August 2010
M T W T F S S
« Jul   Sep »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  
Please support our Sponsors

American Chiropractic Association Responds To New Kaiser Policy Excluding Cervical Manipulation

American Chiropractic Association Responds To New Kaiser Policy Excluding Cervical Manipulation

The Chiro.Org Blog


Source chiroeco.com

Kaiser Permanente Mid Atlantic States and Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group recently revised their Chiropractic Manipulation Medical Coverage Policy to exclude cervical Chiropractic Manipulative Treatment (CMT).

The revised policy states, “Given the paucity of data related to beneficial effects of chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine and the real potential for catastrophic adverse events, it was decided to exclude chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine from coverage.”

Last week, ACA sent a letter to Kaiser outlining the extensive data that supports cervical spinal manipulation as both beneficial and safe. The association also released the following statement:

“The American Chiropractic Association is aware that Kaiser Permanente Mid Atlantic States and Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group have revised their Chiropractic Manipulation Medical Coverage Policy to exclude cervical Chiropractic Manipulative Treatment (CMT) from coverage.

This restriction, if allowed to stand, will be harmful to chiropractic patients and doctors. We have contacted Kaiser to express our grave concern over this change, and we await its reply. ACA will expend every effort to encourage Kaiser to reverse this new restriction, and we will keep our members and the profession informed along the way.” – ACA President, Dr. Rick McMichael

9 comments to American Chiropractic Association Responds To New Kaiser Policy Excluding Cervical Manipulation

  • [...] Original post: ChiroOrg Blog – American Chiropractic Association responds to new Kaiser policy excluding cervical manipulation [...]

  • chiropractor

    The basis on which Kaiser’s claims are based is absolutely ridiculous. Think about ithis… even if chiropractic was was “Dangerous” (and it isn’t), it’s a moot point. Do they stop coverage for surgery because its dangerous? Will they eliminate carpal tunnel surgery because almost 50% of patients have symptoms after the surgery?

  • ChiroUnderground

    I agree “chiropractor” !! …this is just another lame attempt by the medical profession to try and keep chiropractic down. You are right, even if it was considered “dangerous”, I think they need to pluck the mote from their own eye before they try and point out the “splinter” in ours. Ridiculous argument is right!

  • karl

    A question I have will Kaiser refuse to cover/allow cervical manipulation by other providers like
    physical therapists and osteopaths?

  • karl

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/728205?sssdmh=dm1.636271&src=nldne&uac=93650BZ
    I encourage people to read this article. It’s a Danish Study that reveals the risk of future stroke in healthy people who use NSAIDs. Could it be that CV accidents are caused by NSAIDs?

  • karl

    Stephen Barrett, M.D. has an entry/opinion on youtube regarding this decision by Kaiser on not covering chiropractic cervical manipulation. It’s in the cervical manipulation file. I ask that people review this youtube video and provide a sound response. Chiropractic is his ‘favorite’ topic of attack. Barrett in my opinion uses this decision by Kaiser to rationalize/support his opinion about chiropractic. You can also find interesting opinions on……. ScienceBasedMedicine.org…….I find it somewhat interesting that other medical professionals(P.T, D.O., M.D.) that perform cervical (HVLT) manipulation are not under the same scrutiny.

  • karl

    Nice response by the ACA to get this policy suspended. The current scientific evidence shows that cervical treatment by a chiropractor does not have any more incidence of causing/associated with stroke then care provided by a primary care physician. I’m still waiting to hear from critics of chiropractic treatment on why it’s okay for physical therapists to perform the same high velocity low amplitude cervical manipulation. If a drug is shown to be dangerous/adverse to patient care they criticize/take the drug off the market. They don’t focus on who prescribes the drug the most. My point is cervical manipulation may be scrutinized, but why is the focus on chiropractic cervical manipulation when other practitioners perform the same cervical manipulation? Although, many won’t agree I feel it’s a turf war and prejudice.

  • Alan Dinehart, DC

    The suspension by Kaiser of Cervical Manipulation by Chiropractic physicians could be considered “Practicing Chiropractic without a license”. When Kaiser contracts with a physician, they don’t have the authority to restrict anything that their license allows by law. However, they have the authority to not pay for a service. If Kaiser were to ban cervical manipulation by all providers, nothing could be said. This is where the ACA could earn its dues by bringing suit against Kaiser and make them explain the reason for said restriction.

  • Karl (11-13-10)

    I totally agree. I wrote an editorial in 2005 when a paper came out reporting about 36 VADs:

    “Vertebral Artery Dissections After Chiropractic Neck Manipulation in Germany Over Three Years”

    As it turns out, only 4 of these 36 were actually associated with a visit to a DC; the rest were done by:

    Orthopedic Surgeons n=18 (50%)
    Physiotherapists n= 5 (14%)
    GP (Medical Doctors) n= 2 (6%)
    Neurologist n= 1 (3%)
    Homeopath n= 1 (3%)
    “Unknown” n= 3 (9%)
    Total Injuries n= 36 (100%)

    It’s this type of outright lies that has been used by the anti-quack contingent to paint us into the corner, and is taken seriously (perhaps) by organizations like Kaiser.


    Dr. Dinehart (8-19-11)

    I’d like to see more legal action taken too, but some of our detractors (perhaps rightly?) claim that the ONLY reason we are available is because of our litigation, such as the Wilk case. I don’t know, one way or the other, but I feel ACA did the right thing by providing credible information to counter their obvious ploy to reduce services and increase profits. Then if that fails, there’s always the Courts.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

CAPTCHA Image

*

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>