Straight chiropractic philosophy as a barrier to Medicare compliance: a discussion of 5 incongruent issues

Q3 Health Professions
David R. Seaman DC, MS , Jonathan R. Soltys DC, MS
{"title":"Straight chiropractic philosophy as a barrier to Medicare compliance: a discussion of 5 incongruent issues","authors":"David R. Seaman DC, MS ,&nbsp;Jonathan R. Soltys DC, MS","doi":"10.1016/j.echu.2013.09.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>The purpose of this commentary is to discuss potential 5 factors within straight chiropractic philosophy and practice that may prevent Medicare compliance.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>The national <em>Medicare Benefit Policy Manual</em> and the Florida <em>Local Coverage Determination</em> were reviewed to identify documentation and conceptual issues regarding chiropractic practice. Five Medicare positions were contrasted with tenets of straight chiropractic philosophy. Based on Medicare’s documentation requirements, Medicare defines <span><em>subluxation</em></span> and <em>chiropractic practice</em><span> from the perspective of treating spinal pain<span> and related functional disability. In contrast, traditional straight chiropractic philosophy is not based on the treatment of spinal pain and disability or other symptomatic presentations. In this context, 5 potential areas of conflict are discussed.</span></span></p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The Medicare version of chiropractic practice is not consistent with traditional straight chiropractic philosophy, which may play a role in preventing Medicare compliance. The chiropractic profession may need to consider the fashion in which “philosophy” as it relates to technique and practice is presented to students and doctors to facilitate compliance with the documentation requirements of Medicare.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":39103,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Chiropractic Humanities","volume":"20 1","pages":"Pages 19-26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.echu.2013.09.001","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Chiropractic Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1556349913000041","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this commentary is to discuss potential 5 factors within straight chiropractic philosophy and practice that may prevent Medicare compliance.

Discussion

The national Medicare Benefit Policy Manual and the Florida Local Coverage Determination were reviewed to identify documentation and conceptual issues regarding chiropractic practice. Five Medicare positions were contrasted with tenets of straight chiropractic philosophy. Based on Medicare’s documentation requirements, Medicare defines subluxation and chiropractic practice from the perspective of treating spinal pain and related functional disability. In contrast, traditional straight chiropractic philosophy is not based on the treatment of spinal pain and disability or other symptomatic presentations. In this context, 5 potential areas of conflict are discussed.

Conclusion

The Medicare version of chiropractic practice is not consistent with traditional straight chiropractic philosophy, which may play a role in preventing Medicare compliance. The chiropractic profession may need to consider the fashion in which “philosophy” as it relates to technique and practice is presented to students and doctors to facilitate compliance with the documentation requirements of Medicare.

直捏脊哲学是医疗保险合规的障碍:对5个不一致问题的讨论
目的本评论的目的是讨论直捏脊疗法理念和实践中可能阻碍医疗保险依从性的5个潜在因素。讨论审查了国家医疗保险福利政策手册和佛罗里达州当地覆盖范围确定,以确定关于脊椎指压治疗的文件和概念问题。五个医疗保险职位与直捏脊哲学的原则形成对比。根据医疗保险的文件要求,医疗保险从治疗脊柱疼痛和相关功能残疾的角度定义了半脱位和脊椎指压治疗。相比之下,传统的直脊疗法的理念不是基于治疗脊柱疼痛和残疾或其他症状表现。在此背景下,讨论了5个潜在的冲突领域。结论Medicare版捏脊疗法与传统的直捏脊疗法理念不一致,可能对患者的Medicare依从性有一定影响。脊椎指压专业可能需要考虑向学生和医生展示与技术和实践相关的“哲学”的时尚,以促进遵守医疗保险的文件要求。
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
Journal of Chiropractic Humanities
Journal of Chiropractic Humanities Medicine-Complementary and Alternative Medicine
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
×
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