MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd.

economic evaluation

This is the title of an editorial by Alan Schmukler. You probably remember him; I have featured him before, for instance here, here, and here. This is what was recently on Schmukler’s mind (I have added a few references referring to comments of mine added below):

England’s National Health Service (NHS) is proposing that NHS doctors no longer be permitted to prescribe homeopathic remedies [1]… They claim lack of evidence for effectiveness. Anyone who’s been remotely conscious the last 10 years will see this as a pretext. Homeopathy is practiced by board certified physicians in clinics and hospitals around the world [2]. The massive Swiss review of homeopathy, found it effective, safe and economical, and the Swiss incorporated homeopathy into their national health care system [3]…

The reason given for banning homeopathy and these nutrients is a lie. Why would the NHS ban safe, effective and affordable healing methods? [4] Without these methods, all that is left are prescription drugs. Apparently, someone at the  NHS has an interest in pushing expensive prescription drugs [5], rather than safer and cheaper alternatives. That someone, also wishes to deny people freedom of choice in medicine [6]. I say “someone”, because organizations don’t make decisions, people do. Who is that someone?  In looking for a suspect, we might ask, who is the chief executive of the organization? Who introduced this plan and is promoting it? Who at the NHS has the political clout?  Who was it that recently declared: “Homeopathy is a placebo and a misuse of scarce NHS funds which could better be devoted to treatments that work”.

The quote is from Simon Stevens, NHS England’s chief executive. He got the job in 2014, after ten years as a top executive at UnitedHealth, the largest health insurance company in America. His past work experiences and current activities show that he favors privatization [7]. That would make him an odd choice to run a healthcare system based on socialized medicine. In fact, he has been moving the NHS towards privatization and the corporate, profit based American model. [8] The last thing a privatizer in healthcare would want, are non-proprietary medicines, for which you can’t charge exorbitant fees [9]. Banning homeopathy on the NHS is just one small part of a larger plan to maximize corporate profits by letting corporations own and control the health care system [10].  Before they can do this, they have to eliminate alternative methods of treatment.

Personally, I think Schmukler is wrong – here is why:

1 The current argument is not about what doctors are permitted to do, but about what the NHS should do with our tax money.

2 Argumentum ad populum

3 Oh dear! Anyone who uses this report as evidence must be desperate – see for instance here.

4 Why indeed? Except highly dilute homeopathic remedies are pure placebos.

5 Maybe ‘someone’ merely wants to use effective medications rather than placebos.

6 Freedom of choice is a nonsense, if it is not guided by sound evidence – see here.

7 No, that’s Jeremy Hunt! But in any case privatisation might be more profitable with homeopathy – much higher profit margins without any investment into R&D.

8 No, this is Hunt again!

9 Homeopathic remedies are ideal for making vast profits: no research, no development, no cost for raw material, etc., etc.

10 I am sure Boiron et al would not mind stepping into the gap.

I very much look forward to the next outburst of Alan Schmukler and hope he will manage to think a bit clearer by then.

Yesterday, I heard my ‘good friend’ Dr Michael Dixon (see here, here and here, for example) talk on the BBC about the “new thing” in healthcare: social prescribing. He explained, for instance, that social prescribing could mean treating a diabetic not with medication but with auto-hypnosis and other alternative therapies. At that moment, I wasn’t even entirely sure what the term ‘social prescribing’ meant, I have to admit – so I did some reading.

What is social prescribing?

The UK ‘Social Prescribing Network‘ defines it thus:

Social Prescribing is a means of enabling GPs and other frontline healthcare professionals to refer patients to a link worker – to provide them with a face to face conversation during which they can learn about the possibilities and design their own personalised solutions, i.e. ‘co-produce’ their ‘social prescription’- so that people with social, emotional or practical needs are empowered to find solutions which will improve their health and wellbeing, often using services provided by the voluntary and community sector. It is an innovative and growing movement, with the potential to reduce the financial burden on the NHS and particularly on primary care.

Does social prescribing work?

The UK King’s Fund is mildly optimistic:

There is emerging evidence that social prescribing can lead to a range of positive health and well-being outcomes. Studies have pointed to improvements in areas such as quality of life and emotional wellbeing, mental and general wellbeing, and levels of depression and anxiety. For example, a study into a social prescribing project in Bristol found improvements in anxiety levels and in feelings about general health and quality of life. In general, social prescribing schemes appear to result in high levels of satisfaction from participants, primary care professionals and commissioners.

Social prescribing schemes may also lead to a reduction in the use of NHS services. A study of a scheme in Rotherham (a liaison service helping patients access support from more than 20 voluntary and community sector organisations), showed that for more than 8 in 10 patients referred to the scheme who were followed up three to four months later, there were reductions in NHS use in terms of accident and emergency (A&E) attendance, outpatient appointments and inpatient admissions. The Bristol study also showed reductions in general practice attendance rates for most people who had received the social prescription.

However, robust and systematic evidence on the effectiveness of social prescribing is very limited. Many studies are small scale, do not have a control group, focus on progress rather than outcomes, or relate to individual interventions rather than the social prescribing model. Much of the evidence available is qualitative, and relies on self-reported outcomes. Researchers have also highlighted the challenges of measuring the outcomes of complex interventions, or making meaningful comparisons between very different schemes.

Determining the cost, resource implications and cost effectiveness of social prescribing is particularly difficult. The Bristol study found that positive health and wellbeing outcomes came at a higher cost than routine GP care over the period of a year, but other research has highlighted the importance of looking at cost effectiveness over a longer period of time. Exploratory economic analysis of the Rotherham scheme, for example, suggested that the scheme could pay for itself over 18–24 months in terms of reduced NHS use….

END OF QUOTES

Is there no harder evidence at all?

The only Medline-listed controlled study seems to have been omitted by the King’s Fund – I wonder why. Perhaps because it fails to share the optimism? Here is its abstract:

Social prescribing is targeted at isolated and lonely patients. Practitioners and patients jointly develop bespoke well-being plans to promote social integration and or social reactivation. Our aim was to investigate: whether a social prescribing service could be implemented in a general practice (GP) setting and to evaluate its effect on well-being and primary care resource use. We used a mixed method evaluation approach using patient surveys with matched control groups and a qualitative interview study. The study was conducted in a mixed socio-economic, multi-ethnic, inner city London borough with socially isolated patients who frequently visited their GP. The intervention was implemented by ‘social prescribing coordinators’. Outcomes of interest were psychological and social well-being and health care resource use. At 8 months follow-up there were no differences between patients referred to social prescribing and the controls for general health, depression, anxiety and ‘positive and active engagement in life’. Social prescribing patients had high GP consultation rates, which fell in the year following referral. The qualitative study indicated that most patients had a positive experience with social prescribing but the service was not utilised to its full extent. Changes in general health and well-being following referral were very limited and comprehensive implementation was difficult to optimise. Although GP consultation rates fell, these may have reflected regression to the mean rather than changes related to the intervention. Whether social prescribing can contribute to the health of a nation for social and psychological wellbeing is still to be determined.

So, there is a lack of evidence for social prescribing. Yet, this is not why I feel uneasy about the promotion of this “new thing”. The more i think about it, the more I realise that social prescribing is just good care and decent medicine. It is what I was taught at med school 40 years ago. It therefore seems like a fancy name for something that should be obvious.

But why my unease?

The way I see it, it will be (and perhaps already is) used to smuggle bogus alternative therapies into the mainstream. In this way, it could turn out to serve the same purpose as did the boom in integrative/integrated medicine/healthcare: a smokescreen to incorporate treatments into medical routine which otherwise would not pass muster. If advocates of this approach, like Michael Dixon, subscribe to it, the danger of this happening is hard to deny.

The disservice to patients (and medical ethics) would then be obvious: diabetics unquestionably can benefit from a change of life-style (and to encourage them is part of good conventional medicine), but I very much doubt that they should replace their anti-diabetic medications with auto-hypnosis or other alternative therapies.

In my previous post, I reported that the NHS has included homeopathy and herbal medicine on the list of medications that might no longer get reimbursed. The news was reported by most newspapers in the UK. All of the papers correctly quote NHS England giving their reasons for black-listing homeopathy and herbal remedies. Some papers also quote critics of homeopathy providing short ‘sound bites’ and opinions. None of the articles bother to explain in any detail why homeopathy is so ridiculously implausible or how strong the evidence against it has become. In this post, I intend to analyse some of this press coverage by copying those excerpts from the newspaper articles which I find odd or misleading and by adding short comments by myself.

THE DAILY MAIL claimed that homeopathic remedies are treatments using heavily diluted forms of plants, herbs and minerals. This is factually incorrect; think of remedies like X-ray! The Mail also quoted Don Redding, director of policy at National Voices, stating: ‘Whilst some treatments are available to purchase over the counter, that does not mean that everyone can afford them. There will be distinct categories of people who rely on NHS funding for prescriptions of remedies that are otherwise available over the counter. Stopping such prescriptions would break with the principle of an NHS “free at the point of use” and would create a system where access to treatments is based on a person’s ability to pay.’  This argument might apply to medicines that are proven to work; it does, however, not apply to homeopathy.

THE INDEPENDENT cited Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard, chair of the Royal College of GPs, who said: “If patients are in a position that they can afford to buy over the counter medicines and products, then we would encourage them to do so rather than request a prescription – but imposing blanket policies on GPs, that don’t take into account demographic differences across the country, or that don’t allow for flexibility for a patient’s individual circumstances, risks alienating the most vulnerable in society.” Again, this argument might apply to medicines that are proven to work; it does, however, not apply to homeopathy.

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH also reported the quote from Don Redding, Director of Policy at National Voices which I cited above.

THE DAILY MIRROR quoted The Royal Pharmaceutical Society claiming that such a move raised “serious concerns” for poorer Brits. RPS England Board Chair Sandra Gidley said: “A blanket ban on prescribing of items available to buy will not improve individual quality of life or health outcomes in England. “Those on low incomes will be disproportionately affected.” THE MIRROR also reported what had to say and added that the NHS constitution states that: “Access to NHS services is based on clinical need, not an individual’s ability to pay; NHS services are free of charge, except in limited circumstances sanctioned by parliament.”

THE NEWS & STAR repeated the above quote from The Royal Pharmaceutical Society.

THE GUERNSEY PRESS repeated what RPS England board chair Sandra Gidley said: “We would encourage people with minor health problems to self-care with the support of a pharmacist and to buy medicines where appropriate and affordable to the individual. However, expecting everyone to pay for medicines for common conditions will further increase health inequalities and worsen the health of patients who cannot afford them. A blanket ban on prescribing of items available to buy will not improve individual quality of life or health outcomes in England. Those on low incomes will be disproportionately affected. They should not be denied treatment because of an inability to pay.”

THE TIMES also quoted the RPS and Don Redding misleadingly (see above and below) and concluded their article by citing Cristal Summer, chief executive of the British Homeopathic Association saying: Patients will be prescribed more expensive conventional drugs in place of homeopathy, which defeats the object of the exercise. The NHS also claims it wants to reduce the amount of prescription drugs patients take, then stops offering complementary therapies which can help achieve this. This clearly ignores the fact that ‘the object of the exercise’ for any health service must be to provide effective treatments and avoid placebo therapies like homeopathy. 

THE SUN quoted The Royal Pharmaceutical Society saying such a move raised “serious concerns” for poorer Brits. But it said banning NHS-funded homeopathy was long overdue. THE SUN continued by citing John O’Connell, Chief Executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance: “The NHS are absolutely right to look at removing homeopathy from their approved prescription list and it’s astonishing that it hasn’t happened sooner.”

METRO pointed out that actress Gwyneth Paltrow, ex-Beatle Paul McCartney and world record sprinter Usain Bolt are all known to swear by homeopathic remedies.

Generally speaking, the newspaper coverage was not bad, in my view. The exception evidently is THE TIMES (see above). Several other articles also have a slight whiff of false balance, introducing seemingly rational counter-arguments where none exist. Even though the headlines invariably focus on homeopathy, some of the quotes used by the papers are clearly about other medicines black-listed. This seems particularly obvious with the quotes by the RPS. Many readers might thus be misled into thinking that there is opposition by reputable organisations to the ban on homeopathy. None of the articles that I read quoted a homeopath at the end saying something like  WE KNOW OF MANY PATIENTS WHOSE LIVES WERE SAVED BY HOMEOPATHY. JUST BECAUSE WE DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW IT WORKS DOES NOT MEAN IT DOES NOT WORK. A BAN WOULD PUT PUBLIC HEALTH AT RISK.

Only a few years ago, this type of conclusion to an article on homeopathy would have been inevitable! Could it be that UK journalists (with the exception of those at THE TIMES?) are slowly learning?

 

A new survey from the Frazer Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank, suggests that more and more Canadians are using alternative therapies. In 2016, massage was the most common type of therapy that Canadians used over their lifetime with 44 percent having tried it, followed by chiropractic care (42%), yoga (27%), relaxation techniques (25%), and acupuncture (22%). Nationally, the most rapidly expanding therapies over the past two decades or so (rate of change between 1997 and 2016) were massage, yoga, acupuncture, chiropractic care, osteopathy, and naturopathy. High dose/mega vitamins, herbal therapies, and folk remedies appear to be in declining use over that same time period.

“Alternative treatments are playing an increasingly important role in Canadians’ overall health care, and understanding how all the parts of the health-care system fit together is vital if policymakers are going to find ways to improve it,” said Nadeem Esmail, Fraser Institute senior fellow and co-author of Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Use and Public Attitudes, 1997, 2006 and 2016.

The updated survey of 2,000 Canadians finds more than three-quarters of Canadians — 79 per cent — have used at least one complementary or alternative medicine (CAM) or therapy sometime in their lives. That’s an increase from 74 per cent in 2006 and 73 per cent in 1997, when two previous similar surveys were conducted. In fact, more than one in two Canadians (56 per cent) used at least one complementary or alternative medicine or therapy in the previous 12 months, an increase from 54 per cent in 2006 and 50 per cent in 1997.

And Canadians are using those services more often, averaging 11.1 visits in 2016, compared to fewer than nine visits a year in both 2006 and 1997. In total, Canadians spent $8.8 billion on complementary and alternative medicines and therapies last year, up from $8 billion (inflation adjusted) in 2006.

The majority of respondents — 58 per cent — support paying for alternative treatments privately and don’t want them included in provincial health plans. Support for private payment is even highest (at 69 per cent) among 35- to 44-year-olds. “Complementary and alternative therapies play an increasingly important role in Canadians’ overall health care, but policy makers should not see this as an invitation to expand government coverage — the majority of Canadians believe alternative therapies should be paid for privately,” Esmail said.

This seems to be a good survey, and it offers a host of interesting information. Yet, it also leaves many pertinent questions unanswered. The most important one might be WHY?

Why are so many people trying treatments which clearly are unproven or disproven?

Enthusiasts would obviously say this is because they are useful in some way. I would, however, point out that the true reason might well be that consumers are systematically mislead about the value of alternative therapies, as I have shown on this blog so many times.

Nevertheless, this seems to be a good survey – there are hundreds, if not thousands of surveys in the realm of alternative medicine which are of such deplorable quality that they do not deserve to be published at all – but even with a relatively good survey, we need to be cautious. For instance, I have no difficulty designing a questionnaire that would guarantee a result of 100% prevalence of alternative medicine usage. All I would need to do is to include the following two questions:

  • Have you ever used plant-based products for your well-being or comfort?
  • Have you ever prayed while being ill?

Drinking a cup of tea would already have to prompt a positive reply to the 1st question. And if you answer yes to the 2nd question, it would be interpreted as using prayer as a therapy.

I think, I rest my case.

THE TELEGRAPH reported that “homeopathic medicines will escape an NHS prescribing ban even though the Chief Medical Officer Dame Sally Davies has dismissed the treatments as ‘rubbish’ and a waste of taxpayers money.”

But why?

This sounds insane!

Sorry, I do not know the answer either, but below I offer 10 possible options – so bear with me, please.

The NHS spends around £4 million a year on homeopathic remedies, the article claimed. Sandra Gidley, chairwoman of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, said: “We are surprised that homeopathy, which has no scientific evidence of effectiveness, is not on the list for review. We are in agreement with NHS England that products with low or no clinical evidence of effectiveness should be reviewed with urgency.”

The NHS Clinical Commissioners, the body which was asked to review which medications should no longer be prescribed for NHS England, said it had included drugs with ‘little or no clinical value’, yet could not offer an explanation  why homeopathic medicines had escaped the cut. Julie Wood, Chief Executive, NHS Clinical Commissioners said: “Clinical commissioners have always had to make difficult choices about prioritising how they spend their budget on services, but the finance and demand challenges we face at the moment are unprecedented. Clinical Commissioning Groups have been looking at their medicines spend, and many are already implementing policies to reduce spending on those prescribeable items that have little or no clinical value for patients, and are therefore not an effective use of the NHS pound.”

Under the new rules, NHS doctors will be banned from routinely prescribing items that are cheaply available in chemists. The list includes heartburn pills, paracetamol, hayfever tablets, sun cream, muscle rubs, Omega 3 fish oils, medicine for coughs and colds and travel vaccinations. Coeliacs will also be forced to buy their own gluten-free food.

So, why are homeopathic remedies excluded from this new cost-saving exercise?

I am puzzled!

Is it because:

  1. The NHS has recently found out that homeopathy is effective after all?
  2. The officials have forgotten to put homeopathics on the list?
  3. In times of Brexit, the government cannot be bothered about reason, science and all that?
  4. The NHS does not need the money?
  5. Homeopathic globuli look so pretty?
  6. Our Health Secretary is in love with homeopathy?
  7. Experts are no longer needed for decision-making?
  8. EBM has suddenly gone out of fashion?
  9. Placebos are now all the rage?
  10. Some influential person called Charles is against it?

Sorry, no prizes for the winner of this quiz!

 

THE HINKLEY TIMES is quickly becoming my favourite newspaper. Yesterday they published an article about my old friend Tredinnick. I cannot resist showing you a few excerpts from it:

START OF EXCERPTS

Alternative therapy advocate, David Tredinnick has called for greater self reliance as a way of reducing pressures on the NHS. Speaking on the BBC’s regional Sunday Politics Show he suggested people should take more responsibility for their own health, rather than relying on struggling services. He highlighted homeopathy as a way of treating ailments at home and said self-help could cut unnecessary trips to the GP. He also said people could avoid illness by not being overweight and taking exercise…During debate on the show about the current ‘crisis’ in health and social care he said: “There are systems such as homeopathic remedies. Try it yourself before going to the doctor.”

Mr Tredinnick has always stood by his personal preferences for traditional therapies despite others disparaging his views. His recent remarks have sparked a response from Lib Dem Parliamentary spokesman Michael Mullaney. He said in the wake of the NHS facing cuts and closures, Mr Tredinnick was yet again showing he was out of touch. He added: “It’s dangerous for Mr Tredinnick, who is not properly medically trained, to use his platform as an MP to tell ill people to treat themselves with homeopathy, a treatment for which there is no medical proof that it works. He should stop talking about his quack theories and do his job representing the people of Hinckley and Bosworth, or otherwise he should resign as MP for he is totally failing to do his job of representing local people.”

END OF EXCERPTS

Yes, there is no doubt in my mind: if the public would ever take Tredinnick seriously when he talks about quackery, our health would be in danger. Therefore, it must be seen as most fortunate that hardly anyone does take him seriously. And here are a few reasons why this is so:

David Tredinnick: not again! Alternative medicine saves lives?!?

Tory MP David Tredinnick: “perhaps the worst example of scientific illiteracy in government.” But is he also a liar?

David Tredinnick: perhaps the worst example of scientific illiteracy in government?

Personally, I would very much regret if he resigned – there would be so much less to laugh about in the realm of alternative medicine!

We all know that alternative medicine is currently popular, and much of the evidence suggested that this is mostly because mostly people in the midst of their lives are using it. This may be so, but it is about to change; it stands to reason that these ‘baby boomers’ are getting older, and therefore the typical user of alternative medicine is or will soon be an elderly person. In addition, the ‘oldies’ (I am one of them) are likely to be multi-morbid and therefore have more reason to try everything that is on offer.

Not convinced? But that is roughly is what this website seems to suggest:

START OF QUOTE

Geriatric population is more susceptible to chronic diseases such as heart problems, joint disorders and others. Therefore, this population group needs regular use of the medicines to prevent the disease conditions. The use of complementary and alternative medicines is increasing among the geriatric population globally due to the fact that CAMs decreases the risk of adverse reactions and drug interactions.

Complementary and alternative medicines include products such as dietary medicine and herbal medicine products. These medicines can be used for the management of both communicable (i.e. tuberculosis, hantavirus and others) and non communicable diseases (i.e. chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular and others) in geriatric population. These medicines (i.e. CAM) treat the patients by healing therapies which is not based on principles of conventional medicine.

Geographically, North America is considered as the largest market of geriatric complementary and alternative medicines owing to high use of CAMs in this region. For example, Health and Retirement Study conducted one survey which concluded that around 85% of the geriatric population in North America reported the use of complementary and alternative medicines. Thus, high use of CAM modalities will establish healthy platform to develop the growth of geriatric complementary and alternative medicines market.

Europe is the second largest market of geriatric complementary and alternative medicines. The growth is mainly attributed to the increasing aging population coupled with rising use of complementary and alternative medicines in Europe. According to European Commission (Eurostat) report published in 2013, around 17.8% of the European population were aged 65 years and above. The organization has also stated that aging population is expected to increase at high rate in coming year in Europe. In addition, Asia-Pacific is the emerging market for geriatric complementary and alternative medicines market because of rising interest of key companies to expand their presence in Asia Pacific.

Key companies operating in the market for geriatric complementary and alternative medicines include Geriatric & Medical Companies, Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation. Geri-Care pharmaceuticals, UAS Laboratories.

END OF QUOTE

I know, this text includes several glaring errors. But the main claim that alternative medicine is fast becoming a thing for the elderly might well be true. This, of course, has implications for marketing, research, etc. For us on this blog it means that we need to find better ways to get through to people who are no spring chickens any longer.

The elderly have special needs and can be vulnerable in several ways. When they are ill, they need efficacious treatments. By and large, this excludes alternative therapies. The elderly may also be more susceptible to the risks of alternative medicine. Moreover, they are often not that affluent and might need to watch their expenses. Making them spend large amounts of cash on treatments that are ineffective is therefore a particularly unethical.

I think that messages like these might convince some elderly people to stop putting unreasonable hope in, and wasting their time/money on bogus therapies. But I am very keen to hear from my readers about further ideas how to curb the boom of alternative medicine in this age group.

Chiropractors (and other alternative practitioners) tend to treat their patients for unnecessarily long periods of time. This, of course, costs money, and even if the treatment in question ever was indicated (which, according to the best evidence, is more than doubtful), this phenomenon would significantly inflate healthcare expenditure.

This sounds perfectly logical to me, but is there any evidence for it? Yes, there is!

The WSJ recently reported that over 80% of the money that Medicare paid to US chiropractors in 2013 went for medically unnecessary procedures. The federal insurance program for senior citizens spent roughly $359 million on unnecessary chiropractic care that year, a review by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General (OIG) found.

The OIG report was based on a random sample of Medicare spending for 105 chiropractic services in 2013. It included bills submitted to CMS through June 2014. Medicare audit contractors reviewed medical records for patients to determine whether treatment was medically necessary. The OIG called on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to tighten oversight of the payments, noting its analysis was one of several in recent years to find questionable Medicare spending on chiropractic care. “Unless CMS implements strong controls, it is likely to continue to make improper payments to chiropractors,” the OIG said.

Medicare should determine whether there should be a cut-off in visits, the OIG said. Medicare does not pay for “supportive” care, or maintenance therapy. Patients who received more than a dozen treatments are more likely to get medically unnecessary care, the OIG found, and all chiropractic care after the first 30 treatment sessions was unnecessary, the review found. However, a spokesperson for US chiropractors disagreed: “Every patient is different,” he said. “Some patients may require two visits; some may require more.”

I have repeatedly written about the fact that chiropractic is not nearly as cost-effective as chiropractors want us to believe (see for instance here and here). It seems that this evidence is being systematically ignored by them; in fact, the evidence gets in the way of their aim – which often is not to help patients but to maximise their cash-flow.

Since several years, there has been an increasingly vociferous movement within the chiropractic profession to obtain limited prescription rights, that is the right to prescribe drugs for musculoskeletal problems. A recent article by Canadian and Swiss chiropractors is an attempt to sum up the arguments for and against this notion. Here I have tried to distil the essence of the pros and contras into short sentences.

 1) Arguments in favour of prescription rights for chiropractors

1.1 Such privileges would be in line with current evidence-based practice. Currently, most international guidelines recommend, alongside prescription medication, a course of manual therapy and/or exercise as well as education and reassurance as part of a multi-modal approach to managing various spine-related and other MSK conditions.

1.2 Limited medication prescription privileges would be consistent with chiropractors’ general experience and practice behaviour. Many clinicians tend to recommend OTC medications to their patients in practice.

1.3 A more comprehensive treatment approach offered by chiropractors could potentially lead to a reduction in healthcare costs by providing additional specialized health care options for the treatment of MSK conditions. Namely, if patients consult one central practitioner who can effectively address and provide a range of treatment modalities for MSK pain-related matters, the number of visits to providers might be reduced, thereby resulting in better resource allocation.

1.4 Limited medication prescription rights could lead to improved cultural authority for chiropractors and better integration within the healthcare system.

1.5 With these privileges, chiropractors could have a positive influence on public health. For instance, analgesics and NSAIDs are widely used and potentially misused by the general public, and users are often unaware of the potential side effects that such medication may cause.

2) Arguments against prescription rights for chiropractors

2.1 Chiropractors and their governing bodies would start reaching out to politicians and third-party payers to promote the benefits of making such changes to the existing healthcare system.

2.2 Additional research may be needed to better understand the consequences of such changes and provide leverage for discussions with healthcare stakeholders.

2.3 Existing healthcare legislation needs to be amended in order to regulate medication prescription by chiropractors.

2.4 There is a need to focus on the curriculum of chiropractors. Inadequate knowledge and competence can result in harm to patients; therefore, appropriate and robust continuing education and training would be an absolute requirement.

2.5 Another important issue to consider relates to the divisiveness around this topic within the profession. In fact, some have argued that the right to prescribe medication in chiropractic practice is the profession’s most divisive issue. Some have argued that further incorporation of prescription rights into the chiropractic scope of practice will negatively impact the distinct professional brand and identity of chiropractic.

2.6 Such privileges would increase chiropractors’ professional responsibilities. For example, if given limited prescriptive authority, chiropractors would be required to recognize and monitor medication side effects in their patients.

2.7 Prior to medication prescription rights being incorporated into the chiropractic scope of practice worldwide, further discussions need to take place around the breadth of such privileges for the chiropractic profession.

In my view, some of these arguments are clearly spurious, particularly those in favour of prescription rights. Moreover, the list of arguments against this notion seems a little incomplete. Here are a few additional ones that came to my mind:

  • Patients might be put at risk by chiropractors who are less than competent in prescribing medicines.
  • More unnecessary NAISDs would be prescribed.
  • The vast majority of the drugs in question is already available OTC.
  • Healthcare costs would increase (just as plausible as the opposite argument made above, I think).
  • Prescribing rights would give more legitimacy to a profession that arguably does not deserve it.
  • Chiropractors would then continue their lobby work and soon demand the prescription rights to be extended to other classes of drugs.

I am sure there are plenty of further arguments both pro and contra – and I would be keen to hear them; so please post yours in the comments section below.

Several investigations have suggested that chiropractic care can be cost-effective. A recent review of 25 studies, for instance, concluded that cost comparison studies suggest that health care costs were generally lower among patients whose spine pain was managed with chiropractic care. However, its authors cautioned that the studies reviewed had many methodological limitations. Better research is needed to determine if these differences in health care costs were attributable to the type of HCP managing their care.

Better research might come from the US ‘Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services’ (CMS); they conduced a two-year demonstration of expanded Medicare coverage for chiropractic services in the treatment of beneficiaries with neuromusculoskeletal (NMS) conditions affecting the back, limbs, neck, or head.

The demonstration was conducted in 2005–2007 in selected counties of Illinois, Iowa, and Virginia and the entire states of Maine and New Mexico. Medicare claims were compiled for the preceding year and two demonstration years for the demonstration areas and matched comparison areas. The impact of the demonstration was analyzed through multivariate regression analysis with a difference-in-difference framework.

Expanded coverage increased Medicare expenditures by $50 million or 28.5% in users of chiropractic services and by $114 million or 10.4% in all patients treated for NMS conditions in demonstration areas during the two-year period. Results varied widely among demonstration areas ranging from increased costs per user of $485 in Northern Illinois and Chicago counties to decreases in costs per user of $59 in New Mexico and $178 in Scott County, Iowa.

The authors concluded that the demonstration did not assess possible decreases in costs to other insurers, out-of-pocket payments by patients, the need for and costs of pain medications, or longer term clinical benefits such as avoidance of orthopedic surgical procedures beyond the two-year period of the demonstration. It is possible that other payers or beneficiaries saved money during the demonstration while costs to Medicare were increased.

In view of such results, I believe chiropractors should stop claiming that chiropractic care is cost-effective.

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted.


Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.

Categories