PM&R saves money for spine care

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

axm397

SDN Moderator
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
20+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
1,758
Reaction score
85
From
http://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...ity-Health-Members-Equipped-Smart-Health-Care

March 28, 2011 10:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Priority Health Members Equipped for Smart Health Care and Better Outcomes

Web-based tool allows Priority Health members to evaluate treatment options


GRAND RAPIDS, Mich.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Priority Health is leading the chorus of health care organizations calling for smart health care and better outcomes. A new web-based tool allows members to evaluate care options prior to choosing surgery.

“Through this program and others, we’ve been successful at delivering smart health care by focusing on treatments that garner the best results for our members.”

“Priority Health is changing how health care is delivered by producing better outcomes and creating better experiences for members all while eliminating avoidable medical costs,” said Kimberly K. Horn, president and CEO.

According to the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services and other organizations, up to 50% of the cost in the total health care system is avoidable. These costs could be eliminated without impacting the quality or the outcome of care.

One case study demonstrating this fact involves Priority Health’s award-winning back pain management program. Spine surgery rates across Michigan vary. In fact, some Michigan communities have double the incidence of back surgery as the national average. In contrast, research shows that patients are more likely to choose a less invasive approach when given all of their treatment options.

Priority Health worked with its provider network to educate members with back pain. Prior to seeing a spine surgeon, members experiencing back pain see a physiatrist, a physician specializing in musculoskeletal and neurological conditions, who may recommend alternatives to surgery. The members also review a video designed to help them make an informed decision. Following that consultation, members can proceed with recommendations of the physiatrist or choose to consult with a surgeon.

The program resulted in a 26% reduction in spine surgeries and yielded high patient satisfaction with 74% reporting they were satisfied or very satisfied. “Our members’ health is our top concern,” said Horn. “Through this program and others, we’ve been successful at delivering smart health care by focusing on treatments that garner the best results for our members.

“As the number of people enrolled in consumer-engaged health plans increases, we hope to capitalize on this opportunity to create an age of consumerism within healthcare,” said Horn. “We each have a responsibility to ask questions of our care givers to ensure the care we receive is the best option available.”

To help members become informed, Priority Health offers a surgery decision support tool via its website. Members can use this interactive video tutorial to learn if the surgery they are considering is the right option for their situation. To date, thousands of members have researched their treatment options for conditions like knee pain and back pain. Most members are eligible to receive free wellness materials or fitness equipment after completing the tutorial.

About Priority Health:

Priority Health is an award-winning health plan nationally recognized for creating innovative solutions that impact health care costs while maximizing customer experience. It offers a broad portfolio of products for employer groups, individuals and Medicare and Medicaid. As a nonprofit company, Priority Health serves more than 600,000 people and continues to be ranked among the America’s best health plans by the National Committee for Quality Assurance.

Contacts

Priority Health
Juanita Vorel
616 464-8390 or 800 942-0954

Members don't see this ad.
 
I've heard of this happening in places. I've also seen a trend of Work Comp adjusters requesting PM&R consult prior to spine surgery.

The only problem with this is that if the patient is already convinced that surgery is the only thing that will help them (with pain, or future finances via lawsuits...) nothing a Physiatrist does will help, i.e. a self-fullfilling prophecy.
 
There should be a concerted effort (action by AAPMR?) to spread this to major carriers such as Blue Cross/Blue Shield and national carriers in Workers Comp (Liberty Mutual, Travelers, etc.)

It will remedy the marketing problem in musculoskeletal Physiatry, or at the very least should reduce it significantly.

It will encourage independent Physiatric practice. Physiatrists will no longer have to join ortho groups or register under pain management to obtain referrals.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I am an attending and long-time lurker on this forum, but this issue is very near and dear to my heart and important enough to all of us that I joined just to respond to this thread.

We - PM&R - have a very important opportunity here. I will say it because it is true: multidisciplinary spine clinics with a PM&R front end can improve spine care while simultaneously reducing cost. All of our residency programs need be working on this issue – improving our spine care knowledge during residency - and restructuring their curricula as spinal column disease is a big, big cost driver – much, much bigger than SCI’s & CVA’s combined - and we are well trained to manage it.

I recently attended a Spine/Pain meeting in my home state. The regional executive - MD - for Regence BC/BS presented data from 2008. In that year fusion costs in our region for ICD-9's 721-724 - note those ICD-9s do not include spondylolisthesis (756.12) - amounted to 1.4% of Regence entire budget for that year! That is a very big ticket item and it is suggestive enormous waste and inefficiency in my region.

Non-operative spine centers of excellence will begin popping up analogous to the Blue Distinction Centers for Spine Surgery. In the current climate they may be bundled as ACOs. We need to be at the table NOW to make these happen in our respective regions. I would direct interested readers to the following article: Bridging the Gap Between Science and Practice in Managing Low Back Pain. Klein et al. Spine 25(6) 738-740, 2000. The article describes the development of a physiatric spine clinic in an HMO. In the same issue of Spine Rick Deyo had a supportive editorial about this model. PM me if you want copies. The quote below is from the results section.

"Since the inception of the Spine Clinic, new patient visits for
LBP to the orthopedics and neurosurgery clinics have been
reduced by approximately 50%. Furthermore, spine surgery
rates have been reduced by 35% in the most recent four calendar
quarters compared with the previous four quarters. Although
it is not yet possible to calculate real economic savings
associated with this reduction in surgical clinic visits and fewer
surgeries for LBP, the magnitude of these changes convinces the
authors that considerable savings have been realized. Although
patients with chronic spine pain are notoriously dissatisfied
with their care, 69% of the patients seen in the Spine Clinic
report that the results of the treatment by the Spine Clinic
providers were good, very good, or excellent, and patients attending
the patient empowerment classes rated their satisfaction
with these as 3.5 on a 4-point scale (where 4 is the most
satisfied). Patients treated in the Spine Clinic have demonstrated
small, but not statistically significant reductions in
missed workdays and in levels of disability on the Roland–
Morris Scale 6 weeks after the initial Spine Clinic visit compared
with before the first visit (Table 3)."
 
Interesting data from Kaiser Permanente CO on spine care costs. 1996 - 2001, N = 16,567 patients. Costs of spine care by rank.

1. Primary Care visits
2. Pharmacy
3. Inpatient care for spine problems (spine surgery)
4. ER visits (some were likely for co-morbidities not spine)
5. PT
6. Back Pain Clinics
7. Mental Health/Chemical Dependency
8. X-rays
9. CT/MRI


The data are not particularly clean - with respect to spine - because the authors intentionally added co-morbidities. The most expensive cohort were elderly patients - age > 65 - with multisystem organ disease in addition to spinal disease. Interestingly hospitalization costs for the comorbid diseases were 3 - 4x those of spine surgery hospitalizations. The largest subgroup by age, however, was 45-54.

BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006 Sep 18;7:72. The association of comorbidities, utilization and costs for patients identified with low back pain. Ritzwoller DP, Crounse L, Shetterly S, Rublee D. Clinical Research Unit, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver, CO, USA. [email protected]
 
There should be data coming out of Michigan (I think to be published in PM&R) and from Kaiser California.

Am looking forward to seeing some of that. We really should be looking at and researching different "models of care" for spine and other PM&R related conditions in this age of cost-effectiveness research and ACO/medical home/health care reform.
 
Health Serv Res. 2011 Apr 21. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01265.x. [Epub ahead of print]
The Relationship between Low Back Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Surgery, and Spending: Impact of Physician Self-Referral Status.
Shreibati JB, Baker LC.
Source
Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 1070 Mercedes Avenue #11, Los Altos, CA 94022 Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Abstract
Objective. To examine the relationship between use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and receipt of surgery for patients with low back pain. Data Sources. Medicare claims for a 20 percent sample of beneficiaries from 1998 to 2005. Study Design. We identify nonradiologist physicians who appear to begin self-referral arrangements for MRI between 1999 and 2005, as well as their patients who have a new episode of low back pain care during this time. We focus on regression models that identify the relationship between receipt of MRI and subsequent use of back surgery and health care spending. Receipt of MRI may be endogenous, so we use physician acquisition of MRI as an instrument for receipt of MRI. The models adjust for demographic and socioeconomic covariates as well as month, year, and physician fixed effects. Data Collection/Extraction Methods. We include traditional, fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with a visit to an orthopedist or primary care physician for nonspecific low back pain, and no claims for low back pain in the year prior. Principal Findings. In the first stage, acquisition of MRI equipment is a strongly correlated with patients receiving MRI scans. Among patients of orthopedists, receipt of an MRI scan increases the probability of having surgery by 34 percentage points. Among patients of primary care physicians, receiving a low back MRI is not statistically significantly associated with subsequent surgery receipt. Conclusions. Orthopedists and primary care physicians who begin billing for the performance of MRI procedures, rather than referring patients outside of their practice for MRI, appear to change their practice patterns such that they use more MRI for their patients with low back pain. These increases in MRI use appear to lead to increases in low back surgery receipt and health care spending among patients of orthopedic surgeons, but not of primary care physicians.

© Health Research and Educational Trust.
 
Love your posts! Keep them coming! Are you doing a MPH or something of the sort?
 
There should be data coming out of Michigan (I think to be published in PM&R) and from Kaiser California.

Am looking forward to seeing some of that. We really should be looking at and researching different "models of care" for spine and other PM&R related conditions in this age of cost-effectiveness research and ACO/medical home/health care reform.

Any such models will need to include spinal manipulation, as there is effectiveness and cost-effectiveness data available for particularly LBP but also neck pain. The last 20 years or so has seen a major increase in data relating to spinal manipulation.

On the cost savings issue, this thread reminded me of a study published recently that suggested LBP patients initiating care with a chiropractor will lead to cost savings. http://www.jmptonline.org/article/S0161-4754(10)00216-2/abstract
 
Any such models will need to include spinal manipulation, as there is effectiveness and cost-effectiveness data available for particularly LBP but also neck pain. The last 20 years or so has seen a major increase in data relating to spinal manipulation.

On the cost savings issue, this thread reminded me of a study published recently that suggested LBP patients initiating care with a chiropractor will lead to cost savings. http://www.jmptonline.org/article/S0161-4754(10)00216-2/abstract

Yes, but...

N Engl J Med. 1995 Oct 5;333(14):913-7.
The outcomes and costs of care for acute low back pain among patients seen by primary care practitioners, chiropractors, and orthopedic surgeons. The North Carolina Back Pain Project.
Carey TS, Garrett J, Jackman A, McLaughlin C, Fryer J, Smucker DR.
Source
Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 27599-7590, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Patients with back pain receive quite different care from different types of health care practitioners. We performed a prospective observational study to determine whether the outcomes of and charges for care differ among primary care practitioners, chiropractors, and orthopedic surgeons.
METHODS:
Two hundred eight practitioners in North Carolina were randomly selected from six strata: urban primary care physicians (n = 39), rural primary care physicians (n = 48), urban chiropractors (n = 32), rural chiropractors (n = 32), orthopedic surgeons (n = 29), and primary care providers at a group-model health maintenance organization (HMO) (n = 28). The practitioners enrolled consecutive patients with acute low back pain. The patients were contacted by telephone periodically for up to 24 weeks to assess functional status, work status, use of health care services, and satisfaction with the care received.
RESULTS:
The status at six months was ascertained for 1555 of the 1633 patients enrolled in the study (95 percent). The times to functional recovery, return to work, and complete recovery from low back pain were similar among patients seen by all six groups of practitioners, but there were marked differences in the use of health care services. The mean total estimated outpatient charges were highest for the patients seen by orthopedic surgeons and chiropractors and were lowest for the patients seen by HMO and primary care providers. Satisfaction was greatest among the patients who went to the chiropractors.
CONCLUSIONS:
Among patients with acute low back pain, the outcomes are similar whether they receive care from primary care practitioners, chiropractors, or orthopedic surgeons. Primary care practitioners provide the least expensive care for acute low back pain.
 
Yes, but...

N Engl J Med. 1995 Oct 5;333(14):913-7.
The outcomes and costs of care for acute low back pain among patients seen by primary care practitioners, chiropractors, and orthopedic surgeons. The North Carolina Back Pain Project.
Carey TS, Garrett J, Jackman A, McLaughlin C, Fryer J, Smucker DR.
Source
Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 27599-7590, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Patients with back pain receive quite different care from different types of health care practitioners. We performed a prospective observational study to determine whether the outcomes of and charges for care differ among primary care practitioners, chiropractors, and orthopedic surgeons.
METHODS:
Two hundred eight practitioners in North Carolina were randomly selected from six strata: urban primary care physicians (n = 39), rural primary care physicians (n = 48), urban chiropractors (n = 32), rural chiropractors (n = 32), orthopedic surgeons (n = 29), and primary care providers at a group-model health maintenance organization (HMO) (n = 28). The practitioners enrolled consecutive patients with acute low back pain. The patients were contacted by telephone periodically for up to 24 weeks to assess functional status, work status, use of health care services, and satisfaction with the care received.
RESULTS:
The status at six months was ascertained for 1555 of the 1633 patients enrolled in the study (95 percent). The times to functional recovery, return to work, and complete recovery from low back pain were similar among patients seen by all six groups of practitioners, but there were marked differences in the use of health care services. The mean total estimated outpatient charges were highest for the patients seen by orthopedic surgeons and chiropractors and were lowest for the patients seen by HMO and primary care providers. Satisfaction was greatest among the patients who went to the chiropractors.
CONCLUSIONS:
Among patients with acute low back pain, the outcomes are similar whether they receive care from primary care practitioners, chiropractors, or orthopedic surgeons. Primary care practitioners provide the least expensive care for acute low back pain.

I like that bolded line! This has been found in several patient-satisfaction studies for chiro care. This study goes back aways so I don't recall, did the medical costs include the costs of meds and the costs of PT referrals?

From this 2011 study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21203890 : "In conclusion, GP care alone did not appear to be the most cost-effective treatment option for low back pain". This is an Australian study, thus the GP notation.

From the same authors: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21229367 "Most studies found that interdisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation or cognitive-behavioural therapy were cost-effective in people with sub-acute or chronic LBP".
(Also note that they conclude "...and no evidence on the cost-effectiveness of medications...")

It's a bit surprising that they also state " insufficient evidence on spinal manipulation for people with acute LBP" because other reviews have
concluded evidence exists for spinal manipulation in both acute and chronic LBP: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17909210 (spinal manipulation was the only non-pharma treatment recommended for both acute and chronic LBP),

and from the North American Spine Society http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20869008, which concludes
"Several RCTs have been conducted to assess the efficacy of SMT for acute LBP using various methods. Results from most studies suggest that 5 to 10 sessions of SMT administered over 2 to 4 weeks achieve equivalent or superior improvement in pain and function when compared with other commonly used interventions, such as physical modalities, medication, education, or exercise, for short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up. Spine care clinicians should discuss the role of SMT as a treatment option for patients with acute LBP who do not find adequate symptomatic relief with self-care and education alone." (bold mine)


While not a cost-effectiveness study per-se, this study was interesting: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21036279 Extrapolating a bit, these findings would equate to A LOT of cost savings.

More available if interested. I'm not here to say that chiropractic is the end-all treatment for LBP. I've been in practice for almost 20 years and understand quite well that no one has all the answers for LBP patients. I am saying a discussion about effectiveness and cost-effectiveness needs to include chiropractic.
 
I'm not here to say that chiropractic is the end-all treatment for LBP. I've been in practice for almost 20 years and understand quite well that no one has all the answers for LBP patients. I am saying a discussion about effectiveness and cost-effectiveness needs to include chiropractic.

Agreed.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Spine J. 2010 Jun;10(6):463-8. Epub 2010 Apr 1.

Cost and use of conservative management of lumbar disc herniation before surgical discectomy.
Daffner SD, Hymanson HJ, Wang JC.
Source
Department of Orthopaedics, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506-9196, USA. [email protected]
Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT:
Lumbar discectomy is one of the most common spine surgical procedures. With the exception of true emergencies (eg, cauda equina syndrome), lumbar discectomy is usually performed as an elective procedure after a prudent trial of nonoperative treatment. Although several studies have compared costs of definitive operative or nonoperative management of lumbar disc herniation, no information has been published regarding the cost of conservative care in patients who ultimately underwent surgical discectomy.

PURPOSE:
The purpose of this study was to determine the financial costs (and relative distribution of those costs) associated with the nonoperative management of lumbar disc herniation in patients who ultimately failed conservative care and elected to undergo surgical discectomy.

STUDY DESIGN:
This is a retrospective database review.

PATIENT SAMPLE:
The sample comprises patients within the database who underwent lumbar discectomy.

OUTCOME MEASURES:
The outcome measures were frequency of associated procedures and the costs of those procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:
A search was conducted using a commercially available online database of insurance records of orthopedic patients to identify all patients within the database undergoing lumbar discectomy between 2004 and 2006. Patients were identified by American Medical Association Current Procedural Terminology code. The associated charge codes for the 90-day period before the surgery were reviewed and categorized as outpatient physician visits, imaging studies, physical therapy, injection, chiropractic manipulation, medication charges, preoperative studies, or miscellaneous charges. The frequency of each code and the percentage of patients for whom that code was submitted to the insurance companies were noted, as were the associated charges.

RESULTS:
In total, 30,709 patients in the database met eligibility criteria. A total of $105,799,925 was charged during the 90 days preoperatively, an average of $3,445 per patient. Average charge for discectomy procedure was $7,841. Charges for injection procedures totaled $16,211,246 or 32% of total charges, diagnostic imaging $15,648,769 (31%), outpatient visits $6,552,135 (13%), physical therapy visits $5,723,644 (11%), chiropractic manipulation $1,177,406 (2%), preoperative studies $426,976 (0.8%), medications $263,039 (0.5%), and miscellaneous charges $1,177,371 (2%).

CONCLUSIONS:
Charges for preoperative care of patients with lumbar disc herniation are substantial and are split almost evenly between diagnostic charges (outpatient visits, imaging, laboratory studies, and miscellaneous) and therapeutic charges (injections, physical therapy, chiropractic manipulation, and medications). Although a large number of patients will ultimately require surgical intervention, given that many patients will improve with nonoperative therapy, a trial of conservative management is appropriate. Additional studies to identify patients who may ultimately fail nonoperative treatment and would benefit from early discectomy would be beneficial.

Editorializing:)

Extrapolating from the data provided the initial surgical costs for the same cohort were $240,789,269 or a little more than twice the non-operative costs. If you assume a 10% re-herniation or FBSS rate(1,2) with double the operative cost for the second go around - some woould likely be fused - then a conservative estimate of the true surgical 'cure' cost is more likely to be $288,947,122. The authors point, however, is still valid.

1. Recurrent lumbar disc herniation after single-level lumbar discectomy: incidence and health care cost analysis.
Ambrossi GL, McGirt MJ, Sciubba DM, Witham TF, Wolinsky JP, Gokaslan ZL, Long DM. Neurosurgery. 2009 Sep;65(3):574-8; discussion 578.

2. Economic impact of improving outcomes of lumbar discectomy. Sherman J, Cauthen J, Schoenberg D, Burns M, Reaven NL, Griffith SL. Spine J. 2010 Feb;10(2):108-16. Epub 2009 Oct 12. Erratum in: Spine J. 2010 May;10(5):A8.
 
Last edited:
I'd be interested in hearing other's thoughts on how we might improve care prior to discectomy using Daffner's study as an example.

Assumptions:

1. West Virginia isn't a state with a high spine surgery rate. If you review the Dartmouth atlas medicare rates of back surgery for that state in 2006 - the time of the study - they are well below the national average. Kudos. (http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/tools/benchmarking.aspx)

2. Discectomy works(1,2): it reduces pain and disability quickly and reliably for a majority of patients with non-work-related HNPs (3).

Possible care path improvements.

Time to surgery:

Decrease the dwell time in the non-operative environment. Given the success of surgery why let patients linger in the non-operative environment for 90 days. Why not initiate a surgical consult at 4wks for those who are clearly not tolerating non-operative care. This would reduce pain, suffering, and the opportunity cost of ineffective care.

Epidurals:

The biggest non-operative cost driver in Daffner's study was epidurals. If you assume one injection per participant then the average cost of these ineffective epidurals was $528.00 per patient. This number is interesting.

WV is not a state that is known for high epidural steroid injection rates (4). While the total cost of epidurals in the study was high, maybe it wasn't high enough. If you assume that $528.00 is too low a number to represent the real cost of a single fluoroscopically-guided epidural then maybe more patients should have had a trial of an epidural prior to surgery.

Perhaps a small number of patients had a series of three epidurals even though there is no data to support this approach. Perhaps some of these disc herniations were actually 'dark discs' or annular bulges that don't dessicate and probably shouldn't be injected or, a best, injected with skepticism and only once (5,6). Why use an anti-inflammatory if there isn't inflammation?

And finally, is there any comparable effectiveness data to suggest that the rout of administration of epidural corticosteroids - caudal vs TF, fluoro vs none - makes a difference in patient outcome?

Diagnostic Imaging:

At $509 per patient average this strikes me a remarkably low. I think they missed some of the true imaging costs in this study. However, if a lumbar PA & Lat along with a 1.5T LMRI can be had for that amount they are doing something right in WV. When should imaging occur when a working aged adult with radicular pain presents with pain and what should the wait time for that imaging be?

Outpatient Visits:

At $213 per visit average this does not strike me as excessive. The issue IMO here is identifying the patient who is not regressing to the mean early - @ 2wks - and moving them on to specialty care.

PT/Chiropractic:

How much time should the patient spend in these environments while awaiting regression to the mean?

Medications:

$8.57 per patient? I'm not sure that that would buy a medrol dose pack, gabapentin titer, and a month of NSAIDs. Perhaps these patients were under treated medically.


1. Surgery versus prolonged conservative treatment for sciatica.
Peul WC, van Houwelingen HC, van den Hout WB, Brand R, Eekhof JA, Tans JT, Thomeer RT, Koes BW; Leiden-The Hague Spine Intervention Prognostic Study Group. N Engl J Med. 2007 May 31;356(22):2245-56.

2. Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) observational cohort.
Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Skinner JS, Hanscom B, Tosteson AN, Herkowitz H, Fischgrund J, Cammisa FP, Albert T, Deyo RA.
JAMA. 2006 Nov 22;296(20):2451-9.

3. The impact of workers' compensation on outcomes of surgical and nonoperative therapy for patients with a lumbar disc herniation: SPORT.
Atlas SJ, Tosteson TD, Blood EA, Skinner JS, Pransky GS, Weinstein JN.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Jan 1;35(1):89-97.

4. Geographic variation in epidural steroid injection use in medicare patients.
Friedly J, Chan L, Deyo R. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Aug;90(8):1730-7.

5. Treatment of lumbar disc herniation: epidural steroid injection compared with discectomy. A prospective, randomized study. Buttermann GR. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 Apr;86-A(4):670-9.

6. Outcome of Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injection Is Predicted By Assay of a Complex of Fibronectin and Aggrecan from Epidural Lavage. Golish S, Hanna LS, Bowser RP, Montesano PX, Carragee EJ, Scuderi GJ.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Feb 9.
 
Last edited:
PT/Chiropractic:

How much time should the patient spend in these environments while awaiting regression to the mean?

I would say that 2 weeks would be reasonable, as it should only take 1-2 sessions to determine whether a patient has directional preference or demonstrates the centralization phenomenon.
 
RALEIGH (WTVD) -- William Shearin has lived with severe back pain for 15 years.

"I don't have a life and my family don't have a life because we can't do anything," he explained.

Shearin can't work, can't travel, and can only walk for a few minutes before he has to sit down.

"It's made me just a homebody," he said.

Todd Slater feels his pain. The teacher and coach told ABC11 he feels disabled at only 30 years old.

"The leg pain and the constant back pain, bending down hurts, sitting down hurts, nothing is comfortable, Slater explained.

Both men have endured physical therapy and back injections for degenerative disk disease.

"We have tried all options. The only thing I'm doing now is taking medications," said Shearin

Both men are popping pain pills daily, and both say they thought they had no other option until their doctor told them about spinal fusion surgery.

"He said the good news is I can do the surgery, the bad news is your insurance company, insurance carrier won't pay for it," said Slater

The men say Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina told them it wouldn't cover the cost of spinal fusion surgery.

The company first started denying coverage for the procedure this year.

"They've decided to limit or exclude the patients care before any real medical discussion can take place," offered Dr. William Lestini with the Triangle Spine and Back Care Center.

The clinic treats both men and says the new Blue Cross policy is a disservice to patients.

"This really interferes with the doctor patient relationship because essentially Blue Cross has already determined a patient's care," said Lestini.

Lestini told ABC11 he thinks it's about profits over patients.

"I think it's on their radar because the procedure has become more effective, more popular, it's expensive, and they're trying to limit their costs," he explained.

And Lestini says Blue Cross will still have to pay for a lifetime worth of chronic drug treatment.

"Their policy basically says that you treat them basically with medications, narcotic pain medications, physical therapy, which they've all had anyway. And then if there's problems with that, if you have problems with the medication or addiction, that they will treat the cognitive behavioral or addiction problems as they arise. That's the end game for these people," he said.

But Blue Cross and Blue Shield of NC told ABC11 the company doesn't see it that way.

"We really want what's best for our members and our patients," offered Dr. Andy Bonin.

Bonin, a medical director with Blue Cross, admits they used to cover the surgery for this condition up until this year, but says after looking at the scientific evidence, the complications, and the costs associated with spinal fusion surgery, they decided to make this change.

"It's very expensive surgery, but we feel our policies really are helping the patients and protecting the patients that might not be the best choice of surgery for their particular condition. We want our members to have the right procedure the right surgery for the right condition," said Bonin. "If, in that process, you avoid the surgery that wasn't the best surgery for you, and you avoid the potential complications, then I think you've done a lot more than save money."

Dr. Bonin points out spinal fusion surgery is an elective surgery, and while they do cover the surgery for 11 other conditions, when it comes to treating degenerative disk disease, he says there are other alternatives.

"This doesn't close the door on all surgeries. Remember, this is fusion versus decompression surgery. When decompression surgery is enough, when the scientific evidence shows adding a fusion to decompression does no better, why go through the extra risk, the extra evasion of a fusion surgery?" said Bonin.

Lestini rejects that argument

"I feel badly for the Blue Cross patients here because Blue Cross has really interjected a desperate level of care. I don't go into a room where I see a patient and think about their insurance. I tell them what I think medically they need," he said.

Shearin and Slater appealed Blue Cross's decision to deny coverage and were once again denied.

They both can file another appeal for a review to be done by an independent provider not associated with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina.

"There's nothing I can do, be on narcotics for the rest of my life and that's not something I want to do," said Slater

"I'm just hoping they'll change their mind and look at the people instead of looking at their pocket books," said Shearin.

Denial of coverage for this specific back surgery could just be the beginning. Dr. Bonin told ABC11 that Blue Cross is currently reviewing many conditions, prescriptions, and procedures.
 
RALEIGH (WTVD) -- William Shearin has lived with severe back pain for 15 years...

BCBS finally has realized it's power in the marketplace. Not only can it save billions by denying care, others follow it's lead and it then de facto devalops the standards.

This is only going to get worse.

The cart is now driving the horse.
 
BCBS finally has realized it's power in the marketplace. Not only can it save billions by denying care, others follow it's lead and it then de facto devalops the standards.

This is only going to get worse.

The cart is now driving the horse.

Maybe. But, then again, is denying coverage of fusion for 722.52 - discogenic pain - really a bad thing?(1)

Surgical treatment for primary back pain associated with
disk changes ("discogenic pain") is the more controversial
and less successful.1,2 When examination of the lumbar spine
reveals only common degenerative changes, the relation-
ship of these findings to a patient's back pain is unclear. Disk
degeneration, anular fissures, small protrusions, and facet ar-
thritis are commonly found in individuals with little or no
back pain.3-6 Furthermore, many studies have shown that se-
rious disability in this group is associated with abnormal psy-
chological profiles, multiple chronic pain processes, and com-
pensation issues.7,8 Conversely, longitudinal studies have found
that the severity of chronic pain illness in this group appears
to correlate much less well with presence or extent of degen-
erative findings than with these psychosocial or generalized
neurophysiological comorbid conditions.4,5 Not surpris-
ingly, the surgical treatment of this poorly defined disco-
genic pain illness has been somewhat disappointing.1,9 Ran-
domized trials of lumbar fusion compared with various
nonsurgical strategies have shown neither consistently good
outcomes with surgery nor clear benefit over nonsurgical treat
ments.10-12 In the randomized controlled trial (RCT) with the
best surgical results, the improvement in pain intensity score
was only 2 points (on a 10-point scale), and the disability im-
provement by Oswestry Disability Index was only 10 to 12
points (on a 100-point scale).11 Furthermore, clinical out-
comes appear to steadily deteriorate after 6 months. In a large
population-based study, approximately 18% of patients who
had spinal fusion for degenerative conditions experienced pro-
cedure-related complications; 20% of these patients went on
to reoperation over the next 5 years.13

In contrast, for primary lumbar radicular pain syndromes
or sciatica, the common clinical perception has been that sur-
gical treatment is more effective and more reasonably consid-
ered. In working-age persons, by far the most common cause
of sciatica has been lumbar disk herniation.14 In most instances,
imaging studies show clear pathologic disk herniation and root
compression. The question of misdiagnosis, a serious issue in
primary back pain syndromes in which imaging and provoca-
tive tests have poor validity, is much less of a problem in the
presence of sciatic tension signs, neurologic symptoms, and
concordant imaging studies. Fortunately, sciatica is usually a
short-lived condition, and many of those affected experience
only minor impairment and often do not seek medical atten-
tion. However, in some persons the radicular pain associated
with disk herniation can be severe, intolerable, and, when per-
sisting, gravely debilitating. How to treat patients seeking care
for this problem is controversial.

1. Surgical treatment of lumbar disk disorders. Carragee E. JAMA. 2006 Nov 22;296(20):2485-7.
 
Last edited:
Maybe. But, then again, is denying coverage of fusion for 722.52 - discogenic pain - really a bad thing?(1)

Blanket denial of coverage for a procedure which may have benefit for some patients is a bad idea.

If I ran an insurance company, I would try to have a committee of physicians to review requests for those elective surgeries that are controversial. At least then each case could be considered individually.

Health Insurance is no longer (if it ever was) about health, it's about money. Nothing else.
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...ble-than-google-sees-surge-in-complaints.html

Bloomberg



Laser Spine Institute's ad-centered business model generated a 34.3 percent net profit margin from 2006 through 2009. Source: Bloomberg


Play Video
May 4 (Bloomberg) -- For-profit laser spine centers such as the Laser Spine Institute advertise out-patient, non-invasive surgery and promote the operations at seminars in hotel meeting rooms. Not regulated like hospitals are, the centers are performing what some experts warn are ineffective, expensive and potentially dangerous procedures. Malpractice cases are mounting. Bloomberg's Kevin Thrash reports.(Source: Bloomberg)

Chart: Laser Spine Institute

For Laser Spine, the business model generated a 34.3 percent net profit margin from 2006 through 2009 eclipsing even the Internet giant’s 24.8 percent for that period. Photographer: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

Bonnie Balch searched online for a back surgeon and found a pitch she called irresistible: Laser Spine Institute LLC promised to ease her pain and have her out the door in a few hours.

Instead, her October 2008 surgery at the Tampa, Florida- based center left Balch incontinent, with a dangerous spinal fluid leak, she said. Still in pain, she was off work for almost a year and needed a second surgery elsewhere to get relief.

“They should have told me they couldn’t help me,” said Balch, 63, a Longmont, Colorado, flight attendant. “They are in it to make money.” Her insurer paid Laser Spine $90,176 for the operation, a follow-up procedure and some subsequent care.

Balch sued Laser Spine, alleging malpractice, in December 2009, one of 15 cases filed against the company in the past 18 months.

The lawsuits reflect growing complaints about a new area of medicine: high-volume, doctor-owned spinal surgery centers that market directly to patients on Google Inc.’s search site and others. For Laser Spine, the business model generated a 34.3 percent net profit margin from 2006 through 2009 -- eclipsing even the Internet giant’s 24.8 percent for that period.

Laser Spine and its competitors, part of a boom in outpatient clinics operated by entrepreneurial physicians, sell a high-tech version of procedures that have been around for years -- despite a lack of independent research to show that their variations lead to better outcomes. The company commands higher prices than laser-less rivals, driving up the cost of health care. Its number of malpractice claims per 1,000 surgeries is several times the rate for all U.S. outpatient surgery centers, based on insurance industry data.

‘Already Available’

“It strikes me as somewhat of a scam,” says Jeffrey Arle, a neurosurgeon at the Lahey Clinic near Boston who has treated former Laser Spine patients. He’s one of nine surgeons from across the U.S. who told Bloomberg News that the company’s laser surgery was either unnecessary or inappropriate for many patients who get it. “My conclusion is they are offering patients a version of what is already available in the regular medical care system.”

Laser Spine’s in-house surveys show positive outcomes for more than 87 percent of patients, though the institute has had trouble recruiting academics to examine those results, said Jimmy St. Louis, the company’s chief operations officer. Its staff screens those who respond to its ads rigorously, he said, and only 10 percent of them end up getting an operation. The company’s standards for safety and quality of care help determine its pricing, said Dotty Bollinger, its chief medical operations officer.

Works Every Day

“We know it works,” Bollinger said of the surgery. “We see it every day.” Laser Spine declined to discuss Balch’s claims, which it has denied in court filings.

Laser Spine often charges $30,000 for each procedure, according to interviews with several patients and copies of billing records. That’s twice as much as Aetna Inc., the third- largest U.S. health insurer, will pay for laser-less surgery. It’s more than twice the average reimbursement for spine procedures at Regent Surgical Health, a Westchester, Illinois- based company that operates 15 outpatient centers, according to Matt Lau, Regent’s corporate controller.

Laser Spine’s surgeons, some of whom are investors in the 6-year-old company, perform as many as 5,000 operations a year, using small tubes called endoscopes that are equipped with video cameras. They insert the lasers separately, through catheters.

Out of Bankruptcy

Founder James St. Louis, 56, was just a year out of personal bankruptcy when he began seeking investors for the company in 2003, court records show. Now he owns multimillion- dollar homes in Pinellas County, Florida and Aspen, Colorado. He declined an interview request.

The institute, which rewards employees with trips to the Bahamas when they hit sales and customer-satisfaction targets, has established surgical centers in Scottsdale, Arizona; Philadelphia; and Oklahoma City as well as Tampa. It now bills itself on the web as “the largest spine center in the world” and it had sales last year of $109 million, says Jimmy St. Louis, the COO and the founder’s son.

From 2006 through 2009, Laser Spine earned net income of $98.9 million on revenue of $288 million, a 34.3 percent profit margin, according to testimony that chief executive officer Bill Horne provided last year in a lawsuit. In that case, Joe Samuel Bailey, an Arkansas businessman and the chairman of a rival spine center, alleges that St. Louis stole his business plan. St. Louis and Laser Spine have denied that allegation in court.

Distributions to Investors

The company has distributed at least $77 million to a small group of shareholders, according to an opening statement made by Bailey’s lawyer in the same court case. Another document in the case indicates that James St. Louis was slated to receive a 25 percent interest. That would entitle him to $19.25 million from the distributions. Bollinger said the 25 percent figure is not accurate. She would not disclose individual stakes.

Other investors include the private equity unit of Dallas investment firm EFO Holdings LP, managed by William Esping, and two founders of OSI Restaurant Partners LLC, whose properties include Outback Steakhouse.

In 2009, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. valued Laser Spine at as much as $428 million, as part of the company’s consideration of an initial public offering, Horne testified in Bailey’s lawsuit. Bollinger said in an e-mail that this estimate and others provided by bankers were “rough guesses” and not reliable.

Aetna won’t cover operations at Laser Spine and some of its competitors, citing a lack of research to confirm their safety and effectiveness. Cigna Corp., the seventh largest U.S. insurer, won’t pay for the laser portion of the surgery. Other insurers provide less than full coverage.

Second Mortgages

Some patients, desperate for pain relief and a short recovery period, say they’ve tapped retirement accounts or taken out second mortgages to pay Laser Spine.

They’re not always satisfied with the results. Fifteen former Laser Spine patients -- whose cases came up in court records, in the institute’s materials and in online back-pain forums -- said in interviews that their operations provided only fleeting relief, or no relief at all, from their back pain.

The 15 malpractice claims since October 2009 came during a period in which the company performed about 7,500 procedures, based on its 2010 estimates. Nationally, outpatient surgery centers received about six malpractice claims for every 20,000 surgeries, according to data from Zurich North America, a commercial property and casualty insurer.

Bleeding Internally

Balch and others say that after their operations at Laser Spine they were told to get dressed and leave -- though Balch had suffered a spinal fluid leak and another patient was bleeding internally from two lacerated arteries, according to records in two malpractice suits. A third went to a hospital in need of emergency surgery just hours later, according to a state inspection report.

Laser Spine executives say they meet state regulatory requirements. The company is a target for malpractice suits because it’s fully insured, said Bollinger, the medical operations officer. With regard to the claims in those suits, the institute gave Bloomberg News a statement that said: “We do not believe it is appropriate to dispute the facts at issue with a patient in the public forum.”

Since July 2009, the institute has paid at least $2.8 million to seven patients to settle cases, according to the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation. Some of the cases were settled at the behest of Laser Spine’s insurer, Lexington Insurance Co., even though institute officials believed the care they provided was appropriate, Bollinger said.

FDA Rules

While the Food and Drug Administration regulates the use of drugs and medical devices, there’s virtually no federal oversight for the effectiveness of surgical techniques.

“This is an issue with surgery generally,” said Robert McDonough, head of clinical policy research and development at Aetna. “Surgeons can introduce new procedures that might be significantly different from established ones with no oversight of the claims they make.”

Drug-makers’ ads -- including sponsored links that appear in response to search-engine queries -- must disclose their medications’ risks, under FDA rules. Ads for surgical techniques have no similar rules. Rather than focusing on possible dangers or complications, one Laser Spine magazine ad pitches the ease of its procedures in a light-hearted way. It shows two topless women in bikini bottoms, their backs to the viewer. One of them wears a Band-Aid. “Who just had back surgery?” a caption asks.

Bollinger said the company informs patients about possible complications at “many stages of their decision-making process.”

Slow State Action

While state regulators have the authority to enforce standards of care, they’ve been slow to act against one laser- surgery practitioner, Lawrence Rothstein, said Gregory C. Gibson, a Centerville, Ohio, lawyer. Gibson represents plaintiffs in some of the 36 lawsuits that have been filed against Rothstein since 2006; 18 of them are pending.

The State Medical Board of Ohio hasn’t acted on patients’ complaints about Rothstein, Gibson said. Joan Wehrle, a spokeswoman for the board, declined to comment. The board keeps complaints and investigations confidential until any disciplinary action is taken, she said.

Rothstein, who developed his own laser-spine surgical techniques, acknowledges there were some bad outcomes from his surgery, said his brother, Steven Rothstein, a lawyer. He denies that any were the result of substandard care, Steven Rothstein said. Former patients allege various harms from their surgeries, including seizures, incontinence and lost sexual function. Several say they now need braces to walk.

Only License Needed

There’s little government oversight regarding which doctors can do spine surgery -- all they need is a medical license, whether their training is in orthopedics, foot surgery or pediatrics. Rothstein is an anesthesiologist.

In 19 of the cases against him, plaintiffs also named North American Spine, a Dallas-based company that uses Rothstein’s techniques. While North American is paying Rothstein $3.5 million over five years to use his methods, it no longer allows Rothstein to perform them, said Chris Lloyd, the company’s chief executive officer. Lloyd cited “bad outcomes” from some of Rothstein’s procedures.

North American Spine, which lists on its website two surgery centers in Texas, plans new facilities in New Jersey, Los Angeles, Mexico, Italy and Spain this year, Lloyd said in an interview. It’s one of several Laser Spine competitors that include the Laser Spine Center in New York and the Texas-based Minimally Invasive Spine Institute.

Outside the Model

Laser Spine and other companies operate outside the traditional model of medicine, in which patients are referred to specialists by other doctors. Instead, the centers reach customers directly via online marketing and seminars conducted in hotel conference rooms. Laser Spine plans 26 such seminars through the end of this month.

The number of U.S. Medicare-certified ambulatory surgery centers -- those that focus on outpatient procedures -- grew to 5,260 in 2009 from 3,512 in 2002. All but 4 percent of them are for-profit entities.

Like Laser Spine, 90 percent of U.S. ambulatory centers include doctors as investors, according to the Ambulatory Surgery Center Association.

Doctor-investors may lower their standards for deciding when to operate, according to researchers from the University of Michigan in a study in the journal Health Affairs last year. Looking at five common procedures at Florida surgery centers, they found that once doctors became investors, the number of surgeries they performed increased by 87 percent.

‘Financial Incentives’

Doctors at the same facilities who weren’t investors experienced little change in caseload during the same three-year period, the study found. “The increased surgery use that follows ownership acquisition may be attributable to the financial incentives of the investment,” the authors wrote.

At Laser Spine, incentives are offered to “patient coordinators,” according to a lawsuit filed in December by a former employee. They’re paid commissions based on the number of surgeries “booked or sold,” former coordinator Migdalia Noble claimed in the suit.

Sales commissions -- and bonuses such as Bahamas trips -- are based on both the volume of surgeries booked and the patients’ satisfaction, said Jimmy St. Louis, the COO. About 50 people made the last trip to the Atlantis resort, he said.

Centers that specialize in spinal surgery compete for an estimated $73 billion a year that Americans spend seeking relief from back and neck pain, based on 2008 data from researchers at the Dartmouth Medical School in Hanover, New Hampshire.

Competing Online

The competition extends to the web, where Laser Spine probably spends as much as $100,000 a month to have its site show up prominently among search engines’ results, said Meg Biscup, who oversees marketing for the Biscup Spine Institute. The Fort Lauderdale, Florida-based institute, which does minimally invasive procedures, is operated by her husband, Robert Biscup. Laser Spine executives declined to discuss what they spend on marketing.

A recent Google search of “Biscup Spine Institute” returned a link including the words “Safe Outpatient Procedure.” Clicking it took users to Laser Spine’s website -- evidence that Laser Spine paid the Mountain View, California- based search engine for key words related to Biscup, Meg Biscup says.

Google’s Policy

Laser Spine’s Bollinger said an advertising vendor “corrected this process error” after Bloomberg News asked about it. Google says it responds to complaints regarding advertisers’ use of others’ trademarks in two ways. In Australia, Brazil, China and elsewhere, Google doesn’t allow use of others’ trademarks in both ad text and key words. In the U.S., as in most other countries, it investigates trademark complaints involving ad text only.

James St. Louis was “driving two beat-up old cars and was out of money” in 2003 as he recruited investors for his planned spine center, according to a deposition given by Bailey, the Arkansas businessman who is chairman of North American Spine.

St. Louis now has seven cars, including a Cadillac and a Hummer, registered to his Florida address. It’s a 12,900-square- foot waterfront mansion that he bought in 2008 for $10.3 million. He bought another home in Aspen, Colorado, last year, paying $8.3 million.

His 2001 bankruptcy filing in Alabama listed assets of $527,660 and liabilities of $4.32 million. The next year, he took a job at the Hudson, Florida-based Bonati Institute, a minimally invasive spine center that claims to be “where laser spine surgery began.”

Patented Techniques

Founder Alfred Bonati later accused St. Louis of stealing patented surgical techniques in a 2008 federal lawsuit. The case was settled and both sides declined to comment on it.

Bonati was ordered last year to pay $11.8 million to William Clark, 72, a former patient whose complaint said he underwent at least eight procedures at the center that left him in constant pain. Clark developed an infection that spread to his bones and will never walk again, his complaint said. The award was made by a three-member board of arbitration in Pasco County, Florida.

Bonati, who claims a patient-reported success rate of 93 percent, did not respond to requests for comment.

Each spine center offers its own variation on a theme: disc surgery done through a tiny incision that the surgeon snakes an endoscope into.

Two Steps

About 80 percent of Laser Spine’s patients get the same two-step procedure, according to Robert Gruber, a physician who directs spinal diagnostics at the center in Tampa: First the surgeon burns off sensitive nerve endings in the joints between vertebrae, a process known as “ablation.” Then, he removes herniated disc material or bone spurs that press on nerves and cause pain -- a decompression, or “laminotomy.”

Both techniques have been in use for years. The innovations that Laser Spine and its rivals offer are to use endoscopes to keep the incisions small, and lasers for the ablations. Traditionally, surgeons have used electrical current from radio waves or other energy sources for the burning.

The evidence that ablation -- the laser-assisted process that gives the institute its name -- helps patients is “pretty weak,” says Roger Chou, a physician at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland who is the director of the American Pain Society’s clinical guidelines program.

“Even in studies showing some benefit, the benefit is small and doesn’t last that long,” Chou said. Nerve endings can regenerate over time. It’s difficult to find a clinical basis for Laser Spine’s procedures, he said. “It sounds like a shotgun approach.”

Decompression’s Benefits

Surgeons consider the second procedure, decompression, more beneficial for certain patients. It’s generally successful in treating 60 to 70 percent of patients with spinal stenosis -- a narrowing of the canal that holds the spinal cord and nerves -- said Jon Lurie, a spine doctor and researcher at Dartmouth- Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, New Hampshire.

“Spinal stenosis is our bread and butter,” said Laser Spine’s Gruber. Still, unaffiliated surgeons have treated former Laser Spine patients who didn’t need the procedure and shouldn’t have gotten it, said Choll W. Kim, a San Diego surgeon who founded the Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery.

“Their marketing is so powerful,” Kim said. “Many of us have seen patients that needed something different and got the Laser Spine surgery.”

One man with adult scoliosis, a curvature of the spine that required more extensive surgery, received two decompression operations at Laser Spine, said surgeon Donald S. Corenman of Vail, Colorado.

‘Major Surgical Fix’

“That didn’t give him relief,” Corenman said. “His problem is he needed a major surgical fix.”

Corenman said he’s treated 20 patients who needed more help after their surgery at Laser Spine, including Balch, the flight attendant who experienced the spinal fluid leak. Left untreated or unrepaired, such leaks can lead to intense headaches, higher risk of infection, and in rare cases, meningitis.

Laser Spine repaired Balch’s leak and then sent her back to her hotel room for three days, according to her complaint. She should have been admitted to a hospital and restricted to a bed for 24 hours, Corenman said. Her spine began leaking again, she said in an interview.

Ultimately, Corenman performed spinal-fusion surgery on Balch -- a procedure that often requires the use of screws and plates as well as at least six weeks of recovery. It’s precisely the operation she’d hoped to avoid when she chose Laser Spine, she said. She’s one of six former Laser Spine patients who said in interviews that they later underwent fusions.

Cited Four Times

Florida regulators cited the company for deficiencies at least four times since September 2007. The citations include using unsterile equipment; failing to report adverse events at the facility, including performing the wrong procedure on a patient; and instances in which patients with complications were sent to back to their hotel rooms -- on a stretcher in one case -- or told not to go to a hospital. The company corrected all deficiencies in each instance, according to state records.

In one incident, cited in a Nov. 6, 2008, state report, an emergency room doctor at a Tampa-area hospital called the institute at 1 a.m. to report a patient who had spine surgery the previous day needed immediate surgery because of a hematoma -- that is, a collection of blood outside a blood vessel -- that was pressing on a nerve root.

The physician assistant who answered at the institute “instructed” the doctor to send the patient back to his hotel room and have him return to Laser Spine in the morning, according to the report. The doctor refused; the patient received successful surgery at the hospital, the report says.

Paying a Premium

Many Laser Spine patients say they knew they were paying a premium for the surgery, but did so because of the promise of a quick and easy fix for their back or neck pain.

Dale Henderson of Orrington, Maine, paid $30,000 out of pocket for an ablation and decompression surgery at Laser Spine on Oct. 7, 2008 and $25,500 for a second decompression a week later, according to copies of his bills. He said he received a discount on the second procedure.

Medicare patients treated at Laser Spine pay $17,900 of their own funds to cover a “facility fee” that Bollinger said the government insurer won’t pay to free-standing ambulatory care centers. For hospital-based outpatient spinal decompressions, Medicare pays an average facility fee of $3,535.

The company bills Medicare patients for the higher fee because the government pays only “a fraction of reasonable charges,” Bollinger said. Laser Spine charges more because it provides more service and medical staff than others, she said.

Coffee Bar

In the company’s Tampa waiting room, patients lounge in leather recliners, taking in a floor-to-ceiling view of Tampa Bay. Catered meals are available, as are beverages from a coffee bar. Photographs of patients line the wall.

“It’s amazing,” says Glen Magee, a restaurant owner in Kentwood, Louisiana, of the results of his 2008 surgery at Laser Spine. He said he felt better immediately after the surgery than he had at any point in the past 20 years.

Patients’ testimonials appear by the dozens on the institute’s website. One of them is Charley Shirley of Marietta, Georgia, who’s quoted saying “I feel like a new person.” That quote came just two days after his surgery. His relief didn’t last, he said in an interview.

“A year or so later, I was still aggravated with lower back pain,” said Shirley, who works for Accor SA’s Motel 6 chain. He subsequently underwent a spinal fusion operation in Atlanta, which he described as moderately successful.

Hulk’s New Surgery

It’s unclear whether wrestler Terry “Hulk” Hogan, who also provided a testimonial for Laser Spine, experienced lasting relief. In December, though, Hogan publicly reported that he was having major spinal fusion surgery at a different facility. He declined an interview request.

Patient Hulon Taylor said he met his Laser Spine surgeon, Craig Wolff, less than an hour before he went into the operating room on Feb. 19, 2009.

The institute’s website describes Wolff as a surgeon with “esteemed credentials” who “has been revolutionizing the field of orthopedic surgery for over 20 years.”

It does not mention that in 2005 the state Board of Medicine filed an administrative complaint against Wolff, charging him with operating on the wrong side of a patient’s spine. The complaint was settled last year; Wolff received a letter of concern from the board, paid a $10,000 fine and agreed to attend continuing education classes. He neither admitted nor denied the allegations.

No Medical Error

The action against Wolff occurred before he arrived at Laser Spine and was an “administrative error” not a medical one, the institute said in a written statement. Wolff declined to comment.

When Taylor, 61, arrived at Laser Spine’s Tampa headquarters, he says, all he knew about the surgery was what the staff told him: It would take 45 minutes and he would be back in his hotel room that evening.

Taylor never returned to his hotel room. After the surgery, he told staffers that his stomach was “really hurting,” he said in an interview. He said Wolff came by and indicated it was just gas. The nurses told him to get dressed, it was “time to go,” he said.

As he put his clothes on, he fainted. He remembers waking up at Tampa General Hospital.

Taylor suffered “life-threatening injuries” to two arteries from the surgery, according to the attending surgeon’s report at Tampa General. He lost so much blood to internal bleeding that he suffered a heart attack, medical records show.

Billed Insurer

Someone from Laser Spine came by the hospital while he was recuperating and returned his $15,000 deposit, Taylor said. Still, the company billed his insurer and collected $36,940 for the surgery, payment records show. In all, his insurer paid $174,056 for the back surgery and subsequent emergency surgery and recovery at Tampa General, according to billing records.

Taylor was unable to return to his job as a foreman for the local utility company near his home in Bonifay, Florida. He sued Laser Spine and recently settled. While the terms are confidential, the company’s insurer told the state it paid $200,000 toward the settlement. The insurer does not have to disclose whether Laser Spine contributed any funds.

“Have a good day and a Band-Aid didn’t cut it for me,” Taylor said in an interview. “That is too good to be true.”

To contact the reporter responsible for this story: David Armstrong in Boston at [email protected]

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Gary Putka at [email protected]
 
An Operation to Ease Back Pain Bolsters the Bottom
Line, Too
By REED ABELSON AND MELODY PETERSEN
A complex operation called spinal fusion has emerged as the treatment of choice for many kinds of
unrelenting back pain. A quarter million of the procedures, in which metal rods are screwed into the spine to
stabilize it, were performed this year in the United States, three times as many as a decade ago.
But a number of researchers say there is little scientific evidence to show that for most patients, spinal
fusion works any better than a simpler operation, the laminectomy. And laminectomies get patients out of
the hospital and back to their daily routine much faster. Some people, experts add, would be better off with
no surgery at all. Even doctors who favor fusions say that more research is needed on their benefits.
In the absence of better data, critics in the field point to a different reason for the fusion operation's fast rise:
money.
Medicare can pay a surgeon as much as four times more for a spinal fusion, some doctors say, as for a
laminectomy, an operation in which some bone is removed from the spine to relieve pressure on the spinal
cord and nerves. Hospitals also collect two to four times as much, a gulf that has grown steadily as fusion
operations have grown more complex. Medicare spent an estimated $750 million last year on spinal fusions,
said Sam Mendenhall, the editor and publisher of Orthopedic Network News, a newsletter.
So like hysterectomies or certain forms of prostate surgery, some doctors say, back surgery is an example of
how money can influence decisions about which treatments to use -- especially when there is limited
evidence about which treatments work best. Indeed, as the nation's biggest health plan, Medicare plays a
huge role in shaping American health care, from the kinds of hospitals that get built to the amount of
chemotherapy drugs that cancer doctors prescribe.
''The reality of it is, we all cave in to market and economic forces,'' said Dr. Edward C. Benzel, a spine
surgeon who is chairman of the Cleveland Clinic Spine Institute. Though doctors, as a rule, should favor the
least complicated treatment -- with surgery being the last resort -- Dr. Benzel estimated that fewer than half
of the spinal fusions done today were probably appropriate. He described the current system of paying
doctors as ''totally perverted.''
Doctors and hospitals are not the only players with a financial stake in fusion operations. Critics blame the
companies that make the hardware for promoting more complex fusions without evidence that they are
significantly more effective. Some sort of hardware is used in almost 90 percent of lower-back fusions, Mr.
Mendenhall said, compared with fewer than half in 1996. Between Medicare and private insurers, the
national bill for the hardware alone has soared to $2.5 billion a year, he said.
''A lot of technological innovation serves shareholders more than patients,'' he said.
The hardware makers acknowledge giving surgeons millions of dollars in consulting fees, royalty payments
and research grants, but say the money promotes technical and medical advances that improve back care.
''We can't innovate to help patients without these physician relationships,'' said Bob Hanvik, a spokesman
for Medtronic, the Minneapolis company that is the biggest maker of spinal hardware. ''Most physicians
don't want to give away their time.''
Some former Medtronic employees, however, have accused the company of paying surgeons kickbacks. A lawsuit brought by Scott A. Wiese, a former sales representative, accused Medtronic of trying to persuade
surgeons to use its products with offers of first-class plane tickets to Hawaii and nights at the finest hotels.
Some of those lucrative consulting contracts, the suit claimed, involved little or no work.
Medtronic said it did nothing wrong, and it denied the accusations in the lawsuit, which was filed in 2001
and settled in 2002. But the company disclosed earlier this year that the federal government was
investigating charges that it paid illegal kickbacks to surgeons. Federal officials declined to comment on the
investigation, and Medtronic said it would vigorously defend itself.
Still, between the allure of money and the quest for breakthroughs in treatment, some prominent spinal
surgeons say that back care has gone astray.
''I see too many patients who are recommended a fusion that absolutely do not need it,'' said Dr. Zoher
Ghogawala, a Yale University clinical assistant professor of neurosurgery who is conducting a study
comparing spinal fusion with laminectomy. Health experts note that if Medicare is overpaying doctors for
back operations, other kinds of care are shortchanged, because the program is budgeted a fixed amount each
year for doctor's fees.
Fees vary widely around the country, but several surgeons said that Medicare reimbursed doctors roughly
$4,000 for a spinal fusion, versus $1,000 for a laminectomy. Mr. Mendenhall said that hospitals typically
collected $16,000 for a fusion -- and $10,000 more for an increasingly common ''360 degree'' operation in
which hardware is attached to both the front and back of the spine -- versus $7,000 for a laminectomy.
''The money is driving a lot of this,'' Mr. Mendenhall said. The cost to patients will differ based on their
insurance coverage, and patients with traditional Medicare coverage will have to shoulder some of the
higher surgeon fees. But some patients may push for what they believe is the most-advanced treatment.
Many spine surgeons defend fusion operations, saying that some patients clearly benefit from them, even if
some of the procedures are not warranted.
''There is some indication that if you do it right, it can benefit people,'' said Dr. Eric J. Woodard, a spine
surgeon at Brigham & Women's Hospital in Boston, who noted that a well-designed Swedish study recently
showed positive results for some patients. More research needs to be done, he added, to identify the
category of patients who have the best odds of being helped. In the meantime, Dr. Woodard said, many
doctors are being more selective about who gets a fusion operation.
In part, the rise of spinal fusions represents the natural process of medicine. Surgeons perform operations,
and when -- as in the case of back pain -- the outcomes are mixed, surgeons strive to improve their
techniques.
The Medicare payment system, in turn, rewards complexity, because it lets doctors bill for the individual
procedures they perform within a single operation. It also tries to encourage the development of new
medical technologies. And the makers of medical devices like fusion hardware exert themselves with
frequent success in persuading Medicare to pay for their new products.
Earlier this year, for example, Medtronic persuaded the government to cover a new kind of bone graft
material, called Infuse, for use in spinal fusions. Surgeons describe the new material as having the potential
to represent a real advance. Still, Medtronic scored a significant coup, experts said, in Medicare's decision to
make an additional payment, as much as $4,450, to hospitals to help cover the cost of Infuse, on top of the
flat fee paid for the operation.
''The power of the device industry is growing tremendously,'' including its ability to influence Medicare
officials, said Susan Bartlett Foote, a professor of health policy at the University of Minnesota.
Medicare officials are unaware of any problems concerning reimbursements for spinal fusions, an agency
spokeswoman said. Industry executives said that Medicare patients deserved quick access to breakthrough
treatments that might improve the quality of their lives.
Because of the scant data on the benefits of back operations, patients with similar complaints receive widely
differing treatments for their pain, according to a 1999 study by researchers at the Center for the Evaluative Clinical Sciences at Dartmouth College. The National Institutes of Health is doing a large study to determine
which patients will benefit from various treatments.
''There is a real paucity of convincing science about spinal fusion in particular,'' said Dr. Richard A. Deyo, a
professor of medicine and of health sciences at the University of Washington. He was involved in the
attempt by the federal government in the mid-1990's to issue guidelines for back surgery.
The guidelines, which recommended a conservative approach and discouraged surgery, were roundly
attacked by spine surgeons. Indeed, the surgeons nearly succeeded in persuading Congress to eliminate
financing for the federal Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, which developed the guidelines.
Sofamor Danek, the Medtronic unit that makes fusion hardware and was then an independent company,
unsuccessfully sued to prevent the agency from making its recommendations public.
Some surgeons are disturbed by the level of influence that industry has on their profession, particularly in
research. ''This is a topic which orthopedic surgeons, neurosurgeons and the societies associated with both
their groups are definitely concerned about,'' said Dr. Brett A. Taylor, an orthopedic surgeon at Washington
University in St. Louis.
The absence of solid research means that patients sometimes have little to go on in deciding whether to have
surgery.
Three years ago, Dr. Sam Ho, the chief medical officer of PacifiCare, a California insurer, suddenly
developed severe back pain, the result of an extruded disc. His neurosurgeon, he said, insisted that he
needed a laminectomy, but the surgeon could not offer any studies indicating that the operation would help.
Nor, Dr. Ho said, could the surgeon tell him how many operations he had performed or how his own
patients had fared.
Dr. Ho said he refused the surgery and made a complete recovery within two months.
Spinal fusion has a history of controversy. Device makers were the subject of numerous lawsuits in the
early 1990's charging that they were paying surgeons illegal kickbacks to use their screws. Most suits were
unsuccessful, often because courts were not convinced that the screws had caused injury or pain.
But similar accusations have surfaced in recent years. In his lawsuit, filed in a state court in Los Angeles,
Mr. Wiese, the former Medtronic sales representative, said that he was told by his bosses to do ''whatever it
takes'' to sell fusion hardware. Two doctors demanded consulting contracts in return for using Medtronic's
products, the suit contended, but the contracts were a ''sham,'' because little work was done for the pay. The
suit was settled for undisclosed terms, and Mr. Wiese's lawyer declined to comment on the matter.
In interviews, two other former Medtronic employees said that the company engaged in similar practices as
recently as last year. They said that Medtronic's sales representatives routinely offered enticements to
surgeons to use the company's hardware, including lavish trips and visits to a strip club near the Memphis
headquarters of the Sofamor Danek division. The former employees said they had spent as much as $1,000 a
night per doctor for a night on the town.
''It's a business deal,'' said one of the employees, who declined to be named because he still works in the
medical device industry. ''It takes money to make money.''
A document provided by one of the former employees listed about 80 surgeons who have consulting
agreements with Medtronic that pay as much as $400,000 a year.
Mr. Hanvik, the Medtronic spokesman, said that the company had policies in place to prevent its sales
agents from providing improper inducements to surgeons. The company works closely with some surgeons,
he said, and pays them fairly for their time creating new devices and improving the design of existing
products. The annual amounts on the list are the maximum each doctor can receive. ''They only get paid for
the work they do,'' he said.
Trying to rise above the flood of money, researchers like Dr. Ghogawala at Yale say they are now
conducting studies free of industry support in search of basic answers about the efficacy of back operations.
Having raised private money to finance his pilot study comparing fusions and laminectomies, Dr. Ghogawala plans to apply for government financing for a larger, five-year study.
''I think we are identifying who needs it and who does not,'' he said. ''It's critical to know if it's a lot of
unnecessary surgery for a lot of people.''
Re-examining Medicare
Since its inception in 1965, Medicare has improved the health of the elderly while playing an outsize role in
shaping the delivery of health care for all Americans.
This article is the seventh in a series examining efforts to overhaul Medicare and ways that the rules of the
program influence the economics and practice of medicine.
The articles will remain online at nytimes.com/business.
Correction: January 6, 2004, Tuesday Because of an editing error, a front-page article on Wednesday about
an increase in the number of spinal-fusion operations misstated the given name of the editor and publisher
of Orthopedic Network News, who said Medicare spent $750 million last year on spinal fusions. He is Stan
Mendenhall, not Sam.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top
 
For those interested, see the attached.
 

Attachments

  • knifeinback.pdf
    116.8 KB · Views: 81
The data from the original post has now been published in Spine:

http://journals.lww.com/spinejourna...b0e070d4e818a7d8c000d39986e&elqCampaignId=478

and a press release has been put out by AAPMR.

I'm glad they are throwing some support behind this. With Obamacare, ACOs, the developing backlash against opioids, this seems to be golden opportunity taking shape for Musculoskeletal Physiatry.

I think the next step is for each PMR state society to take-up this cause and push this agenda locally, with the backing of the AAPMR.
 
Top