Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Current and Emerging Payment Models for Spine Pain Care: Evidence-Based, Outcomes-Based, or Both?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Spine Pain Care

  • 1491 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter describes two major payment models relevant to the diagnosis and treatment of spine pain. The first is the assessment of the actual outcomes of care delivered, with emphasis on patient-reported outcomes such as pain and functional capacity (“outcomes-based”). The second comprises aggregated past observations in patient groups comparable to the current patient scheduled to receive a treatment (“evidence-based”). Payment decisions are then based upon whether differences were observed in the outcomes of treatment and control groups in the prior studies, preferably conducted as prospective randomized controlled trials. In practice, these two approaches are linked: evidence is typically gathered to assess specific outcomes, and findings of effects upon outcomes contribute to selecting one among many possible treatments and strategies to monitor that treatment’s effectiveness. We further describe a widely used computerized adaptive testing instrument (the Patient-Reported Outcomes Information System, “PROMIS”). We note actions underway by the US Federal insurance system to apply financial, merit-based performance incentives (“MIPS”) to encourage systematic collection and comparisons of treatment outcomes in a range of patient care settings. We conclude by touching on blockchain technology, an innovation that may grow in importance in health care by virtue of its facilitation of collection and pooling of individual patients’ detailed characteristics, care received, and outcomes achieved while maintaining their anonymity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Charlton E, editor. Core curriculum for professional education. 3rd ed. Seattle: IASP Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Merskey H, Loeser JD, Dubner R, editors. The paths of pain. 1975–2005. Seattle: IASP Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Datz G, Bruns D. Billing psychological services for patients with chronic pain. In: Deer TR, editor. Comprehensive treatment of chronic pain by medical, interventional, and behavioral approaches. [The American Academy of Pain Medicine textbook of pain medicine]. Berlin: Springer; 2013. p. 845–7.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Nussbaum S, McClellan M, Metlay G. Principles for a framework for alternative payment models. JAMA. 2018;319(7):653–4. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.20226.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wittink HM, Carr DB. Health outcomes and treatment effectiveness in pain medicine. In: Wittink HM, Carr DB, editors. Pain management: evidence, outcomes and quality of life. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2008. p. 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cook KF, Jensen SE, Schalet BD, Beaumont JL, Amtmann D, Czajkowski S, et al. PROMIS measures of pain, fatigue, negative affect, physical function, and social function demonstrated clinical validity across a range of chronic conditions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;73:89–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.038. Epub 2016 Mar 4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. McQuay HJ, Moore RA. An evidence-based resource for pain relief. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rey R. The history of pain. (Wallace LE, Cadden JA, Cadden SW, translators). Cambridge (Massachusetts): Harvard University Press; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Osler W. Physic and physicians as depicted in Plato. In: Aequanimitas. With other addresses to medical students, nurses and practitioners of medicine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Blackiston’s; 1910. p. 47–76.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hajar R. The air of history early medicine to Galen (Part I). Heart Views. 2012;13:120–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Cope DK. Intellectual milestones in our understanding and treatment of pain. In: Fishman SM, Ballantyne JC, Rathmell JP, editors. Bonica’s management of pain. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams &Wilkins; 2010. p. 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Wittink H, Goudas LC, Strassels SA, Carr DB. Outcome measurements in pain medicine. In: Warfield CA, Bajwa ZH, Wootton RJ, editors. Principles and practice of pain medicine. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2017. p. 945–58.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Frazier HS, Mosteller F, editors. Medicine worth paying for: assessing medical innovations. Boston: Harvard University Press; 1995: 5, 11, 21–3.

    Google Scholar 

  14. King James Bible. Book of Daniel 3:10.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rittenhouse BE, O’Brien BJ. Threats to the validity of pharmacoeconomic analyses based on clinical trial data. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1996. p. 1215–23.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Carr DB. The development of national guidelines for pain control: synopsis and commentary. Eur J Pain. 2001;5(Suppl. A):91–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Allen RR, Bellamy N, Brandenburg N, Carr DB, et al. Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2003;106:337–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Taylor AM, Phillips K, Patel KV, Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Beaton D, et al. Assessment of physical functioning and participation in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT/OMERACT recommendations. Pain. 2016;157(9):1836–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Edwards RR, Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Angst M, Dionne R, Freeman R, et al. Patient phenotyping in analgesic clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2016;157(9):1851–71.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Rogers WH, Wittink HM, Wagner A, Cynn D, Carr DB. Assessing individual outcomes during outpatient, multidisciplinary chronic pain treatment by means of an augmented SF-36. Pain Med. 2000;1:44–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wittink H, Turk DC, Carr D, Sukiennik A, Rogers W. Comparison of the redundancy, reliability, and responsiveness to change among SF-36, Oswestry disability index, and multidimensional pain inventory. Clin J Pain. 2004;20:133–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Malhotra A, Mackey S. Outcomes in pain medicine: a brief review. Pain Ther. 2012;1:1.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rogers WH, Wittink HM, Ashburn MA, Cynn D, Carr DB. Using the “TOPS”, an outcomes instrument for multidisciplinary outpatient pain treatment. Pain Med. 2000;1:55–67.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Peirce-Sandner S, Burke LB, Farrar JT, Gilron I, et al. Considerations for improving assay sensitivity in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2012;153(6):1148–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2012.03.003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, McDermott MP, Peirce-Sandner S, Burke LB, Cowan P, et al. Interpreting the clinical importance of group differences in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2009;146(3):238–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2009.08.019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Wyrwich KW, Beaton D, Cleeland CS, Farrar JT, et al. Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain. 2008;9(2):105–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Allen RR, Bellamy N, Brandenburg N, Carr DB, et al. Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. (Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials). Pain. 2003;106:337–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Deyo RA, Dworkin SF, Amtmann D, Andersson G, Borenstein D, Carragee E, et al. Report of the NIH task force on research standards for chronic low back pain. Pain Med. 2014;15:1249–67.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Stone AA, Broderick JE, Junghaenel DU, Schneider S, Schwartz JE. PROMIS fatigue, pain intensity, pain interference, pain behavior, physical function, depression, anxiety, and anger scales demonstrate ecological validity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;74:194–206.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Pearn J. Hammurabi’s Code: a primary datum in the conjoined professions of medicine and law. Med Leg J. 2016;84(3):125–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mehta L. Ethical basis for charging medical fees. Issues Med Ethics. 2000;8(2):49–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Dowell D, Haegerich TM, Chou R. CDC guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic pain--United States, 2016. JAMA. 2016;315(15):1624–45.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312:71–2.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Gordon DB, Dahl JL, Miaskowski C, McCarberg B, Todd KH, Paice JA, et al. American Pain Society recommendations for improving the quality of acute and cancer pain management. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:1574–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Feinstein AR. Meta-analysis: statistical alchemy for the 21st century. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;48:71–9.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Jadad AR. Meta-analysis: a valuable but easily misused tool. Curr Opin Anesthesiol. 1996;9:426–9.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Carr DB. Evidence-based pain medicine: inconvenient truths. Pain Med. 2017;18:2049–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Cochrane AL. Effectiveness and efficiency: random reflections on health services. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Frieden TR. Evidence for health decision making — beyond randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:465–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Fazekas G, Antunes F, Negrini S, Barotsis N, Schwarzkopf SR, Winkelmann A, et al. Evidence based position paper on Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM) professional practice for persons with acute and chronic pain. The European PRM position (UEMS PRM Section). Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2018;54:952–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Horlocker TT, Vandermeuelen E, Kopp SL, Gogarten W, Leffert LR, Benzon HT. Regional anesthesia in the patient receiving antithrombotic or thrombolytic therapy: American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine evidence-based guidelines (Fourth Edition). Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018;43(3):263–309.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Cohen SP, Bhatia A, Buvanendran A, Schwenk ES, Wasan AD, Hurley RW, et al. Consensus guidelines on the use of intravenous ketamine infusions for chronic pain from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, the American Academy of Pain Medicine, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018;43(5):521–46.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Schwenk ES, Viscusi ER, Buvanendran A, Hurley RW, Wasan AD, Narouze S, et al. Consensus guidelines on the use of intravenous ketamine infusions for acute pain management from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, the American Academy of Pain Medicine, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018;43(5):456–66.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Deer TR, Mekhail N, Provenzano D, Pope J, Krames E, Leong M, Levy RM, et al. The appropriate use of neurostimulation of the spinal cord and peripheral nervous system for the treatment of chronic pain and ischemic diseases: the Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee. Neuromodulation. 2014;17(6):515–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Deer TR, Pope JE, Hayek SM, Bux A, Buchser E, Eldabe S, et al. The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC): recommendations on intrathecal drug infusion systems best practices and guidelines. Neuromodulation. 2017;20(2):96–132.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Rees J, Abrahams M, Doble A, Cooper A, Prostatitis Expert Reference Group (PERG). Diagnosis and treatment of chronic bacterial prostatitis and chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: a consensus guideline. BJU Int. 2015;116(4):509–25.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Moulin D, Boulanger A, Clark AJ, Clarke H, Dao T, Finley GA, Canadian Pain Society, et al. Pharmacological management of chronic neuropathic pain: revised consensus statement from the Canadian Pain Society. Pain Res Manag. 2014;19(6):328–35.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Gilron I, Carr DB, Desjardins PJ, Kehlet H. Current methods and challenges for acute pain clinical trials. PAIN Rep. 2019;4:e647.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Zaslansky R, Rothaug J, Chapman RC, Backström R, Brill S, Engel C, et al. PAIN OUT: an international acute pain registry supporting clinicians in decision making and in quality improvement activities. J Eval Clin Pract. 2014;20(6):1090–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Zaslansky R, Rothaug J, Chapman CR, Bäckström R, Brill S, Fletcher D, et al. PAIN OUT: the making of an international acute pain registry. Eur J Pain. 2015;19(4):490–502.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Kirkness CS, McAdam-Marx C, Unni S, Young J, Ye X, Chandran A, et al. Characterization of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty in a real-world setting and pain-related medication prescriptions for management of postoperative pain. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2012;26(4):326–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Benditz A, Greimel F, Auer P, Zeman F, Göttermann A, Grifka J, et al. Can consistent benchmarking within a standardized pain management concept decrease postoperative pain after total hip arthroplasty? A prospective cohort study including 367 patients. J Pain Res. 2016;19(9):1205–13.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Cook KF, Kallen MA, Buckenmaier C 3rd, Flynn DM, Hanling SR, Collins TS, et al. Evaluation of the validity and response burden of patient self-report measures of the Pain Assessment Screening Tool and Outcomes Registry (PASTOR). Mil Med. 2017;182(7):e1851–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Ginsburg PB, Patel KK. Physician payment reform – progress to date. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(3):285–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Clough JD, McClellan M. Implementing MACRA: implications for physicians and for physician leadership. JAMA. 2016;315(22):2397–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. The Final Rule on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Quality Payment Program. https://qpp.cms.gov/docs/CMS-5517-FC.pdf.

  57. Tanenbaum AS, Van Steen M. Distributed systems: principles and paradigms. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Satoshi N. Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. 2008. https://bitcoin.pdf.

  59. World Economic Forum. The future of financial services – how disruptive innovations are reshaping the way financial services are structured, provisioned and consumed. An industry project of the financial services community; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Division of Pain Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Kayode Williams

  2. Johns Hopkins Carey Business School, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Kayode Williams

  3. Tufts University School of Medicine, Public Health and Community Medicine, Boston, MA, USA

    Daniel B. Carr

Authors
  1. Kayode Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel B. Carr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kayode Williams .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Richard J. Kitz Professor of Anesthesia Research Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Jianren Mao

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Williams, K., Carr, D.B. (2020). Current and Emerging Payment Models for Spine Pain Care: Evidence-Based, Outcomes-Based, or Both?. In: Mao, J. (eds) Spine Pain Care. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27447-4_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27447-4_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-27446-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-27447-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation