Comparative Cost Analysis of Neck Pain Treatments for Medicare Beneficiaries

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-14 DOI:10.1016/j.apmr.2025.01.467
Brian R. Anderson DC, PhD , Todd A. MacKenzie PhD , Leah M. Grout PhD, MPH , James M. Whedon DC, MS
{"title":"Comparative Cost Analysis of Neck Pain Treatments for Medicare Beneficiaries","authors":"Brian R. Anderson DC, PhD ,&nbsp;Todd A. MacKenzie PhD ,&nbsp;Leah M. Grout PhD, MPH ,&nbsp;James M. Whedon DC, MS","doi":"10.1016/j.apmr.2025.01.467","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To evaluate longitudinal cost outcomes of initial treatment strategies for new neck pain (NP) episodes among Medicare beneficiaries.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Retrospective cohort study using Medicare Part A, B, and D claims data.</div></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><div>Not applicable.</div></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><div>Medicare beneficiaries aged 65-99 years, continuously enrolled in Parts A, B, and D from 2018 to 2021, who experienced a new NP episode in 2019.</div></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><div>Three cohorts were developed based on the index visit provider: chiropractic (spinal manipulative therapy [SMT]), primary care with prescription analgesics (PCP [+A]), and primary care without analgesics (PCP [−A], reference group).</div></div><div><h3>Main Outcome Measures</h3><div>Medicare allowed costs for total and NP-related claims (Parts A and B), and medication claims (Part D) over 24 months from the index visit.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among 291,604 older adults with NP, most were White women with few comorbidities. Compared to PCP (−A), the SMT cohort had 6% (cost ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.93-0.95) lower total Medicare Part A costs, whereas the PCP (+A) cohort showed no difference. For NP-related Part A claims, PCP (+A) had 7% (0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.98) lower costs, whereas SMT showed no difference. The SMT cohort had 6% (0.94; 95% CI, 0.94-0.95) lower total Medicare Part B costs and 36% (0.64; 95% CI, 0.64-0.65) lower NP-related costs, whereas PCP (+A) had 2% (1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02) higher total costs. The SMT had 2% (0.98; 95% CI, 0.98-0.99) lower nonanalgesic and 13% (0.87; 95% CI, 0.87-0.88) lower analgesic Part D costs; the PCP (+A) had 13% (1.13; 95% CI, 1.12-1.14) higher nonanalgesic but 14% (0.86; 95% CI, 0.86-0.87) lower analgesic costs. Propensity weighting balanced covariates among cohorts.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>For older adults with new NP episodes, initial SMT was associated with lower health care costs, particularly for Part A total and NP-related claims, with a less pronounced effect on Part B and D claims than PCP-related strategies. These findings suggest potential for health care savings based on the initial treatment choice.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":8313,"journal":{"name":"Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation","volume":"106 5","pages":"Pages 801-804"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003999325004976","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate longitudinal cost outcomes of initial treatment strategies for new neck pain (NP) episodes among Medicare beneficiaries.

Design

Retrospective cohort study using Medicare Part A, B, and D claims data.

Setting

Not applicable.

Participants

Medicare beneficiaries aged 65-99 years, continuously enrolled in Parts A, B, and D from 2018 to 2021, who experienced a new NP episode in 2019.

Interventions

Three cohorts were developed based on the index visit provider: chiropractic (spinal manipulative therapy [SMT]), primary care with prescription analgesics (PCP [+A]), and primary care without analgesics (PCP [−A], reference group).

Main Outcome Measures

Medicare allowed costs for total and NP-related claims (Parts A and B), and medication claims (Part D) over 24 months from the index visit.

Results

Among 291,604 older adults with NP, most were White women with few comorbidities. Compared to PCP (−A), the SMT cohort had 6% (cost ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.93-0.95) lower total Medicare Part A costs, whereas the PCP (+A) cohort showed no difference. For NP-related Part A claims, PCP (+A) had 7% (0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.98) lower costs, whereas SMT showed no difference. The SMT cohort had 6% (0.94; 95% CI, 0.94-0.95) lower total Medicare Part B costs and 36% (0.64; 95% CI, 0.64-0.65) lower NP-related costs, whereas PCP (+A) had 2% (1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02) higher total costs. The SMT had 2% (0.98; 95% CI, 0.98-0.99) lower nonanalgesic and 13% (0.87; 95% CI, 0.87-0.88) lower analgesic Part D costs; the PCP (+A) had 13% (1.13; 95% CI, 1.12-1.14) higher nonanalgesic but 14% (0.86; 95% CI, 0.86-0.87) lower analgesic costs. Propensity weighting balanced covariates among cohorts.

Conclusions

For older adults with new NP episodes, initial SMT was associated with lower health care costs, particularly for Part A total and NP-related claims, with a less pronounced effect on Part B and D claims than PCP-related strategies. These findings suggest potential for health care savings based on the initial treatment choice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医疗保险受益人颈部疼痛治疗的比较成本分析。
目的:评估医疗保险受益人中新发颈部疼痛(NP)发作的初始治疗策略的纵向成本结果。设计:回顾性队列研究,使用医疗保险A、B、D部分索赔数据。设置:不适用。参与者:65-99岁的医疗保险受益人,从2018年到2021年连续参加A、B和D部分,并在2019年经历了新的NP发作。干预措施:根据索引访问提供者制定了三个队列:脊椎按摩(脊椎推拿疗法[SMT]),初级保健使用处方镇痛药(PCP [+A])和初级保健不使用镇痛药(PCP [-A],参照组)。主要结果测量:医疗保险允许总费用和np相关索赔(A和B部分),以及药物索赔(D部分)从索引访问起24个月内的费用。结果:在291,604名老年NP患者中,大多数是白人女性,很少有合并症。与PCP (a)相比,SMT队列为6%(成本比,0.94;95% CI, 0.93-0.95)较低的医疗保险A部分总成本,而PCP (+A)队列没有差异。np相关的A部分索赔,PCP (+A)为7% (0.93;95% CI, 0.88-0.98)较低的成本,而SMT没有差异。SMT组有6% (0.94;95% CI, 0.94-0.95),医疗保险B部分总成本降低36% (0.64;95% CI, 0.64-0.65)降低了np相关成本,而PCP (+A)降低了2% (1.02;95% CI, 1.01-1.02)总成本较高。SMT为2% (0.98;95% CI, 0.98-0.99),低13% (0.87;95% CI, 0.87-0.88)较低的D部分镇痛费用;PCP (+A)占13% (1.13;95% CI, 1.12-1.14),非镇痛组较高,但14% (0.86;95% CI, 0.86-0.87)降低了镇痛成本。倾向加权平衡了群体间的协变量。结论:对于新NP发作的老年人,初始SMT与较低的医疗保健费用相关,特别是对于A部分总索赔和NP相关索赔,与pcp相关策略相比,对B部分和D部分索赔的影响不明显。这些发现表明,基于最初的治疗选择,有可能节省医疗费用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.70%
发文量
495
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: The Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation publishes original, peer-reviewed research and clinical reports on important trends and developments in physical medicine and rehabilitation and related fields. This international journal brings researchers and clinicians authoritative information on the therapeutic utilization of physical, behavioral and pharmaceutical agents in providing comprehensive care for individuals with chronic illness and disabilities. Archives began publication in 1920, publishes monthly, and is the official journal of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Its papers are cited more often than any other rehabilitation journal.
期刊最新文献
Estimation of Endurance During Elbow Flexion with Myoelectric Orthotic Assistance. Predictors of community-based physical and occupational therapy use after stroke. Factors Associated with Differences in the Recommended versus Actual Discharge Location After Stroke. Psychosocial Predictors of Spinal Cord Injury Pain: The Canadian Spinal Cord Injury Pain Survey. What shapes satisfaction with daily life participation? Insights into functional outcomes after pediatric bone sarcoma treatment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1