Biomedical subjects
Radoslaw Wasiak
Publications and source records attributed to Radoslaw Wasiak.
Utilization and costs of chiropractic care for work-related low back injuries: do payment policies make a difference?
BACKGROUND: Chiropractic care is frequently used in the treatment of work-related low back pain. Chiropractors have been shown to be more sensitive to cost-sharing than other providers. PURPOSE: This study examined the differences in utilization and costs of chiropractic care for work-related low back injuries in seven jurisdictions and whether these differences can be associated with workers' compensation (WC) payment policies. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of WC data from a single insurer. METHODS: Analyzed data included individuals with chiropractic care performed between 1999 and 2002. Utilization (visits and services per person, services per visit) and costs (cost per person and cost per visit) were examined. Actual reimbursement index was developed to proxy payment policies based on actual payments made to chiropractors. RESULTS: Utilization and costs varied significantly across the analyzed states. Restrictive payment policies were associated with lower costs of chiropractic care and lower number of services per visit, but had no impact on visits or services per person. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate necessary components of effective cost containment, even in the presence of utilization adjustment.
Work disability and costs caused by recurrence of low back pain: longer and more costly than in first episodes.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of workers' compensation (WC) claims data for nonspecific low back injuries (LBI) in a single jurisdiction. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether recurrences, defined as post-initial episodes of work disability or medical care, substantially contribute to total medical and indemnity costs, and total duration of work disability. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous studies have not measured the proportion of care seeking and work disability that are associated with recurrences in claims for work-related LBI. METHODS: All persons with new lost-time claims for nonspecific LBI reported in New Hampshire to a large WC provider from 1996 to 1999 were selected (N = 1867). Three years of follow-up data, starting at the beginning of the first episode, were collected. Previously validated definitions of recurrence were used identify new episodes of care and new episodes of lost work time (work disability). Total duration of work disability, total medical costs, and total indemnity costs were investigated. For individuals with recurrences, these variables were separated into first-episode and recurrent period duration and costs. RESULTS: The rate of recurrent work disability was 17.2%, and the rate of recurrent care seeking was 33.9%. Individuals with recurrence had significantly higher total length of work disability, and higher medical and indemnity costs. For those with recurrent work disability, 69% of total lost time from work, 71% of associated indemnity costs, and 84% of total medical costs occurred during the recurrent period. For those with recurrence of care, the respective values were 48%, 47%, and 42%. CONCLUSIONS: Recurrences contributed disproportionately to the total burden of work-related nonspecific LBI, through both additional care seeking and work disability. Results imply that those who have recurrences may be an especially important target for secondary prevention efforts.
Geographic variation in surgical treatment for work-related carpal tunnel syndrome: does improved return to work matter?
Medical treatment of compensated work-related conditions has two objectives--improve injured workers' health status and allow safe and sustained return to work (RTW). Theoretically, the choice of treatment method should be based primarily on these objectives. Surgical treatment of work-related carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) provides an opportunity to evaluate whether this occurs. The traditional method of open release has been complemented by an endoscopic procedure, particularly useful in work-related cases due to the anticipated benefit of earlier RTW. The objective of this study was to investigate the differences in surgical treatment for work-related CTS across eight US workers' compensation (WC) jurisdictions, and the factors associated with these differences. From all WC claims reported to a single insurer during the 1995-1999 period, we identified individuals with a one or two surgical procedures for work-related CTS. Among selected individuals (n=4,421), about 20% were treated using the endoscopic procedure; this percentage had a ten-fold variation across the eight jurisdictions. However, utilization of endoscopic release did not increase during the study period, despite reports of better RTW outcomes. The highly jurisdictional nature of the US WC system, with significant differences in reimbursement levels for endoscopic procedures, and geographical differences in medical training were among the potential contributors to the observed variation in utilization.
Return-to-work outcomes following work disability: stakeholder motivations, interests and concerns.
INTRODUCTION: Satisfaction with return-to-work (RTW) outcomes is dependent on many factors, including a clear exposition of what people define as a "good outcome" and the information they use to determine if such an outcome has been achieved. This paper defines the key stakeholders involved in the RTW process and discusses the need to understand their motivations, interests, and concerns. METHODS: A review of the literature and discussions with RTW researchers conducted by a multidisciplinary group of academic researchers. RESULTS: Our analysis suggests that RTW stakeholders can share the goal of a successful RTW; however, this consensus has to be viewed in light of other, sometimes competing, goals and the environments in which stakeholders operate. CONCLUSIONS: It is suggested that more clearly articulating and operationalizing stakeholders' perspectives will allow researchers to advance the understanding of RTW interventions and outcomes.
A developmental conceptualization of return to work.
INTRODUCTION: Although return to work (RTW) is a phenomenon that has been researched for many years, our ability to understand and improve outcomes is still limited. As an avenue for advancing the field, this paper presents an alternative way of thinking about RTW. METHOD: The conceptualization was constructed based on a review of the literature and the comments of RTW and workers' compensation researchers. RESULTS: RTW is presented as an evolving process, comprising four key phases: i.e., "off work," "work re-entry," "retention," and "advancement." In addition, multiple phase-specific outcomes that may be used to evaluate RTW success are advanced. CONCLUSION: Broadening thinking about RTW to take into consideration the complexities of its developmental nature holds promise for understanding and improving RTW, as it not only clarifies the importance of incremental milestones, but also facilitates intervention choice and evaluation.
Primary care involvement and outcomes of care in patients with a workers' compensation claim for back pain.
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective case series of primary care patients receiving Workers' Compensation (WC) for back pain. OBJECTIVE: To describe the extent of primary care provider (PCP) involvement in work-related low back pain (WRLBP), and whether PCP involvement is a significant determinant of patterns of care or outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In general, WRLBP has inferior outcomes compared with nonoccupational LBP. Although it has been suggested that better outcomes are achieved when care for WRLBP involves specialists such as occupational medicine physicians rather than a PCP, limited evidence supports this claim. METHODS: Adult patients were identified by electronic records from four hospital-affiliated PCP practices in fiscal years 1996 to 1998. Those with a WRLBP claim filed during the same time period were identified by searching a WC claims database. Medical records were reviewed to assess past medical history, the extent of prior PCP contacts for any visits before and for visits 2 years after the reported onset of the WRLBP claim, and detailed information on visits for this condition. Disability outcomes (total costs and days of work disability) were obtained from the WC database. RESULTS: Among 68,710 individuals with a PCP practice visit, 118 with a WRLBP claim were identified. The final study sample included 87 patients with a WRLBP claim and at least 1 documented PCP practice visit during the study period. Seventy-eight percent of patients saw the PCP at least once in the 2 years after the claim onset date, but only 34 patients (39%) visited the PCP for their WRLBP, and 20 (23%) had more than 1 visit. Although almost all patients with a PCP visit for WRLBP saw a physician (not the PCP in 79% of cases) within a week of the claim onset date, the median number of days between the onset date and the first WRLBP visit to the PCP was 47.5. Patients with a prior history of back problems were more likely to have a PCP visit for WRLBP (odds ratio 2.9, 95% confidence interval 1.1-7.7). Patients with PCP visits for WRLBP had higher total and medical costs than those without PCP visits, but a similar number of paid disability days. After controlling for other potential predictors, involvement of the PCP was not a significant predictor of the total cost of the WRLBP claim. CONCLUSIONS: Many individuals with a WC claim do not have a stable PCP relationship around the onset of their WRLBP episode. Those with PCP relationships uncommonly involve the PCP in their WRLBP, and if they do, it is usually later in the course because of persistent or recurrent symptoms. Disability outcomes appear to be similar regardless of whether a PCP was involved. However, PCP involvement is associated with greater medical costs, which may reflect confounding based on duration of symptoms rather than the nature of the care provided. Additional research is needed to understand how different patterns of care for patients with a WRLBP claim relate to outcomes and how these patients compare with individuals without such a claim, as well as the factors that lead patients to involve their PCP or not.
Risk factors for recurrent episodes of care and work disability: case of low back pain.
Recurrences of injuries are common and have significant socioeconomic consequences; it is important to identify associated risk factors as potential opportunities for prevention. This study was conducted to identify risk factors for low back pain (LBP) recurrence and the extent that variation in recurrence definition impacts identified risk factors. Patients with new claims for LBP reported in New Hampshire to a workers' compensation provider were selected (n = 2023) with a minimum of 3-year follow up. Alternative definitions of recurrence included a new episode of medical care and a new episode of lost work time (work disability). Risk factors better predicted disability-based than treatment-based recurrence. Longer durations of the initial episode of care or work disability were the most powerful predictors of recurrence, implying that shorter episodes of care and early return to work contribute to better outcomes.
Recurrence of low back pain: definition-sensitivity analysis using administrative data.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of administrative claims data in a single workers' compensation jurisdiction. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of alternative definitions and follow-up parameters on rates of low back pain recurrence based on detailed administrative data. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous studies reported low back pain recurrence rates ranging from 14% to 45%, without consistency in definitions of recurrence or specifications of follow-up. METHODS: Patients with new claims for low back pain reported in New Hampshire to a large workers' compensation provider in 1996 and 1997 were selected (N = 2944). Definitions of recurrence included: new workers' compensation claim, new episode of care, and new episode of lost work time (work disability). For the latter two definitions, various minimum between-episode gaps were applied and related to recurrence rates. Two follow-up structures (constant length of follow-up post end of the first episode and fixed-period length of follow-up since the onset of low back pain) were examined for sensitivity of recognizing low back pain recurrence, with a maximum of 3-year follow-up. RESULTS: Recurrence rate using a claims-based definition was 7.9% and 7.1% for the entire cohort and the subset with work disability days, respectively, for the 3 years of follow-up. Care-based recurrence rates ranged between 12% and 49%, whereas disability-based recurrence rates ranged between 6% and 17% over the 3 years, inversely related to the length of the minimum between-episode gap (R = -0.86 for disability and care, P < 0.001). Two-year follow-up was sufficient to identify 85% to 100% of recurrences regardless of the follow-up structure. CONCLUSIONS: Recurrence rates are highly sensitive to variations in definitions. Consistency of definitions and application across studies is required to enable valid comparisons.
Methodological challenges in studying recurrence of low back pain.
Recurrences of low back pain (LBP) have been shown to be both frequent and costly, with reported recurrence rates ranging from 5 to 82%. Numerous methodological approaches have been developed to identify recurrence but there has been no standardized definition of LBP recurrence or required follow-up time. The objective of this study was to compare the methodological approaches used to analyze LBP recurrence in seminal contributions and to describe the differences in definitions of LBP recurrence and follow-up structure. Twelve seminal articles were identified for review during which four types of LBP recurrence definition and two types of follow-up structure were recognized. Definitional and follow-up differences considerably contributed to variations in computed recurrence rates due either to measurement or other methodological shortcomings, such as loss to follow-up and sick person effect. The results suggest that there is a need to develop a standardized definition of LBP recurrence and a standardized approach to follow-up to allow direct comparisons of published research findings. The use of alternative definitions is also likely to impact analyses of risk factors contributing to LBP recurrence and direct and indirect costs associated with treating LBP.