) is the healing-oriented practice of medicine that emphasizes the relationship between practitioner and patient. It considers the whole person, their environment, lifestyle, and social and cultural factors. It is evidence based and makes use of all appropriate therapies, conventional and complimentary. Objective: To evaluate the impact of IM services on health outcomes and care costs of chronic pain management patients compared with standard care. Methods: This article uses University of New Mexico hospital billing data from 10/2016 to 09/2019 to identify patients with nervous system or musculoskeletal pain. A total of 1,304 patients were matched using propensity scores into IM services (treatment: 652) and standard care (control: 652) cohorts for difference-in-differences analysis. The patients were matched based on age, sex, race, zip code, insurance type, ICD-10s, prescriptions, health care events, and medical claim costs. Results: Patients who used IM services had better health outcomes and lower costs at 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month follow-up. At the 12-month follow-up, the IM group showed a 19% decrease in utilization of inpatient care, a 37% decrease in Emergency Department utilization, and an 11.3% reduction in claim costs compared with the control group. Conclusion: Patients who utilize IM services as part of chronic pain management have overall lower health care costs and better health outcomes. Unfortunately, in the health system studied, less than 3% of patients utilize these services. Promotion of and education about IM services should be aimed at both patients and their providers.

Factors Associated with IRB Review Time in a Non-Federally Funded Study Using an sIRB of Record.

From 2018 to 2020, U.S. federal mandates began requiring the use of a single institutional review board (sIRB) of record for federally funded, multisite studies. With an interest in the efficiency of site activation, we compared the frequency with which local review and approval and three different reliance options (ways to establish a reliance agreement between the sIRB and the relying institution) were used during this period in a multisite, non-federally funded study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03928548). Using general linear models, we analyzed the relationships between local reliance or approval and sIRB of record approval times and (a) the regulatory option selected and (b) relying-site and process characteristics. Eighty-five sites received sIRB approval through 72 submissions (40% using local review, 46% using the SMART IRB agreement, 10% using an IRB authorization agreement, and 4% using a letter of support). Median time to establish a local reliance or study approval and sIRB approval were longest for sites using a SMART IRB agreement. Study-site region and the time of submission were significantly associated with local reliance or approval time, which averaged 129 and 107 days faster for Midwestern (p = 0.03) or Western (p = 0.02) sites, respectively, and 70 days slower for Northeastern sites (p = 0.42) compared with sites in the South, and 91 days slower when regulatory communication was initiated during or after February 2019 compared with before (p = 0.02). Similar relationships between sIRB approval time and region and time frame were observed; in addition, approval time was 103 days slower for sites affiliated with a research 1 (R1) university versus not (p = 0.02). Region of the country, time frame, and R1 university affiliation were associated with variations in study-site activation in a non-federally funded, multisite study.

Female Physicians in Maternal-Fetal Medicine: A 32-Year Perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To examine trends of female physicians either pursuing fellowships or in active practice in maternal-fetal medicine (MFM). METHODS: This observational study examined complete sets of MFM fellows and active members of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) between 1985 and 2016. Databases from SMFM, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education were used. Analysis of covariance testing was used to assess interactions over time between groups. RESULTS: The proportion of female MFM fellows increased steadily from 17.1% in 1985 to 72.5% in 2016. The proportion of females grew more rapidly among the MFM fellows than obstetrics and gynecology (ob-gyn) residents (2.1 vs. 1.4% per year; p = 0.001) and among those who were active SMFM members than ACOG Fellows (1.4 vs. 1.2% per year; p = 0.013). Slightly more than half (52.4%) of all SMFM members are now female and will approach two-thirds (64.4%) by 2025 (compared with 53.4% in 2016 and 65.3% in 2025 of ACOG fellows). CONCLUSION: The rising proportion of female MFM fellows is directly related to the high number of female ob-gyn residents. Females comprise slightly more than half of all active SMFM members now and projected to approach two-thirds by 2025.