Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;

Table 4

Average annual per capita spine–specific health costs among CAM and non-CAM respondents with spine problems, MEPS 2002–2008.

Total expenditures [1]InpatientOutpatientPrescriptionEmergency
unadjustedNon-CAM user$1913$716$1098$6$93
CAM user$1228$160$1037$1$30
Treatment effect for CAM use (CAM user – non-CAM user)$-685 (p<0.001)-556 (p=0.001)$-62 (p=0.255)$-5 (p<0.001)$-63 (p<0.001)
Age, sex, race & Insurance, primary diagnosis, & comorbidity adjustedNon-CAM user$1,832$671$1,065$6$90
CAM user$1,345$225$1,083$1$35
Treatment effect for CAM use (CAM user – non-CAM user)$-487 (p<0.001)-446 (p=0.001)$18 (p=0.741)$-4 (p=0.001)$-55 (p<0.001)
+ region & income, education, employment adjustedNon-CAM user$1,840$680$1,066$6$89
CAM user$1,343$215$1,090$1$37
Treatment effect for CAM use (CAM user – non-CAM user)$-497 (p<0.001)$-465 (p<0.001)$24 (p=0.662)$-5 (p=0.001)$-52 (p<0.001)
+ self-reported health status measuresNon-CAM user$1,811$672$1,045$6$88
CAM user$1,387$227$1,121$2$38
Treatment effect for CAM use (CAM user – non-CAM user)$-424 (p<0.001)$-446 (p<0.001)$76 (p=0.152)$-4 (p=0.001)$-50 (p<0.001)
Propensity score matched [2]Treatment effect for CAM use (CAM user – non-CAM user)$-526 (p<0.001)$-422 (p<0.001)$-17 (p=0.808)$-2 (p=0.021)$-85 (p=0.003)
[1]Individual service categories do not sum to the total expenditure column due to averaging.
[2]Propensity score matches were drawn from 11,976 cases within the “region of common support” (see text). A total of 4,289 CAM users were matched on propensity score to 2,812 non-CAM users using the nearest neighbor technique.
External link. Please review our privacy policy.