Dataset Information

Coverage of Nonpharmacologic Treatments for Low Back Pain Among US Public and Private Insurers.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Despite epidemic rates of addiction and death from prescription opioids in the United States, suggesting the importance of providing alternatives to opioids in the treatment of pain, little is known regarding how payers' coverage policies may facilitate or impede access to such treatments.

Objective

To examine coverage policies for 5 nonpharmacologic approaches commonly used to treat acute or chronic low back pain among commercial and Medicare Advantage insurance plans, plus an additional 6 treatments among Medicaid plans.

Design, setting, and participants

Cross-sectional study of 15 commercial, 15 Medicaid, and 15 Medicare Advantage health plans for the 2017 calendar year in 16 states representing more than half of the US population. Interviews were conducted with 43 senior medical and pharmacy health plan executives from representative plans.

Main outcomes and measures

Medical necessity and coverage status for the treatments examined, as well as the use of utilization management tools and cost-sharing magnitude and structure.

Results

Commercial and Medicare insurers consistently regarded physical and occupational therapy as medically necessary, but policies varied for other therapies examined. Payers most commonly covered physical therapy (98% [44 of 45 plans]), occupational therapy (96% [43 of 45 plans]), and chiropractic care (89% [40 of 45 plans]), while transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (67% [10 of 15 plans]) and steroid injections (60% [9 of 15 plans]) were the most commonly covered among the therapies examined for Medicaid plans only. Despite evidence in the literature to support use of acupuncture and psychological interventions, these therapies were either not covered by plans examined (67% of all plans [30 of 45] did not cover acupuncture) or lacked information about coverage (80% of Medicaid plans [12 of 15] lacked information about coverage of psychological interventions). Utilization management tools, such as prior authorization, were common, but criteria varied greatly with respect to which conditions and what quantity and duration of services were covered. Interviewees represented 6 Medicaid managed care organizations, 2 Medicare Advantage or Part D plans, 9 commercial plans, and 3 trade organizations (eg, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association). Interviews with plan executives indicated a low level of integration between the coverage decision-making processes for pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for chronic pain.

Conclusions and relevance

Wide variation in coverage of nonpharmacologic treatments for low back pain may be driven by the absence of best practices, the administrative complexities of developing and revising coverage policies, and payers' economic incentives. Such variation suggests an important opportunity to improve the accessibility of services, reduce opioid use, and ultimately improve the quality of care for individuals with chronic, noncancer pain while alleviating the burden of opioid addiction and overdose.

SUBMITTER: Heyward J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6324451 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceDespite unprecedented injuries and deaths from prescription opioids, little is known regarding medication coverage policies for the treatment of chronic noncancer pain among US insurers.ObjectiveTo assess medication coverage policies for 62 products used to treat low back pain.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional study of health plan documents from 15 Medicaid, 15 Medicare Advantage, and 20 commercial health plans in 2017 from 16 US states representing more than half the US population and 20 interviews with more than 43 senior medical and pharmacy health plan executives from representative plans. Data analysis was conducted from April 2017 to January 2018.Main outcomes and measuresFormulary coverage, utilization management, and patient out-of-pocket costs.ResultsOf the 62 products examined, 30 were prescription opioids and 32 were nonopioid analgesics, including 10 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 10 antidepressants, 6 muscle relaxants, 4 anticonvulsants, and 2 topical analgesics. Medicaid plans covered a median of 19 opioids examined (interquartile range [IQR], 12-27; median, 63%; IQR, 40%-90%) and a median of 22 nonopioids examined (IQR, 21-27; median, 69%; IQR, 66%-83%). Medicare Advantage plans covered similar proportions (median [IQR], opioids: 17 [15-22]; 57% [50%-73%]; nonopioids: 22 [22-26]; 69% [69%-81%]), while commercial plans covered more opioids (median [IQR], 23 [21-25]; 77% [70%-84%]) and nonopioids (median [IQR], 26 [24-27]; 81% [74%-85%]). Utilization management strategies were common for opioids in Medicaid plans (median [IQR], 15 [11-20] opioids; 91% [74%-97%]), Medicare Advantage plans (median [IQR], 15 [9-18] opioids; 100% [100%-100%]), and commercial plans (median [IQR], 16 [11-20] opioids; 74% [53%-94%]), generally relying on 30-day quantity limits rather than prior authorization. Step therapy was especially uncommon. Many of the nonopioids examined also were subject to utilization management, especially quantity limits (24%-32% of products across payers) and prior authorization (median [IQR], commercial plans: 2 [0-3] nonopioids; 9% [0%-11%]; Medicare Advantage plans: 4 [3-5] nonopioids; 19% [10%-23%]; Medicaid plans: 6 [1-13] nonopioids; 38% [2%-52%]). Among commercial plans, the median plan placed 18 opioids (74%) and 20 nonopioids (81%) in tier 1, which was associated with a median out-of-pocket cost of $10 (IQR, $9-$10) per 30-day supply. Key informant interviews revealed an emphasis on increasing opioid utilization management and identifying high-risk prescribers and patients, rather than promoting comprehensive strategies to improve treatment of chronic pain or better integrating pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic alternatives to opioids.Conclusions and relevanceGiven the effect of coverage policies on drug utilization and health outcomes, these findings provide an important opportunity to evaluate how formulary placement, utilization management, copayments, and integration of nonpharmacologic treatments can be optimized to improve pain care while reducing opioid-related injuries and deaths.

Project description:IntroductionExercise therapy is the most recommended treatment for chronic low back pain (LBP). Effect sizes for exercises are usually small to moderate and could be due to the heterogeneity of people presenting with LBP. Thus, if patients could be better matched to exercise based on individual factors, then the effects of treatment could be greater. A recently published study provided evidence of better outcomes when patients are matched to the appropriate exercise type. The study demonstrated that a 15-item questionnaire, the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ), could identify patients who responded best to one of the two exercise approaches for LBP (motor control and graded activity). The primary aim of the current study isill be to evaluate whether preidentified baseline characteristics, including the LSIQ, can modify the response to two of the most common exercise therapies for non-specific LBP. Secondary aims include an economic evaluations with a cost-effectiveness analysis.Methods and analysisParticipants (n=414) will be recruited by primary care professionals and randomised (1:1) to receive motor control exercises or graded activity. Participants will undergo 12 sessions of exercise therapy over an 8-week period. The primary outcome will be physical function at 2 months using the Oswestry Disability Index. Secondary outcomes will be pain intensity, function and quality of life measured at 2, 6 and 12 months. Potential effect modifiers will be the LSIQ, self-efficacy, coping strategies, kinesiophobia and measures of nociceptive pain and central sensitisation. We will construct linear mixed models with terms for participants (fixed), treatment group, predictor (potential effect modifier), treatment group×predictor (potential effect modifier), physiotherapists, treatment group×physiotherapists and baseline score for the dependent variable.Ethics and disseminationThis study received ethics approval from the Hamilton Integrate Research Ethics Board. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT04283409.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Low back pain is a prevalent condition that causes a substantial health burden. Despite intensive and expensive clinical efforts, its prevalence is growing. Nonpharmacologic treatments are effective at improving pain-related outcomes; however, treatment effect sizes are often modest. Physical therapy (PT) and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) have the most consistent evidence of effectiveness. Growing evidence also supports mindfulness-based approaches. Discussions with providers and patients highlight the importance of discussing and trying options to find the treatment that works for them and determining what to do when initial treatment is not successful. Herein, we present the protocol for a study that will evaluate evidence-based, protocol-driven treatments using PT, CBT, or mindfulness to examine comparative effectiveness and optimal sequencing for patients with chronic low back pain. METHODS:The Optimized Multidisciplinary Treatment Programs for Nonspecific Chronic Low Back Pain (OPTIMIZE) Study will be a multisite, comparative effectiveness trial using a sequential multiple assessment randomized trial design enrolling 945 individuals with chronic low back pain. The co-primary outcomes will be disability (measured using the Oswestry Disability Index) and pain intensity (measured using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale). After baseline assessment, participants will be randomly assigned to PT or CBT. At week 10, participants who have not experienced at least 50% improvement in disability will be randomized to cross-over phase-1 treatments (e.g., PT to CBT) or to Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement (MORE). Treatment will consist of 8 weekly sessions. Long-term outcome assessments will be performed at weeks 26 and 52. DISCUSSION:Results of this study may inform referring providers and patients about the most effective nonoperative treatment and/or sequence of nonoperative treatments to treat chronic low back pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This study was prospectively registered on March 1, 2019, with Clinicaltrials.gov under the registration number NCT03859713 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03859713).

Project description:STUDY DESIGN:Markov model. OBJECTIVE:Examine the 1-year effectiveness and cost-effectiveness (societal and payer perspectives) of adding nonpharmacologic interventions for chronic low back pain (CLBP) to usual care using a decision analytic model-based approach. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:Treatment guidelines now recommend many safe and effective nonpharmacologic interventions for CLBP. However, little is known regarding their effectiveness in subpopulations (e.g., high-impact chronic pain patients), nor about their cost-effectiveness. METHODS:The model included four health states: high-impact chronic pain (substantial activity limitations); no pain; and two others without activity limitations, but with higher (moderate-impact) or lower (low-impact) pain. We estimated intervention-specific transition probabilities for these health states using individual patient-level data from 10 large randomized trials covering 17 nonpharmacologic therapies. The model was run for nine 6-week cycles to approximate a 1-year time horizon. Quality-adjusted life-year weights were based on six-dimensional health state short form scores; healthcare costs were based on 2003 to 2015 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data; and lost productivity costs used in the societal perspective were based on reported absenteeism. Results were generated for two target populations: (1) a typical baseline mix of patients with CLBP (25% low-impact, 35% moderate-impact, and 40% high-impact chronic pain) and (2) high-impact chronic pain patients. RESULTS:From the societal perspective, all but two of the therapies were cost effective (<$50,000/quality-adjusted life-year) for a typical patient mix and most were cost saving. From the payer perspective fewer were cost saving, but the same number was cost-effective. Assuming all patients in the model have high-impact chronic pain increases the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of most, but not all, therapies indicating that substantial benefits are possible in this subpopulation. CONCLUSION:Modeling leverages the evidence produced from clinical trials to provide more information than is available in the published studies. We recommend modeling for all existing studies of nonpharmacologic interventions for CLBP. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:4.

Project description:BackgroundIn chronic conditions, such as back pain, the use of interventions that address physical, social and psychological aspects within a biopsychosocial framework are encouraged, however, applying this holistic multimodal approach in physical therapy practice (i.e., chiropractic and physiotherapy) is challenging. To explore the problem of delivering a biopsychosocially informed package of care in physical therapy practice a recent randomised control trial (RCT) called 'Mind Your Back' was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a combined physical and internet-delivered psychological intervention (psychologically informed physical treatments) compared to standard treatment for improving disability and self-efficacy in people with chronic LBP. The results of the trial indicated no difference between the two intervention groups. Although high-quality RCTs are considered gold standard for effectiveness of interventions, qualitative research methods embedded within a process evaluation framework are also used to reveal other issues and important information that help to explain clinical trial results, and to further the field of digital health interventions research. Therefore, within a process evaluation framework, the aim is to explore participants experiences of the interventions received throughout the Mind Your Back trial which led to a null result.MethodsIn-line with recommendations for a process evaluation this study used in-depth interviews and qualitative thematic analysis with participants of both arms of the trial 5-6 months after study completion. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with twenty-five participants to explore their experiences of taking part in the Mind Your Back trial. Interviews were conducted in November 2017, transcribed verbatim and data analysed thematically.ResultsTwo main themes were identified: (1) Personalised support and therapeutic alliance are important, and (2) MoodGYM lacked relevant, personalised and tailored support.ConclusionIt is important to deliver tailored digital health supports that is personalised and fosters a therapeutic alliance.