scholarly journals Utilization of Interventional Techniques in Managing Chronic Pain in the Medicare Population: Analysis of Growth Patterns from 2000 to 2011

2012 ◽  
Vol 6;15 (6;12) ◽  
pp. E969-E982 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Sacroiliac Joint ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Medicare Beneficiaries ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Geometric Average ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Facet Joint Interventions ◽  
Joint Injections

Background: Reports from the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Institute of Medicine (IOM), the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) continue to express significant concern with the overall fiscal sustainability of Medicare and the exponential increase in costs for chronic pain management. Study Design: The study is an analysis of the growth of interventional techniques in managing chronic pain in Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 to 2011. Objective: To evaluate the use of all interventional techniques in chronic pain management. Methods: The study was performed utilizing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master Data from 2000 to 2011. Results: Interventional techniques for chronic pain have increased dramatically from 2000 to 2011. Overall, the increase of interventional pain management (IPM) procedures from 2000 to 2011 went up 228%, with 177% per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries. The increases were highest for facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks with a total increase of 386% and 310% per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries, followed by 168% and 127% for epidural and adhesiolysis procedures, 150% and 111% for other types of nerve blocks and finally, 28% and 8% increases for percutaneous disc procedures. The geometric average of annual increases was 9.7% overall with 13.7% for facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks and 7.7% for epidural and adhesiolysis procedures. Limitations: The limitations of this study included a lack of inclusion of Medicare participants in Medicare Advantage plans, as well as potential documentation, coding, and billing errors. Conclusion: Interventional techniques increased significantly in Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 to 2011. Overall, there was an increase of 177% in the utilization of IPM services per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries, with an annual geometric average increase of 9.7%. The study also showed an exponential increase in facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks. Key words: Interventional techniques, interventional pain management, facet joint injections, epidural steroid injections, sacroiliac joint injections, chronic pain, chronic spinal pain

scholarly journals Analysis of Growth of Interventional Techniques in Managing Chronic Pain in the Medicare Population: A 10-Year Evaluation from 1997 to 2006

2009 ◽  
Vol 1;12 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 9-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Ambulatory Surgery ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Medicare Beneficiaries ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Ambulatory Surgery Center ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Joint Injections ◽  
Surgery Center

Background: Recent reports of the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) expressed significant concern with overall fiscal sustainability of Medicare and exponential increase in costs for interventional pain management techniques. Interventional pain management (IPM) is an evolving specialty amenable to multiple influences. Evaluation and isolation of appropriate factors for increasing growth patterns have not been performed. Study Design: Analysis of the growth of interventional techniques in managing chronic pain in Medicare beneficiaries from 1997 to 2006. Objective: To evaluate the use of all interventional techniques. Methods: The standard 5% national sample of the CMS carrier claim record data for 1997, 2002, and 2006 was utilized. This data set provides information on Medicare enrollees in the feefor-service Medicare program. Current procedural technology (CPT) codes for 1997, 2002, and 2006 were used to identify the number of procedures performed each year, and trends in expenditures. Results: Interventional techniques increased significantly in Medicare beneficiaries from 1997 to 2006. Overall, there was an increase of 137% in patients utilizing IPM services with an increase of 197% in IPM services, per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries. The majority of the increases were attributed to exponential growth in the performance of facet joint interventions. There was a 13.9-fold difference in the increase between the state with the lowest rate and the state with the highest rate in utilization patterns of interventional techniques (California 37% vs. Connecticut 514%), with an 11.6-fold difference between Florida and California (431% vs. 37% increase). In 2006, Florida showed a 12.7-fold difference compared to Hawaii with the lowest utilization rate. Hospital outpatient department (HOPD) expenses constituted the highest increase with fewer patients treated either in an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) or in-office setting. Overall HOPD payments constituted 5% of total 2006 Medicare payments, in contrast to 57% of total IPM payments, an 11.4-fold difference. Limitations: The limitations of this study include a lack of inclusion of Medicare participants in Medicare Advantage plans and potential documentation, coding, and billing errors. Conclusion: This study shows an overall increase of IPM services of 197% compared to an increase of 137% in patients utilizing IPM services from 1997 to 2006. Key words: Interventional techniques, interventional pain management, facet joint injections, epidural steroid injections, sacroiliac joint injections, chronic pain, chronic spinal pain, ambulatory surgery center (ASC), hospital outpatient department (HOPD)

scholarly journals Accountable Interventional Pain Management: A Collaboration Among Practitioners, Patients, Payers, and Government

2013 ◽  
Vol 6;16 (6;11) ◽  
pp. E635-E670
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Sacroiliac Joint ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fee For Service ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Facet Joint Interventions

The prevalence, costs, and disability associated with chronic pain continue to escalate. So too, the numerous modalities of treatments applied in managing these patients continue to increase as well. In the period from 2000 to 2011 interventional techniques increased 228%. In addition, analysis of utilization trends and expenditures for spinal interventional techniques alone from 2000 to 2008 illustrated an increase in Medicare fee-for-service expenditures of 240% in terms of dollars spent in the United States. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services showed an increase in facet joint and transforaminal epidural injections, with a significant proportion of these services did not meet the medical necessity criteria. The increasing utilization of interventional techniques is also associated with significant variations among specialty groups and regional variations among states. Overall procedures have increased by 173%, with rate of 130% per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries for epidural injections; 383%, with a rate of 308% for facet joint interventions; and overall 410%, or a rate of 331% for sacroiliac joint interventions. Certain high volume interventions such as lumbar transforaminal epidural injections and lumbar facet joint neurolysis have actually increased a staggering 806% and 662%. Coverage policies across ambulatory settings and by multiple payers are highly variable. Apart from variability in the development of coverage policies, payments also substantially vary by site of service. In general, amongst the various ambulatory settings the highest payments are made to hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) the lowest to in-office procedures, and payment to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) falling somewhere in the middle. This manuscript describes the many differences that exist between the various settings, and includes suggestions for accountable interventional pain management with coverage for techniques with evidence, addressing excessive use of specific techniques, and equalizing payments across multiple ambulatory settings. Key words: Accountable interventional pain management, Medicare, Medicare Evidence Development & Coverage Advisory Committee, epidural injections, facet joint interventions, sacroiliac joint injections, payment policies

scholarly journals Assessment of the Escalating Growth of Facet Joint Interventions in the Medicare Population in the United States from 2000 to 2011

2013 ◽  
Vol 4;16 (4;7) ◽  
pp. E365-E378
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Medicare Beneficiaries ◽  
Annual Increase ◽  
Radiofrequency Neurotomy ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Facet Joint Interventions ◽  
Lumbar Facet ◽  
Joint Injections

Background: Both the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and reports from studies of the utilization of facet joint interventions have expressed that explosive increases in facet joint interventions provided to spinal pain patients are a major concern. Study Design: The study is designed to assess the growth of facet joint interventions in managing spinal chronic pain in Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 to 2011. Objective: To assess the use of facet joint interventions in chronic pain management. Methods: The study was performed utilizing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) physician supplier procedure summary master data from 2000 to 2011. Results: The utilization of all types of facet joint interventions increased enormously from 2000 to 2011, with an overall increase of 308% per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries and a 13.6% average annual increase. In addition, the highest increases were seen for cervical/ thoracic radiofrequency neurotomy with 836%, followed by an increase of 662% for lumbar/ sacral radiofrequency neurotomy, a 359% increase in cervical/thoracic facet joint injections, and 228% increase in lumbosacral facet joint injections. In reference to the number of procedures performed, however, the highest numbers were in the lumbosacral region with 990,449 total procedures of lumbar facet joint blocks and 406,378 lumbosacral radiofreqency neurotomies in 2011. Cervical and thoracic facet joint nerve blocks were 317,220, whereas cervical and thoracic radiofrequency neurotomies were 97,526 in 2011. The data also showed that there were enormous increases in the proportion of procedures performed by the specialty of physical medicine and rehabilitation, with an increase of 781% and an annual increase of 21.9% excluding physicians of physical medicine and rehabilitation enrolled as interventional pain management or pain management. Even though the numbers were very low for nurse anesthetists, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, the increases were from 143 in 2000 to 21,263 in 2011, providing an annual increase of 55.2%, an overall increase of 12,460%. Limitations: The limitations of this study included a lack of inclusion of Medicare participants in Medicare Advantage plans, as well as potential documentation, coding, and billing errors. Furthermore, the data provided for state utilizations is based on claims data for that state which also may include patients from contiguous or other states receiving services in those states. Conclusions: The explosive increase in the number of lumbar facet joint interventions performed began to wane in 2008. From 2008 to 2010, the utilization of facet joint interventions declined by 6%. Key Words: Chronic spinal pain, interventional pain management, interventional techniques, facet joint injections, medial branch blocks, radiofrequency neurotomy

scholarly journals Utilization and Growth Patterns of Sacroiliac Joint Injections from 2000 to 2011 in the Medicare Population

2013 ◽  
Vol 4;16 (4;7) ◽  
pp. E379-E390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Sacroiliac Joint ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Growth Patterns ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Medicare Beneficiaries ◽  
Medicare Population ◽  
Joint Injections

Background: The high prevalence of persistent low back pain and growing number of diagnostic and therapeutic modalities employed to manage chronic low back pain and the subsequent impact on society and the economy continue to hold sway over health care policy. Among the multiple causes responsible for chronic low back pain, the contributions of the sacroiliac joint have been a subject of debate albeit a paucity of research. At present, there are no definitive conservative, interventional or surgical management options for managing sacroiliac joint pain. It has been shown that the increases were highest for facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks with an increase of 310% per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 to 2011. There has not been a systematic assessment of the utilization and growth patterns of sacroiliac joint injections. Study Design: Analysis of the growth patterns of sacroiliac joint injections in Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 to 2011. Objectives: To evaluate the utilization and growth patterns of sacroiliac joint injections. Methods: This assessment was performed utilizing Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary (PSPS) Master data from 2000 to 2011. Results: The findings of this assessment in Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 to 2011 showed a 331% increase per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries with an annual increase of 14.2%, compared to an increase in the Medicare population of 23% or annual increase of 1.9%. The number of procedures increased from 49,554 in 2000 to 252,654 in 2011, or a rate of 125 to 539 per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries. Among the various specialists performing sacroiliac joint injections, physicians specializing in physical medicine and rehabilitation have shown the most increase, followed by neurology with 1,568% and 698%, even though many physicians from both specialties have been enrolling in interventional pain management and pain management. Even though the numbers were small for nonphysician providers including certified registered nurse anesthetists, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, these numbers increased substantially at a rate of 4,526% per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries with 21 procedures performed in 2000 increasing to 4,953 procedures in 2011. The, majority of sacroiliac joint injections were performed in an office setting. The utilization of sacroiliac joint injections by state from 2008 to 2010 showed increases of more than 20% in New Hampshire, Alabama, Minnesota, Vermont, Oregon, Utah, Massachusetts, Kansas, and Maine. Similarly, some states showed significant decreases of 20% or more, including Oklahoma, Louisiana, Maryland, Arkansas, New York, and Hawaii. Overall, there was a 1% increase per 100,000 Medicare population from 2008 to 2010. However, 2011 showed significant increases from 2010. Limitations: The limitations of this study included a lack of inclusion of Medicare participants in Medicare Advantage plans, the availability of an identifiable code for only sacroiliac joint injections, and the possibility that state claims data may include claims from other states. . Conclusions: This study illustrates the explosive growth of sacroiliac joint injections even more than facet joint interventions. Furthermore, certain groups of providers showed substantial increases. Overall, increases from 2008 to 2010 were nominal with 1%, but some states showed over 20% increases whereas some others showed over 20% decreases. Key words: Chronic spinal pain, low back pain, sacroiliac joint arthritis, interventional techniques, interventional pain management, sacroiliac joint injections

scholarly journals An Updated Assessment of Utilization of Interventional Pain Management Techniques in the Medicare Population: 2000 – 2013

2015 ◽  
Vol 2;18 (2;3) ◽  
pp. E115-E127
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Fee For Service ◽  
Medicare Beneficiaries ◽  
Average Increase ◽  
Annual Average ◽  
Average Growth ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Medicare Population ◽  
Interventional Pain Management

Background: The rapid increase in the prevalence of chronic pain and disability, and the explosion of interventional pain management associated health care costs are a major concern for our community. Further, the increasing utilization of numerous modalities of treatments in managing chronic pain, continue to escalate at a pace which may not be sustainable. There are multiple regulations in place to control the growth of health care expenditures which seem to have been largely ineffective. Among the various modalities utilized in managing chronic pain, interventional techniques have shown a significant increase in their utilization in the face of continued debate with respect to the accuracy of diagnostic interventions and the efficacy of therapeutic interventions. Objective: To update and assess the utilization of interventional techniques in chronic pain management in fee-for-service Medicare population. Study Design: An updated analysis of the growth of interventional techniques in managing chronic pain in fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 through 2013. Methods: The data were derived and analyzed utilizing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master Data from 2000 through 2013. Results: From 2000 through 2013, in fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, the overall utilization of interventional techniques services increased 236% at an annual average growth of 9.8%, whereas the per 100,000 Medicare population utilization increased 156% with an annual average growth of 7.5%. During this period, the US population increased 12% with an annual average increase of 0.9%, whereas those above 65 years of age increased 27% with an annual average increase of 1.9%. Total Medicare beneficiaries increased 31% with an annual average increase of 2.1%, with an overall increase of 64% for those above 65 years of age, an increase of 26%, constituting 17% of the US population in 2013. The overall increases in epidural and adhesiolysis procedures were 165% compared to 102% per 100,000 fee-for-service population with annual average increases of 7.8% and 5.6%. Facet joint and sacroiliac joint injections increased 417% for services with an annual average increase of 13.5%, whereas the rate per 100,000 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries increased 295% with an annual average increase of 11.1%. Limitations: Limitations of this assessment include the lack of inclusion of participants from Medicare Advantage plans, lack of appropriate available data for state-wide utilization, and potential errors in documentation, coding, and billing. Conclusion: This update once again shows a significant increase in interventional techniques in feefor-service Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 through 2013 with an increase of 156% per 100,000 Medicare population with an annual average increase of 7.5%. During this period the Medicare population increased 31% with an annual average increase of 2.1%. Key words: Chronic pain, chronic spinal pain, interventional pain management, interventional techniques, epidural injections, facet joint interventions, sacroiliac joint injections

Reversal of Growth of Utilization of Interventional Techniques in Managing Chronic Pain in Medicare Population Post Affordable Care Act

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (20;7) ◽  
pp. 551-567 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti,
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Sacroiliac Joint ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
The United States ◽  
Nerve Blocks ◽  
Annual Increase ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Medicare Population ◽  
Utilization Patterns ◽  
Facet Joint Interventions

Background: Over the past 2 decades, the increase in the utilization of interventional techniques has been a cause for concern. Despite multiple regulations to reduce utilization of interventional techniques, growth patterns continued through 2009. A declining trend was observed in a previous evaluation; however, a comparative analysis of utilization patterns of interventional techniques has not been performed showing utilization before and after the enactment of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Objectives: Our aim is to assess patterns of utilization and variables of interventional techniques in chronic pain management in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population, with a comparative analysis of pre- and post-ACA. Study Design: Utilization patterns and variables of interventional techniques were assessed from 2000 to 2009 and from 2009 to 2016 in the FFS Medicare population of the United States in managing chronic pain. Methods: The master data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) physician/ supplier procedure summary from 2000 to 2016 was utilized to assess overall utilization and comparative utilization at various time periods. Results: The analysis of Medicare data from 2000 to 2016 showed an overall decrease in utilization of interventional techniques 0.6% per year from 2009 to 2016, whereas from 2000 to 2009, there was an increase of 11.8% per year per 100,000 individuals of the Medicare population. In addition, the United States experienced an increase of 0.7% per year of population growth, 3.2% of those 65 years or older and a 3% annual increase in Medicare participation from 2009 to 2016. Further analysis also showed a 1.7% annual decrease in the rate of utilization of epidural and adhesiolysis procedures per 100,000 individuals of the Medicare population, with a 2.2% decrease for disc procedures and other types of nerve blocks, whereas there was an increase of 0.8% annually for facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks from 2009 to 2016. Epidural and adhesiolysis procedures showed an 8.9% annual increase, facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks showed a 17.6% increase, and disc procedures and other types of nerve blocks showed a 7.2% increase annually per 100,000 individuals of the Medicare population from 2000 to 2009. Limitations: The limitations of this assessment include lack of analysis of individual procedures. Additional limitations include lack of inclusion of patients from Medicare Advantage plans and lack of complete and accurate data for statewide utilization. Conclusion: From 2009 to 2016, interventional techniques decreased at an annual rate of 0.6% with an overall decrease of 3.9%, compared to an overall increase of 173.6% from 2000 to 2009 with an annual increase of 11.8%. An additional analysis of data with individual procedures is essential to gain further insights into utilization patterns. Key words: Interventional pain management, chronic spinal pain, interventional techniques, epidural injections, adhesiolysis, facet joint interventions, sacroiliac joint injections, disc procedures, other types of nerve blocks

scholarly journals Percutaneous Adhesiolysis Procedures in the Medicare Population: Analysis of Utilization and Growth Patterns from 2000 to 2011

2014 ◽  
Vol 2;17 (2;3) ◽  
pp. E129-E139
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Facet Joint ◽  
Growth Patterns ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Medicare Beneficiaries ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Medicare Population ◽  
Utilization Patterns ◽  
Facet Joint Interventions ◽  
Joint Injections

Background: Multiple reviews have shown that interventional techniques for chronic pain have increased dramatically over the years. Of these interventional techniques, both sacroiliac joint injections and facet joint interventions showed explosive growth, followed by epidural procedures. Percutaneous adhesiolysis procedures have not been assessed for their utilization patterns separately from epidural injections. Study Design: An analysis of the utilization patterns of percutaneous adhesiolysis procedures in managing chronic low back pain in the Medicare population from 2000 to 2011. Objective: To assess the utilization and growth patterns of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing chronic low back pain. Methods: The study was performed utilizing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master of Fee-For-Service (FFS) Data from 2000 to 2011. Results: Percutaneous adhesiolysis procedures increased 47% with an annual growth rate of 3.6% in the FFS Medicare population from 2000 to 2011. These growth rates are significantly lower than the growth rates for sacroiliac joint injections (331%), facet joint interventions (308%), and epidural injections (130%), but substantially lower than lumbar transforaminal injections (665%) and lumbar facet joint neurolysis (544%). Limitations: Study limitations include lack of inclusion of Medicare Advantage patients. In addition, the statewide data is based on claims which may include the contiguous or other states. Conclusion: Percutaneous adhesiolysis utilization increased moderately in Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 to 2011. Overall, there was an increase of 47% in the utilization of adhesiolysis procedures per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries, with an annual geometric average increase of 3.6%. Key words: Interventional techniques, chronic spinal pain, epidural steroid injections, percutaneous adhesiolysis, post surgery syndrome, spinal stenosis

scholarly journals Utilization of Interventional Techniques in Managing Chronic Pain In Medicare Population from 2000 to 2014: An Analysis of Patterns of Utilization

2016 ◽  
Vol 4;19 (4;5) ◽  
pp. E531-E546 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Medicare Beneficiaries ◽  
Annual Average ◽  
Nerve Blocks ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Medicare Population ◽  
Patterns Of Utilization ◽  
Utilization Patterns ◽  
Facet Joint Interventions

Background: The increase in the utilization of various techniques in managing chronic pain, including interventional techniques, is a major concern for policy-makers and the public at large. Consequently, multiple regulations have been instituted to reduce health care expenditures in general and expenditures related to interventional techniques in particular. Previous investigations have shown significant increases of utilization of interventional techniques across the board with minor decreases noted in 2007, 2010, 2012 and 2013. Objective: To assess the patterns of utilization of interventional techniques in chronic pain management in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population. Study Design: Analysis of utilization patterns of interventional techniques from 2000 to 2014 in Fee-for-Services (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries in managing chronic pain. Methods: The analyzed data was derived from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Data from 2000 to 2014. Results: The analysis of data from 2000 to 2014 in FFS Medicare beneficiaries showed overall utilization of interventional techniques increasing at a rate of 153% and an annual average growth rate of 6.9% per 100,000 Medicare population with increase in services of 242%. This showed a 3% decrease per 100,000 Medicare population, compared to the data from 2000 through 2013, even though services increased by 6% due to the increase in the number of Medicare recipients in the FFS beneficiary group. The overall increases in epidural and adhesiolysis procedures were 165% with a rate of 96% per 100,000 Medicare population with an average annual increase of 4.9%. Facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks increased at a rate of 313% per 100,000 population with an annual average increase of 10.7%. Disc procedures and other types of nerve blocks increased at a much lesser pace than epidural and adhesiolysis procedures or facet joint interventions with an increase of 54% per 100,000 Medicare population and annual increase of 3.1%. A decrease in utilization was noted in 5 of 14 years ranging from 1.2% to 3.8%. Limitations: The limitations of this updated utilization patterns of interventional techniques in managing chronic pain are multiple with lack of inclusion of participants from Medicare Advantage Plans, lack of complete and accurate data for statewide utilization, and potential errors in coding, billing, and documentation. Conclusion: This overall analysis of patterns of utilization in managing chronic pain with interventional techniques showed a continued and significant increase in FFS Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 to 2014 with an increase of 153% per 100,000 Medicare population and at a rate of 6.9% on average per year. However, there were decreases of 2.9% in 2007, 3.8% in 2010, and 1.3%, 3.4%, and 1.2% from 2012 to 2014. Key words: Interventional pain management, chronic spinal pain, interventional techniques, epidural injections, adhesiolysis, facet joint interventions, sacroiliac joint injections, disc procedures, other types of nerve blocks

scholarly journals Reassessment of Evidence Synthesis of Occupational Medicine Practice Guidelines for Interventional Pain Management

2008 ◽  
Vol 4;11 (8;4) ◽  
pp. 393-482
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Strong Evidence ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Medial Branch ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Interventional Pain Management

Background: Appropriately developed practice guidelines present statements of best practice based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence from published studies on the outcomes of treatments, which include the application of multiple methods for collecting and evaluating evidence for a wide range of clinical interventions and disciplines. However, the guidelines are neither infallible, nor a substitute for clinical judgment. While the guideline development process is a complex phenomenon, conflict of interest in guideline development and inappropriate methodologies must be avoided. It has been alleged that the guidelines by the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) prevent injured workers from receiving the majority of medically necessary and appropriate interventional pain management services. An independent critical appraisal of both chapters of the ACOEM guidelines showed startling findings with a conclusion that these guidelines may not be applied in patient care as they scored below 30% in the majority of evaluations utilizing multiple standardized criteria. Objective: To reassess the evidence synthesis for the ACOEM guidelines for the low back pain and chronic pain chapters utilizing an expanded methodology, which includes the criteria included in the ACOEM guidelines with the addition of omitted literature and application of appropriate criteria. Methods: For reassessment, randomized trials were utilized as it was in the preparation of the guidelines. In this process, quality of evidence was assessed and recommendations were made based on grading recommendations of Guyatt et al. The level of evidence was determined utilizing the quality of evidence criteria developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), as well as the outdated quality of evidence criteria utilized by ACOEM in the guideline preparation. Methodologic quality of each individual article was assessed utilizing the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) methodologic assessment criteria for diagnostic interventions and Cochrane methodologic quality assessment criteria for therapeutic interventions. Results: The results of reassessment are vastly different from the conclusions derived by the ACOEM guidelines. The differences in strength of rating for the diagnosis of discogenic pain by provocation discography and facet joint pain by diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks is established with strong evidence. Therapeutic cervical and lumbar medial branch blocks and radiofrequency neurolysis, therapeutic thoracic medial branch blocks, cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections, caudal epidural steroid injections, lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, percutaneous and endoscopic adhesiolysis, and spinal cord stimulation qualified for moderate to strong evidence. Additional insight is also provided for evidence rating for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET), automated percutaneous disc decompression, and intrathecal implantables. Conclusion: The reassessment and reevaluation of the low back and chronic pain chapters of the ACOEM guidelines present results that are vastly different from the published and proposed guidelines. Contrary to ACOEM’s conclusions of insufficient evidence for most interventional techniques, the results illustrate moderate to strong evidence for most diagnostic and therapeutic interventional techniques. Key words: Guidelines, evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, ACOEM, interventional pain management, interventional techniques, guideline development, workers’ compensation, chronic pain guidelines, low back pain guidelines

scholarly journals Triaging Interventional Pain Procedures During COVID-19 or Related Elective Surgery Restrictions: Evidence-Informed Guidance from the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP)

2020 ◽  
Vol 4S;23 (8;4S) ◽  
pp. E183-S204
Author(s):  
Christopher Gharibo
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Surgical Procedures ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Elective Surgical Procedures ◽  
Chronic Pain Patients ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Pain Patients

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the pain and suffering of chronic pain patients due to stoppage of “elective” interventional pain management and office visits across the United States. The reopening of America and restarting of interventional techniques and elective surgical procedures has started. Unfortunately, with resurgence in some states, restrictions are once again being imposed. In addition, even during the Phase II and III of reopening, chronic pain patients and interventional pain physicians have faced difficulties because of the priority selection of elective surgical procedures. Chronic pain patients require high intensity care, specifically during a pandemic such as COVID-19. Consequently, it has become necessary to provide guidance for triaging interventional pain procedures, or related elective surgery restrictions during a pandemic. Objectives: The aim of these guidelines is to provide education and guidance for physicians, healthcare administrators, the public and patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our goal is to restore the opportunity to receive appropriate care for our patients who may benefit from interventional techniques. Methods: The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) has created the COVID-19 Task Force in order to provide guidance for triaging interventional pain procedures or related elective surgery restrictions to provide appropriate access to interventional pain management (IPM) procedures in par with other elective surgical procedures. In developing the guidance, trustworthy standards and appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest were applied with a section of a panel of experts from various regions, specialties, types of practices (private practice, community hospital and academic institutes) and groups. The literature pertaining to all aspects of COVID-19, specifically related to epidemiology, risk factors, complications, morbidity and mortality, and literature related to risk mitigation and stratification was reviewed. The evidence -- informed with the incorporation of the best available research and practice knowledge was utilized, instead of a simplified evidence-based approach. Consequently, these guidelines are considered evidence-informed with the incorporation of the best available research and practice knowledge. Results: The Task Force defined the medical urgency of a case and developed an IPM acuity scale for elective IPM procedures with 3 tiers. These included emergent, urgent, and elective procedures. Examples of emergent and urgent procedures included new onset or exacerbation of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), acute trauma or acute exacerbation of degenerative or neurological disease resulting in impaired mobility and inability to perform activities of daily living. Examples include painful rib fractures affecting oxygenation and post-dural puncture headaches limiting the ability to sit upright, stand and walk. In addition, urgent procedures include procedures to treat any severe or debilitating disease that prevents the patient from carrying out activities of daily living. Elective procedures were considered as any condition that is stable and can be safely managed with alternatives. Limitations: COVID-19 continues to be an ongoing pandemic. When these recommendations were developed, different stages of reopening based on geographical regulations were in process. The pandemic continues to be dynamic creating every changing evidence-based guidance. Consequently, we provided evidence-informed guidance. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges in IPM creating needless suffering for pain patients. Many IPM procedures cannot be indefinitely postponed without adverse consequences. Chronic pain exacerbations are associated with marked functional declines and risks with alternative treatment modalities. They must be treated with the concern that they deserve. Clinicians must assess patients, local healthcare resources, and weigh the risks and benefits of a procedure against the risks of suffering from disabling pain and exposure to the COVID-19 virus. Key words: Coronavirus, COVID-19, interventional pain management, COVID risk factors, elective surgeries, interventional techniques, chronic pain, immunosuppression

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document