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:ImportanceNonpharmacologic treatments are important for managing chronic pain among persons with opioid use disorder (OUD), for whom opioid and other pharmacologic therapies may be particularly harmful. Racial and ethnic minority individuals with chronic pain and OUD are vulnerable to suboptimal pain management due to systemic inequities and structural racism, highlighting the need to understand their receipt of guideline-recommended nonpharmacologic pain therapies, including physical therapy (PT) and chiropractic care.ObjectiveTo assess differences across racial and ethnic groups in receipt of PT or chiropractic care for chronic low back pain (CLBP) among persons with comorbid OUD.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used a 20% random sample of national Medicare administrative data from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018, to identify fee-for-service community-dwelling beneficiaries with a new episode of CLBP and comorbid OUD. Data were analyzed from March 1, 2022, to July 30, 2023.ExposuresRace and ethnicity as a social construct, categorized as American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black or African American, Hispanic, non-Hispanic White, and unknown or other.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were receipt of PT or chiropractic care within 3 months of CLBP diagnosis. The time (in days) to receiving these treatments was also assessed.ResultsAmong 69 362 Medicare beneficiaries analyzed, the median age was 60.0 years (IQR, 51.5-68.7 years) and 42 042 (60.6%) were female. A total of 745 beneficiaries (1.1%) were American Indian or Alaska Native; 444 (0.6%), Asian or Pacific Islander; 9822 (14.2%), Black or African American; 4124 (5.9%), Hispanic; 53 377 (77.0%); non-Hispanic White; and 850 (1.2%), other or unknown race. Of all beneficiaries, 7104 (10.2%) received any PT or chiropractic care 3 months after a new CLBP episode. After adjustment, Black or African American (adjusted odds ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.39-0.55) and Hispanic (adjusted odds ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.43-0.67) persons had lower odds of receiving chiropractic care within 3 months of CLBP diagnosis compared with non-Hispanic White persons. Median time to chiropractic care was longest for American Indian or Alaska Native (median, 8.5 days [IQR, 0-44.0 days]) and Black or African American (median, 7.0 days [IQR, 0-42.0 days]) persons and shortest for Asian or Pacific Islander persons (median, 0 days [IQR, 0-6.0 days]). No significant racial and ethnic differences were observed for PT.Conclusions and relevanceIn this retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with comorbid CLBP and OUD, receipt of PT and chiropractic care was low overall and lower across most racial and ethnic minority groups compared with non-Hispanic White persons. The findings underscore the need to address inequities in guideline-concordant pain management, particularly among Black or African American and Hispanic persons with OUD.

Project description:Study designMarkov model.ObjectiveFurther validity test of a previously published model.Summary of background dataThe previous model was built using data from ten randomized trials and examined the 1-year effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 17 nonpharmacologic interventions for chronic low back pain (CLBP), each compared to usual care alone. This update incorporated data from five additional trials.MethodsBased on transition probabilities that were estimated using patient-level trial data, a hypothetical cohort of CLBP patients transitioned over time among four defined health states: high-impact chronic pain with substantial activity limitations; higher (moderate-impact) and lower (low-impact) pain without activity limitations; and no pain. As patients transitioned among health states, they accumulated quality-adjusted life-years, as well as healthcare and productivity costs. Costs and effects were calculated incremental to each study's version of usual care.ResultsFrom the societal perspective and assuming a typical patient mix (25% low-impact, 35% moderate-impact, and 40% high-impact chronic pain), most interventions-including those newly added-were cost-effective (<$50,000/QALY) and demonstrated cost savings. From the payer perspective, fewer were cost-saving, but the same number were cost-effective. Results for the new studies generally mirrored others using the same interventions-for example, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and physical therapy. A new acupuncture study had similar effectiveness to other acupuncture studies, but higher usual care costs, resulting in higher cost savings. Two new yoga studies' results were similar, but both differed from those of the original yoga study. Mindfulness-based stress reduction was similar to CBT for a typical patient mix but was twice as effective for those with high-impact chronic pain.ConclusionMarkov modeling facilitates comparisons across interventions not directly compared in trials, using consistent outcome measures after balancing the baseline mix of patients. Outcomes also differed by pain impact level, emphasizing the need to measure CLBP subgroups.Level of evidenceN/A.

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:BackgroundLow 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.MethodsThe 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.DiscussionResults 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 registrationThis 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.