A new study of Medicare cost data completed in June by the well-known Washington, DC-based firm Muse & Associates helps prove the cost-saving impact that chiropractic care has on the current federal Medicare program.
"The results strongly suggest that chiropractic care significantly reduces per beneficiary costs to the Medicare program. The results also suggest that Chiropractic services could play a role in reducing costs of Medicare reform and/or a new prescription drug benefit."
The study specifically found that:
1) beneficiaries who received chiropractic care had lower average Medicare
payments for all Medicare services than those who did not ($4,426 vs. $8,103);
2) beneficiaries who received chiropractic care averaged fewer Medicare claims
per capita than those who did not; and
3) beneficiaries who received chiropractic care had lower average Medicare
payments per claim than those who did not.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the health care costs of patients who have received chiropractic treatment for common neuromusculoskeletal disorders with those treated solely by medical and osteopathic physicians.
DESIGN: Retrospective statistical analysis of 2 yr of claims data on various categories of utilization and insurance payments for a large national sample of patients.
SETTING: Ambulatory and inpatient care.
PATIENTS: A total of 395,641 patients with one or more of 493 neuromusculoskeletal ICD-9 codes.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospital admission rates and 10 categories of insurance payments.
RESULTS: Nearly one-fourth of patients were treated by chiropractors. Patients receiving chiropractic care experienced significantly lower health care costs as represented by third party payments in the fee-for-service sector. Total cost differences on the order of $1,000 over the 2-yr period were found in the total sample of patients as well as in subsamples of patients with specific disorders. The lower costs are attributable mainly to lower inpatient utilization. The cost differences remain statistically significant after controlling for patient demographics and insurance plan characteristics.
CONCLUSIONS: Although work is in progress to control for possible variations in case mix and to compare outcomes in addition to costs, these preliminary results suggest a significant cost-saving potential for users of chiropractic care. The results also suggest the need to reexamine insurance practices and programs that restrict chiropractic coverage relative to medical coverage.
This study assessed the total cost per case of chiropractic claims and medical claims for conditions with identical diagnostic codes. The sample consisted of 3062 claims or 40.6% of the 7551 estimated back injury claims from the 1986 Workers' Compensation Fund of Utah. For the total data set, cost for care was significantly more for medical claims, and compensation costs were 10-fold less for chiropractic claims.
Jarvis KB; Phillips RB; Morris EK. Cost per case comparison of back injury claims of chiropractic versus medical management for conditions with identical diagnostic codes. J Occup Med. 1991 Aug;33(8):847-52.
Nyiendo J. Disabling low back Oregon Workers' Compensation claims. Part II: Time loss. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991 May;14(4):231-9.
DESIGN--Randomised controlled trial. Allocation to chiropractic or hospital management by minimisation to establish groups for analysis of results according to initial referral clinic, length of current episode, history, and severity of back pain. Patients were followed up for up two years.
SETTING--Chiropractic and hospital outpatient clinics in 11 centres.
PATIENTS--741 Patients aged 18-65 who had no contraindications to manipulation and who had not been treated within the past month.
INTERVENTIONS--Treatment at the discretion of the chiropractors, who used chiropractic manipulation in most patients, or of the hospital staff, who most commonly used Maitland mobilisation or manipulation, or both.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Changes in the score on the Oswestry pain disability questionnaire and in the results of tests of straight leg raising and lumbar flexion.
RESULTS--Chiropractic treatment was more effective than hospital outpatient management, mainly for patients with chronic or severe back pain. A benefit of about 7% points on the Oswestry scale was seen at two years. The benefit of chiropractic treatment became more evident throughout the follow up period. Secondary outcome measures also showed that chiropractic was more beneficial.
CONCLUSIONS--For patients with low back pain in whom manipulation is not contraindicated chiropractic almost certainly confers worthwhile, long term benefit in comparison with hospital outpatient management. The benefit is seen mainly in those with chronic or severe pain. Introducing chiropractic into NHS practice should be considered.
Meade TW; Dyer S; Browne W; Townsend J; Frank AO. Low back pain of mechanical origin: randomised comparison of chiropractic and hospital outpatient treatment. BMJ. 1990 Jun 2;300(6737):1431-7.