Unrestricted Direct Access to Physical Therapist Services Is Associated With Lower Health Care Utilization and Costs in Patients With New-Onset Low Back Pain

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brigid Garrity ◽  
Christine McDonough ◽  
Omid Ameli ◽  
James Rothendler ◽  
Kathleen Carey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Utilization ◽  
Physical Therapist ◽  
Care Physician ◽  
Direct Access ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Unrestricted Access ◽  
New Onset

Abstract Background Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most prevalent conditions for which patients seek physical therapy in the United States. The American Physical Therapy Association categorizes direct access to physical therapist services into 3 levels: limited, provisional, and unrestricted. Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of level of access to physical therapist services with LBP-related health care utilization and costs. Design This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with new-onset LBP between 2008 and 2013; data were from OptumLabs Data Warehouse. Methods We identified 59,670 individuals who were 18 years old or older, who had new-onset LBP, and who had commercial or Medicare Advantage insurance through a private health plan. We examined 2 samples. The first was health care utilization among individuals who saw a physical therapist first in states with either unrestricted access or provisional access. The second was LBP-related costs among individuals who saw either a physical therapist or a primary care physician first. Results Individuals who saw a physical therapist first in states with provisional access had significantly higher measures of health care utilization within 30 days, including plain imaging and frequency of physician visits, than individuals who saw a physical therapist first in states with unrestricted access. Compared with individuals who saw a primary care physician first, pooled across provisional-access and unrestricted-access states, those who saw a physical therapist first in provisional-access states had 25% higher relative costs at 30 days and 32% higher relative costs at 90 days, whereas those who saw a physical therapist first in unrestricted-access states had 13% lower costs at 30 days and 32% lower costs at 90 days. Limitations This was a claims-based study with limited information on patient characteristics, including severity and duration of pain. Conclusions Short-term LBP-related health care utilization and costs were lower for individuals in unrestricted-access states than in provisional-access states.

PTSD symptom clusters associated with physical health and health care utilization in rural primary care patients exposed to natural disaster

2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa A. Polusny ◽  
Barry J. Ries ◽  
Jessica R. Schultz ◽  
Patrick Calhoun ◽  
Lisa Clemensen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Utilization ◽  
Physical Health ◽  
Natural Disaster ◽  
Ptsd Symptom ◽  
Symptom Clusters ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Rural Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Patients

scholarly journals Health status and health care utilization after discharge from geriatric in-hospital stay – description of a register-based study

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Rydwik ◽  
R. Lindqvist ◽  
C. Willers ◽  
L. Carlsson ◽  
G. H. Nilsson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Health Status ◽  
Health Care Utilization ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Future Studies ◽  
Healthcare Data ◽  
Utilization Data ◽  
Hospital Stays ◽  
Socioeconomic Data

Abstract Background This study is the first part of a register-based research program with the overall aim to increase the knowledge of the health status among geriatric patients and to identify risk factors for readmission in this population. The aim of this study was two-fold: 1) to evaluate the validity of the study cohorts in terms of health care utilization in relation to regional cohorts; 2) to describe the study cohorts in terms of health status and health care utilization after discharge. Methods The project consist of two cohorts with data from patient records of geriatric in-hospital stays, health care utilization data from Stockholm Regional Healthcare Data Warehouse 6 months after discharge, socioeconomic data from Statistics Sweden. The 2012 cohort include 6710 patients and the 2016 cohort, 8091 patients; 64% are women, mean age is 84 (SD 8). Results Mean days to first visit in primary care was 12 (23) and 10 (19) in the 2012 and 2016 cohort, respectively. Readmissions to hospital was 38% in 2012 and 39% in 2016. The validity of the study cohorts was evaluated by comparing them with regional cohorts. The study cohorts were comparable in most cases but there were some significant differences between the study cohorts and the regional cohorts, especially regarding amount and type of primary care. Conclusion The study cohorts seem valid in terms of health care utilization compared to the regional cohorts regarding hospital care, but less so regarding primary care. This will be considered in the analyses and when interpreting data in future studies based on these study cohorts. Future studies will explore factors associated with health status and re-admissions in a population with multi-morbidity and disability.

scholarly journals Approaches to Evaluations of Virtual Care in Primary Care

2022 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. es0358
Author(s):  
Daphne Hui ◽  
Bert Dolcine ◽  
Hannah Loshak
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Utilization ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Cost Analyses ◽  
Virtual Care ◽  
Primary Care Health ◽  
Guidance Documents ◽  
Care Health

A literature search informed this Environmental Scan and identified 11 evaluations of virtual care in primary care health settings and 7 publications alluding to methods, standards, and guidelines (referred to as evaluation guidance documents in this report) being used in various countries to evaluate virtual care in primary care health settings. The majority of included literature was from Australia, the US, and the UK, with 2 evaluation guidance documents published by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. Evaluation guidance documents recommended using measurements that assess the effectiveness and quality of clinical care including safety outcomes, time and travel, financial and operational impact, participation, health care utilization, technology experience including feasibility, user satisfaction, and barriers and facilitators or measures of health equity. Evaluation guidance documents specified that the following key decisions and considerations should be integrated into the planning of a virtual care evaluation: refining the scope of virtual care services; selecting an appropriate meaningful comparator; and identifying opportune timing and duration for the evaluation to ensure the evaluation is reflective of real-world practice, allows for adequate measurement of outcomes, and is comprehensive, timely, feasible, non-complex, and non–resource-intensive. Evaluation guidance documents highlighted that evaluations should be systematic, performed regularly, and reflect the stage of virtual care implementation to encompass the specific considerations associated with each stage. Additionally, evaluations should assess individual virtual care sessions and the virtual care program as a whole. Regarding economic components of virtual care evaluations, the evaluation guidance documents noted that costs or savings are not limited to monetary or financial measures but can also be represented with time. Cost analyses such as cost-benefit and cost-utility estimates should be performed with a specific emphasis on selecting an appropriate perspective (e.g., patient or provider), as that influences the benefits, effects, and how the outcome is interpreted. Two identified evaluations assessed economic outcomes through cost analyses in the perspective of the patient and provider. Evidence suggests that, in some circumstances, virtual care may be more cost-effective and reduces the cost per episode and patient expenses (e.g., travel and parking costs) compared to in-person care. However, virtual care may increase the number of individuals treated, which would increase overall health care spending. Four identified evaluations assessed health care utilization. The evidence suggests that virtual care reduces the duration of appointments and may be more time-efficient compared to in-person care. However, it is unclear if virtual care reduces the use of medical resources and the need for follow-up appointments, hospital admissions, and emergency department visits compared to in-person care. Five identified evaluations assessed participation outcomes. Evidence was variable, with some evidence reporting that virtual care reduced attendance (e.g., reduced attendance rates) and other evidence noting improved attendance (e.g., increased completion rate and decreased cancellations and no-show rates) compared to in-person care. Three identified evaluations assessed clinical outcomes in various health contexts. Some evidence suggested that virtual care improves clinical outcomes (e.g., in primary care with integrated mental health services, symptom severity decreased) or has a similar effect on clinical outcomes compared to in-person care (e.g., use of virtual care in depression elicited similar results with in-person care). Three identified evaluations assessed the appropriateness of prescribing. Some studies suggested that virtual care improves appropriateness by increasing guideline-based or guideline-concordant antibiotic management, or elicits no difference with in-person care.

scholarly journals Where to Start? A Two Stage Residual Inclusion Approach to Estimating Influence of the Initial Provider on Health Care Utilization and Costs for Low Back Pain in the US

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Harwood ◽  
Jesse Pines ◽  
C. Holly A. Andrilla ◽  
Bianca K. Frogner
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Health Care Utilization ◽  
Index Date ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Opioid Prescription ◽  
Serious Illness

Abstract Background: Diagnostic testing and treatment recommendations can vary when medical care is sought by individuals for low back pain (LBP), leading to variation in quality and costs of care. We examine how first provider seen by an individual at initial diagnosis of LBP influences downstream utilization and costs. Methods: Using national private health insurance claims data, individuals age 18 or older were retrospectively assigned to cohorts based on the first provider seen at the index date of LBP diagnosis. Exclusion criteria included individuals with a diagnosis of LBP or any serious medical conditions, or an opioid prescription recorded in the six months prior to the index date. Outcome measures included use of imaging, back surgery rates, hospitalization rates, emergency department visits, early- and long-term opioid use, and costs (out-of-pocket and total costs of care) twelve months post-index date. We used a common econometric technique, two-stage residual inclusion (2SRI) estimation to reduce selection bias in the choice of first provider, controlling for demographics.Results: Among 3,799,593 individuals, cost and utilization varied considerably based on first provider seen by the patient. The frequency of early opioid prescription was significantly lower when care began with an acupuncturist or chiropractor, and highest for those who began with an emergency medicine physician or advanced practice registered nurse (APRN). Long-term opioid prescriptions were low across most providers except physical medicine and rehabilitation physicians and APRNs. The frequency and time to serious illness varied little across providers. Total cost of care was lowest when starting with a chiropractor ($5,093) or primary care physician ($5,660), and highest when starting with an orthopedist ($9,434) or acupuncturist ($9,205). Conclusion: The first provider seen by individuals with LBP was associated with large differences in health care utilization, opioid prescriptions, and cost while there were no differences in delays in diagnosis of serious illness.

scholarly journals Intersectional equity in health care: assessing complex inequities in primary and secondary care utilization by gender and education in northern Sweden

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fortune N. Nyamande ◽  
Paola A. Mosquera ◽  
Miguel San Sebastián ◽  
Per E. Gustafsson
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Utilization ◽  
Horizontal Equity ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Northern Sweden ◽  
Equity In Health ◽  
Percentage Points ◽  
Low Educated ◽  
Equity In Health Care

Abstract Background Knowledge remains scarce about inequities in health care utilization between groups defined, not only by single, but by multiple and intersecting social categories. This study aims to estimate intersectional horizontal inequities in health care utilization by gender and educational level in Northern Sweden, applying a novel methodological approach. Methods Data on participants (N = 22,997) aged 16–84 years from Northern Sweden came from the 2014 Health on Equal Terms cross sectional survey. Primary (general practitioner) and secondary (specialist doctor) health care utilization and health care needs indicators were self-reported, and sociodemographic information came from registers. Four intersectional categories representing high and low educated men, and high and low educated women, were created, to estimate intersectional (joint, referent, and excess) inequalities, and needs-adjusted horizontal inequities in utilization. Results Joint inequalities in primary care were large; 8.20 percentage points difference (95%CI: 6.40–9.99) higher utilization among low-educated women than high-educated men. Only the gender referent inequity remained after needs adjustment, with high- (but not low-) educated women utilizing care more frequently than high-educated men (3.66 percentage points difference (95%CI: 2.67–5.25)). In contrast, inequalities in specialist visits were dominated by referent educational inequalities, (5.69 percentage points difference (95%CI: 2.56–6.19), but with no significant horizontal inequity – by gender, education, or their combination – remaining after needs adjustment. Conclusion This study suggests a complex interaction of gender and educational inequities in access to care in Northern Sweden, with horizontal equity observable for secondary but not primary care. The study thereby illustrates the unique knowledge gained from an intersectional perspective to equity in health care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document