Intrathecal Baclofen Therapy in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis: Improved Outcomes and Reduced Costs Through Identification of Catheter Malfunction.

INTRODUCTION: Two patients previously implanted with intrathecal Baclofen (ITB) pumps for management of intractable spasticity due to multiple sclerosis (MS) were referred to our center for ongoing management of their spasticity. Initial evaluation of these patients revealed high levels of spasticity in the presence of ITB doses 10 times the average daily dose of our other MS patients. CLINICAL FACTS: High doses of ITB required frequent clinical visits and result in high drug and procedure costs. Both patients' daily doses were greater than 1000 mcg/day resulting in clinical visits every 1-2 months with drug and procedure costs ranging from 16 to 23 thousand dollars annually based on Medicare national average pricing for physician's office. Of the 59 MS patients receiving ITB therapy at our institution, the mean, median, and mode daily doses for ITB are 184, 115, and 159 mcg/day, respectively. The high ITB doses in these patients and poor spasticity control raised suspicion for pump/catheter malfunction and prompted immediate troubleshooting. FINDINGS: One patient's catheter was found to be disconnected from the pump and the other's catheter tip was outside the intrathecal space. In both cases, the patients were not receiving the therapy. After pump/catheter replacement, both patients received excellent clinical benefits from ITB at significantly lower daily doses. This reduction in dose resulted in decreased frequency of medication refills (twice annually) which resulted in decreased cost of care (12-19 thousand dollars savings annually per patient). DISCUSSION: These cases illustrate the need for early ITB pump troubleshooting to identify catheter problems, improve efficacy, and avoid unnecessary healthcare costs.

Intrathecal Drug Delivery Systems for the Management of Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Intrathecal drug delivery (ITDD) systems are one of a limited number of management options for chronic noncancer pain, cancer pain, and spasticity. Concerns over their effectiveness and high initial costs led National Health Service (NHS) England to decommission ITDD for patients with chronic noncancer pain. However, the extent to which this decision is in line with existing economic evidence is unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and review the existing evidence on the cost effectiveness of ITDD for chronic noncancer pain. METHODS: Full and partial economic evaluations on ITDD were identified through systematic searches in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the NHS for Reviews and Dissemination databases. Database searches were complemented by hand searching of reference lists of relevant studies and searches of grey literature. Study selection was carried out by 2 assessors, independently. Study quality assessment was performed to inform critical appraisal of health economics studies. Data were extracted using a data extraction form developed for the purposes of this study. RESULTS: Four thousand four hundred and sixty-four unique studies were identified, of which 7 met the inclusion criteria. With the exception of 1 study, the studies found ITDD to be either cost saving or cost effective compared to conventional medical management. ITDD became cost ineffective in 1 further study following price year adjustment to 2016. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings showed ITDD to be not cost effective only in extremely conservative scenarios. There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of ITDD in noncancer pain; however, the available economic evidence controverts arguments to refute the treatment on economic grounds.

Cost comparison of intrathecal morphine to intravenous patient-controlled analgesia for the first 24 h post cesarean delivery: a retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Intrathecal morphine provides superior pain control for patients undergoing cesarean delivery when compared to intravenous opioid patient-controlled analgesia. However, no study has assessed the overall cost associated with each modality as a primary outcome. The aim of this study is to determine the overall cost of each modality for the first 24 h post cesarean delivery. METHODS: Charts of patients undergoing cesarean delivery at our institution from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 were reviewed. Patients receiving intrathecal morphine were compared to patients undergoing general anesthesia and receiving intravenous opioid patient-controlled analgesia for post-procedure analgesia. The primary outcome measured was total cost of each modality for the first 24 h after delivery. Secondary outcomes included post-procedure pain scores, time to removal of the Foley catheter, need for rescue medications, and adverse events. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in total cost of intrathecal morphine when compared to intravenous opioid patient-controlled analgesia ($51.14 vs. $80.16, p < 0.001). Average pain scores between 0-1 h (0 vs. 5, p < 0.001) and 1-6 h (2.5 vs. 3.25, p < 0.001) were less in the intrathecal morphine group. The intrathecal morphine group received more ketorolac (p < 0.001) and required more rescue opioids (p = 0.042). There were no significant differences in documented adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The use of intrathecal morphine for post-cesarean pain control leads to a significant cost savings for the first 24 h when compared to intravenous opioid patient-controlled analgesia. Patients also experienced less pain and were not at increased risk for adverse events.

Intrathecal drug delivery systems for the management of chronic non-cancer pain: protocol for a systematic review of economic evaluations.

INTRODUCTION: Intrathecal drug delivery (ITDD) systems are an option for the management of patients with chronic non-cancer pain, cancer pain and spasticity. Concerns over their invasiveness and high initial costs have led National Health Service (NHS) England to decommission ITDD for patients with chronic non-cancer pain. However, the extent to which this decision is in line with existing economic evidence is unclear. To address this question, we will carry out a systematic review to identify and evaluate the existing evidence on the cost-effectiveness of ITDD for chronic non-cancer pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A high-sensitivity search strategy will be employed in Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, NHS EED, DARE and HTA. Database searches will be complemented by additional searching techniques. Screening of the results will be performed by 2 reviewers independently using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Full and partial economic evaluations will be included. Data extraction will be carried out using a form created for the purposes of this review. Quality assessment of all included studies will be performed using recommended checklists. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016035266.

Health Services Utilization and Payments in Patients With Cancer Pain: A Comparison of Intrathecal Drug Delivery vs. Conventional Medical Management.

INTRODUCTION: To compare health services utilization and payments for cancer patients who received an implantable intrathecal drug delivery (IDD) system, consisting of a pump and catheter, vs. conventional medical management (CMM) for the treatment of cancer-related pain. METHODS: This retrospective claims-data analysis compared health services utilization and payments in a population of patients receiving either IDD or CMM for treatment of cancer pain. Patients were propensity score-matched 1:1 based on characteristics including, but not limited to, age, gender, cancer type, comorbid conditions, and health care utilization and payments. RESULTS: From a sample of 142 IDD patients and 3188 CMM patients who met all inclusion/exclusion criteria, 73 matched pairs were obtained. In the year following implant, IDD patients had a consistent trend of lower medical utilization, and total payments that were $3195 lower compared to CMM. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high initial cost of IDD, this analysis suggests that patients with IDD incur lower medical utilization and payments over the first year post-implant. Further analysis comprised of a larger, longitudinal sample would contribute to health economics and outcomes research, and assist with future practice guideline development.

MRI-guided and CT-guided cervical nerve root infiltration therapy: a cost comparison.

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the costs of MRI-guided and CT-guided cervical nerve root infiltration for the minimally invasive treatment of radicular neck pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between September 2009 and April 2012, 22 patients (9 men, 13 women; mean age: 48.2 years) underwent MRI-guided (1.0 Tesla, Panorama HFO, Philips) single-site periradicular cervical nerve root infiltration with 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide. A further 64 patients (34 men, 30 women; mean age: 50.3 years) were treated under CT fluoroscopic guidance (Somatom Definition 64, Siemens). The mean overall costs were calculated as the sum of the prorated costs of equipment use (purchase, depreciation, maintenance, and energy costs), personnel costs and expenditure for disposables that were identified for MRI- and CT-guided procedures. Additionally, the cost of ultrasound guidance was calculated. RESULTS: The mean intervention time was 24.9 min. (range: 12 - 36 min.) for MRI-guided infiltration and 19.7 min. (range: 5 - 54 min.) for CT-guided infiltration. The average total costs per patient were EUR 240 for MRI-guided interventions and EUR 124 for CT-guided interventions. These were (MRI/CT guidance) EUR 150/60 for equipment use, EUR 46/40 for personnel, and EUR 44/25 for disposables. The mean overall cost of ultrasound guidance was EUR 76. CONCLUSION: Cervical nerve root infiltration using MRI guidance is still about twice as expensive as infiltration using CT guidance. However, since it does not involve radiation exposure for patients and personnel, MRI-guided nerve root infiltration may become a promising alternative to the CT-guided procedure, especially since a further price decrease is expected for MRI devices and MR-compatible disposables. In contrast, ultrasound remains the less expensive method for nerve root infiltration guidance.

Cost impact of intrathecal polyanalgesia.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost impact of dose escalation with intrathecal drug therapy and polyanalgesic admixtures and determine if increased cost is justified by improved pain control. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 110 patients, 80 patients with chronic non-cancer pain (Group A) and 30 with spasticity (Group B). Mean follow-up period was 73 months (Group A) and 112 months (Group B). Parameters assessed were: demographics, drug usage, drug costs, and pain/spasticity control. Two models were developed: 1) price model--estimated drug price per refill; 2) cost model--predicts costs/day by therapy types and four common pathologies over 5 years. RESULTS: All patients started on monotherapy with 63 continuing (Group A: 39; Group B: 24), with 47 (Group A: 41; Group B: 6) requiring dual-drug therapy of which 11 (Group A: 10; Group B: 1) progressed to triple-drug admixtures. After starting polyanalgesic regimes, patients were able to recapture lost pain control. Cost escalation in Group A at 5 years, as demonstrated by cost modeling, was 191%, 107%, and 89% for mono-, dual-, or triple-drug therapy, respectively. For Group B, most patients stayed in monotherapy and the 5-year increase was 104%. The difference in cost between monotherapy and dual therapy for Group A was $1.97/day (baseline) to $3.28/day (5th year) and between dual and triple therapy from $2.55/day (baseline) to $4.30/day (5th year). CONCLUSIONS: Polyanalgesia, while more costly, is justified based on its effectiveness in restoring pain control. Superior results are achieved when polyanalgesia is initiated early. Cost modeling enabled price prediction for the purposes of developing program budgets.

Epidural steroids for spinal pain and radiculopathy: a narrative, evidence-based review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are the most commonly performed intervention in pain clinics across the USA and worldwide. In light of the growing use of ESIs, a recent spate of highly publicized infectious complications, and increasing emphasis on cost-effectiveness, the utility of ESI has recently come under intense scrutiny. This article provides an evidence-based review of ESIs, including the most up-to-date information on patient selection, comparison of techniques, efficacy, and complications. RECENT FINDINGS: The data strongly suggest that ESIs can provide short-term relief of radicular symptoms but are less convincing for long-term relief, and mixed regarding cost-effectiveness. Although some assert that transforaminal ESIs are more efficacious than interlaminar ESIs, and that fluoroscopy can improve treatment outcomes, the evidence to support these assertions is limited. SUMMARY: The cost-effectiveness of ESI is the subject of great debate, and similar to efficacy, the conclusions one draws appear to be influenced by specialty. Because of the wide disparities regarding indications and utilization, it is likely that indiscriminate use is cost-ineffective, but that judicious use in well-selected patients can decrease healthcare utilization. More research is needed to better refine selection criteria for ESI, and to determine which approach, what dose, and how many injections are optimal.

Incremental costs of treating tetanus with intrathecal antitetanus immunoglobulin.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental cost of delivering intrathecal tetanus immunoglobulin compared to an intramuscular option. METHODS: To compare the two interventions, costs were estimated using standard cost methodology. Cost categories were personnel, overhead, consumables, antibiotics to treat infection, gases for respiratory assistance and immunoglobulin. Tetanus patients, aged 12 years or older, who were part of a randomised controlled clinical trial conducted in a referral hospital in Recife, Brazil, were allocated to two groups: a control group (58) and a study group (62). Patients allocated to the control group received 3000 international units (IU) of human immunoglobulin, with preservative, intramuscularly. The study group received the same quantity of immunoglobulin also intramuscularly plus an intrathecal dose of 1000 IU of a human immunoglobulin, free of preservatives, to prevent irritation of the meninges and avoid the need for corticosteroids. Thus, the difference between the two groups was the exclusive use of intrathecal immunoglobulin. The outcome measurements were clinical progression, hospital stay, respiratory assistance and respiratory infection. RESULTS: Delivering intrathecal immunoglobulin to patients saved a total of US$ 60 389, in a 10-day intensive care treatment, by preventing a worsening of their tetanus severity (e.g. from Grade I to Grades II, III, IV). Substantial cost saving was also observed in terms of hospital stay (US$ 173 104). CONCLUSIONS: Intrathecal treatment of tetanus is cost saving. This intervention deserves consideration by doctors and decision-makers as a mean of saving resources while maintaining high-quality health outcomes.

Medical cost impact of intrathecal drug delivery for noncancer pain.

INTRODUCTION: As healthcare budgets continue to contract, there is increased payer scrutiny on the use of implantable intrathecal drug-infusion devices. This study utilizes claims data to evaluate the economic effects of intrathecal drug delivery (IDD) based on health services utilization and costs of care before and after implantation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective database study involving 555 noncancer pain patients that received an IDD system implant within a 3-year service period (1/2006-1/2009). IDD patient costs were temporally aligned to implant month and repriced to a standardized, national pricing schedule over a 6-year episode cycle (3 years preimplant, implant month, and 3 years postimplant). Additionally, we made an actuarial projection of postimplant experience, in the absence of IDD intervention, simulating a conventional pain therapy (CPT) protocol by assuming the same slope in costs prior to implantation at standardized, national price levels. Cost projections were produced over a 30-year time horizon at various reimplantation rates. RESULTS: IDD therapy was less costly than the CPT protocol over our baseline implantation cycle. Costs in the month of IDD implantation, and in the year following, are cumulatively $17,317 more than the CPT protocol; however, IDD financial break-even occurs soon after the second year postimplant. The lifetime analysis indicates that IDD per patient per year savings is $3,111 compared with CPT. CONCLUSION: The authors found that patients receiving an implantable IDD system may experience reduced cumulative future medical costs relative to anticipated costs in the absence of receiving IDD. This finding complements published literature on the cost-effectiveness of IDD.

Societal costs of intrathecal drug delivery systems--an administrative analysis based on patient claims.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the overall and disaggregated societal costs of intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDSs) in the treatment of pain and spasticity in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of medical and pharmacy claims was performed on patients with IDDS. Patients were divided into three cohorts according to the conditions that their IDDSs were intended to treat pain, spasticity, or both. Patients also were stratified according to whether or not cost data were available for the implantation of their IDDSs. Total societal costs that were directly attributable to pain or spasticity were summarized, and medical/pharmaceutical encounters were enumerated. RESULTS: N = 38,951 patients (52.7% women, age 54.1 ± 14.1 years) with IDDSs were identified and included in this study. IDDS patients have an average of 34.0-52.7 (depending on cohort) medical encounters per year, of which an average of 6.3-10.1 is attributable to the condition their IDDS is intended to treat. The average societal cost of the attributable encounters is $12,233 to $20,049 per patient year (inflation-adjusted 2011 U.S. dollars); however, the distribution of these costs is extremely skewed in the positive direction. Inpatient treatment accounts for 65.9% of the societal costs incurred by IDDS patients. CONCLUSIONS: The societal costs for IDDS patients are high and extremely variable. A relatively small number of patients made an extreme number of medical encounters and represent a heavy societal cost burden. In order to reduce the growing societal cost of chronic pain and spasticity treatment, measures should be taken to reduce the resource utilization and costs of the most challenging patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of intrathecal baclofen therapy in Japan.

Intrathecal baclofen (ITB) therapy was approved for health insurance coverage in 2005 for the treatment of patients whose spasticity could not be adequately controlled by conventional therapy, and is currently being used to treat around 300 patients nationwide in Japan. Various reports have examined the efficacy and safety of ITB therapy, but no report has evaluated the patient quality of life and medical costs in Japan. A cost-utility analysis of ITB was conducted by time period in six severely spastic patients admitted to our university hospital between 2005 and 2010 for ITB therapy. The average cost of ITB therapy per quality-adjusted life year (QALY; number of years survival in perfect health) 5 years after surgery was 1,554,428 yen, below the 6 million yen willingness-to-pay threshold for 1 QALY. This study shows that ITB therapy in Japan is an outstanding treatment in medicoeconomic terms.

Influence of a latent period in QALY analysis: pilot study of intrathecal drug delivery systems for chronic non-malignant pain.

Cost effectiveness of a treatment is an important factor in decision making in the United Kingdom. Preceding most interventional health care treatments there is a waiting period between decision and procedure where health care costs may be lessened. Intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDS) are a recognised pain management therapy for chronic non-malignant pain. To our knowledge, the period of time between being placed on a waiting list for IDDS and the implant (latent period) has not been taken into consideration for cost effectiveness analysis. A retrospective longitudinal analysis of all pain related costs for a period no less than 4 years was undertaken by assessment of medical records of 12 consecutive patients implanted with IDDS for chronic non-malignant pain. The total cost of patient care for 2 years before latent, the latent period itself and 2 years after the implant of an IDDS was computed, according to the National Health Service tariff. An EQ-5D questionnaire was filled by all participants before and after IDDS implant. Total costs were converted to cost per day for comparison with latent period. The average duration of the latent period was 263 ± 176 days (range 3-489). The cost of conventional treatments during the pre-implant phase excluding the latent period was significantly higher (M = £ 5,005.86, SE = £ 918.56) compared with the costs of the same phase including the latent period (M = £ 4,086.35, SE = £ 959.09, t(11) = 2.23, p = 0.05, r = 0.56). The cost per day changed significantly over the different periods (χ(2)(2) = 24.00, p < 0.05). The variability and significantly lower costs of the latent period may influence cost effectiveness evaluations and consequently decision making, if not considered. Further studies analysing the influence of a latent period on the cost effectiveness of other treatments are warranted.

Cost and use of conservative management of lumbar disc herniation before surgical discectomy.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Lumbar discectomy is one of the most common spine surgical procedures. With the exception of true emergencies (eg, cauda equina syndrome), lumbar discectomy is usually performed as an elective procedure after a prudent trial of nonoperative treatment. Although several studies have compared costs of definitive operative or nonoperative management of lumbar disc herniation, no information has been published regarding the cost of conservative care in patients who ultimately underwent surgical discectomy. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the financial costs (and relative distribution of those costs) associated with the nonoperative management of lumbar disc herniation in patients who ultimately failed conservative care and elected to undergo surgical discectomy. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective database review. PATIENT SAMPLE: The sample comprises patients within the database who underwent lumbar discectomy. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures were frequency of associated procedures and the costs of those procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search was conducted using a commercially available online database of insurance records of orthopedic patients to identify all patients within the database undergoing lumbar discectomy between 2004 and 2006. Patients were identified by American Medical Association Current Procedural Terminology code. The associated charge codes for the 90-day period before the surgery were reviewed and categorized as outpatient physician visits, imaging studies, physical therapy, injection, chiropractic manipulation, medication charges, preoperative studies, or miscellaneous charges. The frequency of each code and the percentage of patients for whom that code was submitted to the insurance companies were noted, as were the associated charges. RESULTS: In total, 30,709 patients in the database met eligibility criteria. A total of $105,799,925 was charged during the 90 days preoperatively, an average of $3,445 per patient. Average charge for discectomy procedure was $7,841. Charges for injection procedures totaled $16,211,246 or 32% of total charges, diagnostic imaging $15,648,769 (31%), outpatient visits $6,552,135 (13%), physical therapy visits $5,723,644 (11%), chiropractic manipulation $1,177,406 (2%), preoperative studies $426,976 (0.8%), medications $263,039 (0.5%), and miscellaneous charges $1,177,371 (2%). CONCLUSIONS: Charges for preoperative care of patients with lumbar disc herniation are substantial and are split almost evenly between diagnostic charges (outpatient visits, imaging, laboratory studies, and miscellaneous) and therapeutic charges (injections, physical therapy, chiropractic manipulation, and medications). Although a large number of patients will ultimately require surgical intervention, given that many patients will improve with nonoperative therapy, a trial of conservative management is appropriate. Additional studies to identify patients who may ultimately fail nonoperative treatment and would benefit from early discectomy would be beneficial.

Cost-effectiveness of ziconotide in intrathecal pain management for severe chronic pain patients in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the cost-effectiveness of using intrathecal ziconotide in the treatment of severe chronic pain compared to best supportive care for patients with intractable chronic pain in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Using a simulation model, the analysis evaluated the cost and health economic consequences of using ziconotide as a treatment for severe chronic pain. The modelled population and clinical data were based on a randomised controlled trial in which the main outcome was reduction in pain as measured by the visual analogue scale of pain intensity (VASPI). Resource use data were elicited using a modified Delphi panel and costed using published sources. Utility values were derived from a separate research study. The main outcome measure was the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Extensive scenario analysis was conducted to evaluate parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: Overall, findings were robust to most assumptions. The cost-effectiveness of ziconotide compared to best supportive care (BSC) was pound 27,443 per QALY (95% CI pound 18,304-38,504). Scenarios were investigated in which discount rates, the time horizon, the threshold for qualifying as a responder, pump-related assumptions, utilities, ziconotide drug dose, and the patient discontinuation rate with ziconotide were varied. The most sensitive parameter was the dosage of ziconotide: using the lower and upper bounds of the average ziconotide dosage observed in the long-term open-label study changed the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to pound 15,500 [pound 8206-25,405] and pound 44,700 [pound 30,541-62, 670]. CONCLUSIONS: Ziconotide may offer an economically feasible alternative solution for patients for whom current treatment is inappropriate or ineffective. The main study limitation is that some model inputs, mainly related to resource use, are based on assumptions or expert interviews.

Practice choices and challenges in the current intrathecal therapy environment: an online survey.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate current practice characteristics, treatment choices, clinical experiences, and economic concerns associated with intrathecal therapy. DESIGN: Health care professionals in the United States, who were known to actively use intrathecal therapy in their practices, were recruited to participate in an online survey; contact information was obtained via Internet searches, university Websites, association memberships, industry databases, and personal contacts. Survey responses were summarized descriptively. RESULTS: Of the 329 practitioners who were contacted, 87 participated in the survey. Most participants specialized in anesthesiology (77.0%), worked in a private practice or private hospital (74.7%), and had been practicing pain management for more than 10 years (64.4%). Morphine was the most frequently used opioid for the initiation of intrathecal therapy (80.7% of practitioners), and 81.9% had used ziconotide in their practice. Most practitioners (63.9%) had treated at least one patient who developed a granuloma, and 66.0% of those practitioners had a patient experience permanent or temporary neurological injury due to a granuloma. Fewer than half of practitioners were satisfied with reimbursement from private insurance companies (25.3%) or workers compensation (34.9%), and 90.5% believed reimbursement rates for filling, refilling, and programming patient pumps are not adequate to cover practice costs. The majority of practitioners (56.6%) use fewer pumps in their practices because of reimbursement issues. CONCLUSIONS: Intrathecal pain management practices continue to evolve as the options for treatment increase, and the body of applicable scientific literature grows; however, economic considerations can influence clinical decisions and may interfere with treatment choice and patient access to therapy.

Spinal injection procedures: volume, provider distribution, and reimbursement in the U.S. medicare population from 1993 to 1999.

PURPOSE: To evaluate spinal injection procedures for trends in volume, reimbursement, and physician specialty participation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: By using the 1993, 1996, 1998, and 1999 Medicare Part B claims database, we studied Current Procedural Terminology revision 4 codes used for percutaneous spinal injection procedures, including cervical and lumbar discography, disk aspiration and/or injection, facet and/or perifacet joint injection, and epidural steroid injection. For each of these procedures, volume, reimbursement, and physician specialty participation (categorized as radiology, anesthesiology, surgery, physiatry, and other specialties) for each year were recorded. RESULTS: Despite an overall increase in spinal injection procedure volume and reimbursement from 1993 to 1999, nonradiologists performed most of these procedures. Epidural steroid and facet joint injections had the highest volume and reimbursement during this time period and were performed almost exclusively by nonradiologists (predominantly anesthesiologists). Radiologists performed more discography procedures than did other specialists in 1993, but participation decreased each year, while anesthesiologist participation increased; as of 1999, anesthesiologists performed more discography procedures than did radiologists. Although radiologists performed more disk aspiration procedures than did other specialists, procedure volume remained low during the period studied. CONCLUSION: Spinal injection volume and reimbursement have increased substantially in the Medicare population from 1993 to 1999. During this interval, radiologist participation has decreased. Nonradiologists perform most spinal injection procedures.