J Occupational and Environmental Medicine 1991 (Aug); 33 (8): 847–852
Jarvis KB, Phillips RB, Morris EK
Los Angeles College of Chiropractic,
Whittier, CA 90609-1166
Sarnat ~ JMPT 2007 (May)
This study assessed the total cost per case of chiropractic claims and medical claims for conditions with identical diagnostic codes. The sample consisted of 3,062 claims or 40.6% of the 7,551 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.
FROM: The Cost-Effectiveness of Chiropractic Page:
A workers’ compensation study conducted in Utah by Kelly B. Jarvis,
D.C., Reed B. Phillips, D.C., Ph.D., and Elliot K. Morris, JD, MBA, compared the cost of chiropractic care to the costs of medical care for conditions with identical diagnostic codes. Results were reported in the August
1991 Journal of Occupational Medicine. The study indicated that costs were significantly higher for medical claims than for chiropractic claims; in addition, the number of work days lost was nearly ten times higher for those who received medical care instead of chiropractic care.
FROM: The Cost Effectiveness Studies Page:
In 1988 a Utah Workers' Compensation Board study found the total treatment costs for back-related injuries cost an average of $775.30 per case when treated by a doctor of chiropractic. When injured workers received standard medical treatment as opposed to chiropractic treatment, the average cost per case was $1,665.43.
They also found the mean compensation cost paid out by the Utah Worker's Compensation Board for patients treated by medical doctors was $668.39, while the mean compensation cost paid for patients treated by chiropractic doctors was only $68.38
Return to COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Return to WORKERS' COMPENSATION
Return to "Testimony to the Department of Veterans Affairs"