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 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 A Systematic Review of Therapeutic Facet Joint Interventions in Chronic Spinal Pain

2007 ◽  
Vol 1;10 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 229-253
Author(s):  
Mark V. Boswell
Keyword(s):  
Pain Relief ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Medial Branch ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Radiofrequency Neurotomy ◽  
Short And Long Term ◽  
Facet Joint Interventions ◽  
Joint Injections

Background: Facet joints are considered to be a common source of chronic spinal pain. Facet joint interventions, including intraarticular injections, medial branch nerve blocks, and neurotomy (radiofrequency and cryoneurolysis) are used to manage chronic facet-mediated spinal pain. A systematic review of therapeutic facet interventions published in January 2005, concluded that facet interventions were variably effective for short-term and long-term relief of facet joint pain. Objective: To provide an updated evaluation of the effectiveness of 3 types of facet joint interventions in managing chronic spinal pain. Study Design: A systematic review utilizing criteria established by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) for evaluation of randomized and non-randomized trials and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group for randomized trials. Methods: Data sources included relevant literature of the English language identified through searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE (November 2004 to December 2006) and manual searches of bibliographies of known primary and review articles within the last 2 years. Results of the analyses were performed for the different modes of facet joint interventions for the cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine, to determine short- and long-term outcome measurements and complications associated with these procedures. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was pain relief. For intraarticular facet joint injections and medial branch blocks, short-term pain relief was defined as relief lasting less than 6 weeks and long-term relief as 6 weeks or longer. For medial branch blocks, repeated injections at defined intervals provided long-term pain relief. For medial branch radiofrequency neurotomy, short-term pain relief was defined as relief lasting less than 3 months and long-term relief as lasting 3 months or longer. Other outcome measures included functional improvement, improvement of psychological status, and return to work. Results: For cervical intraarticular facet joint injections, the evidence is limited for short- and long-term pain relief. For lumbar intraarticular facet joint injections, the evidence is moderate for short- and long-term pain relief. For cervical, thoracic, and lumbar medial branch nerve blocks with local anesthetics (with or without steroids), the evidence is moderate for short- and longterm pain relief with repeat interventions. The evidence for pain relief with radiofrequency neurotomy of cervical and lumbar medial branch nerves is moderate for short- and long-term pain relief, and indeterminate for thoracic facet neurotomy. Conclusion: With intraarticular facet joint injections, the evidence for short- and long-term pain relief is limited for cervical pain and moderate for lumbar pain. For medial branch blocks, the evidence is moderate for short- and long-term pain relief. For medial branch neurotomy, the evidence is moderate for short- and long-term pain relief. Key words: Spinal pain, neck pain, low back pain, facet or zygapophysial joints, intraarticular facet joint injections, medial branch blocks, therapeutic medial branch blocks, radiofrequency neurotomy, cryodenervation.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review and Best Evidence Synthesis of Effectiveness of Therapeutic Facet Joint Interventions in Managing Chronic Spinal Pain

2015 ◽  
Vol 18;4 (4;18) ◽  
pp. E535-E582 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Nerve Blocks ◽  
Radiofrequency Neurotomy ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Facet Joint Interventions ◽  
Chronic Spinal Pain

Background: The therapeutic spinal facet joint interventions generally used for the treatment of axial spinal pain of facet joint origin are intraarticular facet joint injections, facet joint nerve blocks, and radiofrequency neurotomy. Despite interventional procedures being common as treatment strategies for facet joint pathology, there is a paucity of literature investigating these therapeutic approaches. Systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of various therapeutic facet joint interventions have shown there to be variable evidence based on the region and the modality of treatment utilized. Overall, the evidence ranges from limited to moderate. Objective: To evaluate and update the clinical utility of therapeutic lumbar, cervical, and thoracic facet joint interventions in managing chronic spinal pain. Study Design: A systematic review of therapeutic lumbar, cervical, and thoracic facet joint interventions for the treatment of chronic spinal pain. Methods: The available literature on lumbar, cervical, and thoracic facet joint interventions in managing chronic spinal pain was reviewed. The quality assessment criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria and Interventional Pain Management Techniques – Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM – QRB) for randomized trials and Interventional Pain Management Techniques – Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM – QRBNR) for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified at 5 levels from Level I to Level V. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches on PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 through March 2015, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake consumption. Results: A total of 21 randomized controlled trials meeting appropriate inclusion criteria were assessed in this evaluation. A total of 5 observational studies were assessed. In the lumbar spine, for long-term effectiveness, there is Level II evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, whereas the evidence is Level III for lumbosacral intraarticular injections. In the cervical spine, for long-term improvement, there is Level II evidence for cervical radiofrequency neurotomy and cervical facet joint nerve blocks, and Level IV evidence for cervical intraarticular injections. In the thoracic spine there is Level II evidence for thoracic facet joint nerve blocks and Level IV evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy for long-term improvement. Limitations: The limitations of this systematic review include an overall paucity of high quality studies and more specifically the lack of investigations related to thoracic facet joint injections. Conclusion: Based on the present assessment for the management of spinal facet joint pain, the evidence for long-term improvement is Level II for lumbar and cervical radiofrequency neurotomy, and therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine; Level III for lumbar intraarticular injections; and Level IV for cervical intraarticular injections and thoracic radiofrequency neurotomy. Key Words: Spinal pain, chronic low back pain, chronic neck pain, chronic thoracic pain, intraarticular facet joint blocks, facet joint nerve blocks, conventional radiofrequency neurotomy, pulsed radiofrequency neurolysis

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 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 Ultrasound Guidance for Interventional Pain Management of Lumbar Facet Joint Pain: An Anatomical and Clinical Study

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Masoud Hashemi ◽  
Seyed Mohammad Jazayeri ◽  
Asadollah Saadat Niaki ◽  
Mahshid Nikooseresht ◽  
Alireza Hosseinpanah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Study ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Joint Pain ◽  
Ultrasound Guidance ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Lumbar Facet Joint ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Facet Joint Pain ◽  
Lumbar Facet

scholarly journals Spinal Cord Stimulation Trends of Utilization and Expenditures in Fee-For-Service (FFS) Medicare Population from 2009 to 2018

2021 ◽  
pp. 293-308
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Spinal Cord Stimulation ◽  
Pulse Generator ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Fee For Service ◽  
Annual Increase ◽  
Medicare Population ◽  
Utilization Patterns ◽  
Facet Joint Interventions

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation has been utilized with increasing frequency in managing chronic intractable spinal pain and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) in addition to other neuropathic pain states. The literature has shown the effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation in managing chronic pain with improvement in quality of life and cost utility. There have not been any reviews performed in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population in reference to utilization and expenditure patterns of spinal cord stimulators. OBJECTIVES: This investigation was undertaken to assess the utilization and expenditures for spinal cord stimulation in the FFS Medicare population from 2009 to 2018. STUDY DESIGN: The present study was designed to assess the utilization patterns and expenditures in all settings, for all providers in the FFS Medicare population from 2009 to 2018 in the United States. A standard 5% national sample of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) physician outpatient billing claims data. All the expenditures were presented with allowed costs and adjusted to inflation to 2018 US dollars only trials and implants were included. RESULTS: Utilization patterns showed that spinal cord stimulation trials increased from 12,680 in 2009 to 36,280 in 2018, a 186% increase with an annual increase of 12.4%. The rate of trials per 100,000 population increased from 28 in 2009 to 61 in 2018 with a 120% increase, or an annual increase of 9.1%. The pulse generator implants increased from 7,640 in 2009 to 22,960 in 2018, an increase of 201%, with an annual increase of 13%. In addition, percutaneous placement with pulse generator implants increased from 4,080 in 2009 to 14,316 in 2018, a 252% increase, or 15% annual increase. In contrast, implantation of neurostimulator electrodes with paddle leads with laminectomy and placement of spinal pulse generator increased from 3,560 in 2009 to 8,600 in 2018, a 142% increase or an annual increase of 10.3%. Analysis of expenditures showed total inflation-adjusted expenditures increased from $292,153,701 in 2009 to $1,142,434,137 in 2018, a 291% increase from 2009 to 2018 and 16.4% annual increase. These expenditures were 125% higher than facet joint interventions and 138% higher than epidural interventions in 2018. In contrast, these expenditures were 55% below the expenditures of facet joint interventions and 66% lower than epidural injections in 2009. Trial to implant ratio improved from 42.5% in 2009 to 63.6% in 2018. An overwhelming majority of trials (90%) were performed by nonsurgical physicians, whereas, 56% of implants were performed by non-surgeons. LIMITATIONS: This assessment includes only FFS Medicare population, thus eliminating approximately 30% of the population with Medicare Advantage plans. In addition, this study has not taken into consideration various revisions not included in 3 specific codes. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of spinal cord stimulators in the FFS Medicare population from 2009 to 2018 showed explosive increases of trials, implants and overall costs. KEY WORDS: Chronic pain, spinal pain, spinal cord stimulation, spinal cord stimulation trial, pulse generator implant, paddle leads with laminectomy, utilization trends of expenditures

scholarly journals Trends of Expenditures and Utilization of Facet Joint Interventions in Fee-For-Service (FFS) Medicare Population from 2009-2018

2020 ◽  
Vol 3S;23 (5;3S) ◽  
pp. S129-S147
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Facet Joint ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fee For Service ◽  
Nerve Blocks ◽  
Annual Increase ◽  
Adjusted Cost ◽  
Medicare Population ◽  
Radiofrequency Neurotomy ◽  
Facet Joint Interventions ◽  
Annual Decline

Background: The trends of the expenditures of facet joint interventions have not been specifically assessed in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population since 2009 Objectives: The objective of this investigation is to assess trends of expenditures and utilization of facet joint interventions in FFS Medicare population from 2009 to 2018. Study Design: The study was designed to analyze trends of expenditures and utilization of facet joint interventions in FFS Medicare population from 2009-2018 in the United States. In this manuscript: • A patient was considered as undergoing facet joint interventions throughout the year. • A visit included all regions treated during the visit. • An episode was considered as one per region utilizing primary codes only. • Services or procedures were considered all procedures (multiple levels). Data for the analysis was obtained from the standard 5% national sample of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) physician outpatient billing claims for those enrolled in the FFS Medicare program from 2009 to 2018. All the expenditures were presented with allowed costs and also were inflation adjusted to 2018 US dollars. Results: This analysis showed expenditures increased by 79% from 2009 to 2018 in the form of total cost for facet joint interventions, at an annual rate of 6.7%. Cervical and lumbar radiofrequency neurotomy procedures increased 185% and 169%. However, inflation-adjusted expenditures with 2018 US dollars showed an overall increase of 53% with an annual increase of 4.9%. In addition, using inflation-adjusted expenditures per procedures increased, the overall 6% with an annual increase of 0.7%. Overall, per patient costs, with inflation adjustment, decreased from $1,925 to $1,785 with a decline of 7% and an annual decline of 0.8%. Allowed charges per visit also declined after inflation adjustment from $951.76 to $849.86 with an overall decline of 11% and an annual decline of 1.3%. Staged episodes of radiofrequency neurotomy were performed in 23.9% of patients and more than 2 episodes for radiofrequency neurotomy in 6.9%, in lumbar spine and 19.6% staged and 5.1% more than 2 episodes in cervical spine of patients in 2018. Limitations: This analysis is limited by inclusion of only the FFS Medicare population, without adding utilization patterns of Medicare Advantage plans, which constitutes almost 30% of the Medicare population. Conclusions: Even after adjusting for inflation, there was a significant increase for the expenditures of facet joint interventions with an overall 53% increase. Costs per patient and cost per visit declined. Inflation-adjusted cost per year declined 7% overall and 0.8% annually from $1,925 to $1,785, and inflation-adjusted cost per visit also declined 11% annually and 1.3% per year from $952 in 2009 to $850 in 2018. Key words: Facet joint interventions, facet joint nerve blocks, facet joint neurolysis, facet joint injections, Medicare expenditures

scholarly journals Steroid Distancing in Interventional Pain Management During COVID-19 and Beyond: Safe, Effective and Practical Approach

2020 ◽  
Vol 4S;23 (8;4S) ◽  
pp. S319-S350
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Nerve Blocks ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Joint Injections

Background: Since the late 1940s, corticosteroids have been a mainstay class of agents in multiple interventional techniques and intra-articular injections. Exogenous glucocorticoids are structurally and pharmacologically similar to the endogenous hormones. As such, multiple actions of corticosteroids are exhibited, including those of anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects. Epidural injections, with or without steroids, have been extensively used throughout the world. There are reports of epidural injections starting in 1901, with steroids being added to the local anesthetic since 1952, when steroids were administered into the sacral foramen. Purpose: Due to the extensive side effects of steroids in various injections, some have proposed limiting their use in epidurals and intraarticular injections. With the COVID-19 pandemic, the multiple side effects of the steroids have elevated the level of concern and recommendations have been made to utilize local anesthetic alone or the lowest dose of steroids. Fashioned from common expressions of the day, the term “steroid distancing” began to be used and proposed for intraarticular injections of the knee. Consequently, we sought to evaluate the evidence and feasibility of steroid distancing in interventional pain management. Methods: This focused review of local anesthetics and steroids utilized in interventional pain management for epidural injections, peripheral nerve blocks, and intraarticular injections by multiple database searches. This is a focused narrative review and not a systematic review. Consequently, evidence synthesis was not performed traditionally, but was based on an overview of the available evidence. Results: No significant difference was identified based on whether steroids are added to local anesthetic or not for epidural as well as facet joint injections. However, there was not enough evidence to compare these 2 groups for peripheral intraarticular injections. Limitations: The present review is limited by the paucity of literature with bupivacaine alone or bupivacaine with steroids local anesthetic alone or with steroids of intraarticular injections of knee, hip, shoulder and other joints, and intraarticular facet joint injections. Conclusion: This review shows an overall lack of significant difference between lidocaine alone and lidocaine with steroids in epidural injections. However, available evidence is limited for bupivacaine alone or with steroids. Evidence is also not available comparing local anesthetic alone with steroids for facet joint or peripheral joint intraarticular injections. Thus, it is concluded that local anesthetic with lidocaine may be utilized for epidural injections, with appropriate patient selection and steroids reserved for non-responsive patients with local anesthetic and with significant radiculitis. Key words: Steroid distancing, chronic pain, steroids, epidural injections, local anesthetic alone, local anesthetic with steroid, steroid distancing, physical distancing

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document