A longitudinal study of chiropractic use among older adults in the United States.

Paula Weigel, Jason M Hockenberry, Suzanne E Bentler, Maksym Obrizan, Brian Kaskie, Michael P Jones, Robert L Ohsfeldt, Gary E Rosenthal, Robert B Wallace, Fredric D Wolinsky
{"title":"A longitudinal study of chiropractic use among older adults in the United States.","authors":"Paula Weigel,&nbsp;Jason M Hockenberry,&nbsp;Suzanne E Bentler,&nbsp;Maksym Obrizan,&nbsp;Brian Kaskie,&nbsp;Michael P Jones,&nbsp;Robert L Ohsfeldt,&nbsp;Gary E Rosenthal,&nbsp;Robert B Wallace,&nbsp;Fredric D Wolinsky","doi":"10.1186/1746-1340-18-34","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Longitudinal patterns of chiropractic use in the United States, particularly among Medicare beneficiaries, are not well documented. Using a nationally representative sample of older Medicare beneficiaries we describe the use of chiropractic over fifteen years, and classify chiropractic users by annual visit volume. We assess the characteristics that are associated with chiropractic use versus nonuse, as well as between different levels of use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed data from two linked sources: the baseline (1993-1994) interview responses of 5,510 self-respondents in the Survey on Assets and Health Dynamics Among the Oldest Old (AHEAD), and their Medicare claims from 1993 to 2007. Binomial logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with chiropractic use versus nonuse, and conditional upon use, to identify factors associated with high volume relative to lower volume use.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 806 users of chiropractic in the AHEAD sample yielding a full period prevalence for 1993-2007 of 14.6%. Average annual prevalence between 1993 and 2007 was 4.8% with a range from 4.1% to 5.4%. Approximately 42% of the users consumed chiropractic services only in a single calendar year while 38% used chiropractic in three or more calendar years. Chiropractic users were more likely to be women, white, overweight, have pain, have multiple comorbid conditions, better self-rated health, access to transportation, higher physician utilization levels, live in the Midwest, and live in an area with fewer physicians per capita. Among chiropractic users, 16% had at least one year in which they exceeded Medicare's \"soft cap\" of 12 visits per calendar year. These over-the-cap users were more likely to have arthritis and mobility limitations, but were less likely to have a high school education. Additionally, these over-the-cap individuals accounted for 58% of total chiropractic claim volume. High volume users saw chiropractors the most among all types of providers, even more than family practice and internal medicine combined.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is substantial heterogeneity in the patterns of use of chiropractic services among older adults. In spite of the variability of use patterns, however, there are not many characteristics that distinguish high volume users from lower volume users. While high volume users accounted for a significant portion of claims, the enforcement of a hard cap on annual visits by Medicare would not significantly decrease overall claim volume. Further research to understand the factors causing high volume chiropractic utilization among older Americans is warranted to discern between patterns of \"need\" and patterns of \"health maintenance\".</p>","PeriodicalId":87173,"journal":{"name":"Chiropractic & osteopathy","volume":"18 ","pages":"34"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1746-1340-18-34","citationCount":"45","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chiropractic & osteopathy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-1340-18-34","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 45

Abstract

Background: Longitudinal patterns of chiropractic use in the United States, particularly among Medicare beneficiaries, are not well documented. Using a nationally representative sample of older Medicare beneficiaries we describe the use of chiropractic over fifteen years, and classify chiropractic users by annual visit volume. We assess the characteristics that are associated with chiropractic use versus nonuse, as well as between different levels of use.

Methods: We analyzed data from two linked sources: the baseline (1993-1994) interview responses of 5,510 self-respondents in the Survey on Assets and Health Dynamics Among the Oldest Old (AHEAD), and their Medicare claims from 1993 to 2007. Binomial logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with chiropractic use versus nonuse, and conditional upon use, to identify factors associated with high volume relative to lower volume use.

Results: There were 806 users of chiropractic in the AHEAD sample yielding a full period prevalence for 1993-2007 of 14.6%. Average annual prevalence between 1993 and 2007 was 4.8% with a range from 4.1% to 5.4%. Approximately 42% of the users consumed chiropractic services only in a single calendar year while 38% used chiropractic in three or more calendar years. Chiropractic users were more likely to be women, white, overweight, have pain, have multiple comorbid conditions, better self-rated health, access to transportation, higher physician utilization levels, live in the Midwest, and live in an area with fewer physicians per capita. Among chiropractic users, 16% had at least one year in which they exceeded Medicare's "soft cap" of 12 visits per calendar year. These over-the-cap users were more likely to have arthritis and mobility limitations, but were less likely to have a high school education. Additionally, these over-the-cap individuals accounted for 58% of total chiropractic claim volume. High volume users saw chiropractors the most among all types of providers, even more than family practice and internal medicine combined.

Conclusion: There is substantial heterogeneity in the patterns of use of chiropractic services among older adults. In spite of the variability of use patterns, however, there are not many characteristics that distinguish high volume users from lower volume users. While high volume users accounted for a significant portion of claims, the enforcement of a hard cap on annual visits by Medicare would not significantly decrease overall claim volume. Further research to understand the factors causing high volume chiropractic utilization among older Americans is warranted to discern between patterns of "need" and patterns of "health maintenance".

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

美国老年人脊椎指压疗法使用的纵向研究。
背景:在美国,特别是在医疗保险受益人中,脊椎指压疗法使用的纵向模式并没有很好的记录。使用全国代表性的老年医疗保险受益人样本,我们描述了15年来脊椎按摩疗法的使用情况,并根据年访问量对脊椎按摩疗法用户进行了分类。我们评估与脊椎指压疗法使用与不使用相关的特征,以及不同使用水平之间的特征。方法:我们分析了两个相关来源的数据:基线(1993-1994年)在“最老老人资产和健康动态调查”(AHEAD)中的5,510名自我调查者的访谈回答,以及他们1993年至2007年的医疗保险索赔。二项逻辑回归用于确定与脊椎指压疗法使用与不使用相关的因素,并以使用为条件,以确定与高剂量相对于低剂量使用相关的因素。结果:在AHEAD样本中有806名脊椎指压疗法使用者,1993-2007年的全期患病率为14.6%。1993年至2007年的年平均患病率为4.8%,范围为4.1%至5.4%。大约42%的用户只在一个日历年内使用脊医服务,而38%的用户在三个或更多日历年内使用脊医服务。脊椎指压疗法的使用者更可能是女性、白人、超重、有疼痛、有多种合并症、更好的自评健康、交通便利、更高的医生使用率、生活在中西部,以及生活在人均医生较少的地区。在脊椎指压疗法的使用者中,16%的人至少有一年超过了医疗保险每年12次的“软上限”。这些过度使用大麻的人更有可能患有关节炎和行动不便,但不太可能受过高中教育。此外,这些超过上限的个人占整个脊椎按摩索赔量的58%。在所有类型的医疗服务提供者中,大量用户认为脊医最多,甚至超过了家庭医生和内科医生的总和。结论:老年人使用脊椎指压治疗服务的模式存在很大的异质性。然而,尽管使用模式千差万别,但区分大量用户和少量用户的特征并不多。虽然大量用户占索赔的很大一部分,但对医疗保险年度就诊的严格限制不会显着减少总体索赔量。进一步的研究是为了了解导致美国老年人大量使用脊椎指压疗法的因素,以区分“需要”模式和“健康维护”模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信