Value-Based Care and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation
Purpose of Review
The purpose of this study is to summarize published literature on health-care quality, and value-based principles in musculoskeletal (MSK) medicine as it relates to physical medicine & rehabilitation (PM&R) practitioners. This review specifically focuses on spine care as a case example. Related policy and practice issues and future research needs will also be discussed.
Results of a recent study on the effects of required PM&R consultation prior to surgical evaluation for low back pain management contradicted the conclusions of a previous landmark study on a similar topic.
Physiatrists involved in musculoskeletal care need to be aware of the shift in focus from volume of care to value-based care. Clinical registries and practice guidelines are increasingly available, practical to use, and should be utilized to improve quality of care provided to patients with MSK disorders. Continuous improvements in quality of care provided and cost savings will drive upward the value of MSK care delivered. Future research in MSK care outcomes needs to evaluate not only effectiveness and efficacy but also cost and value.
KeywordsRehabilitation Value-based care Musculoskeletal Spine Health care Outcomes
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
- 1.Annaswamy T, Houtrow A, Saxena D, Yang W. Quality and outcome measures for medical rehabilitation. In: Cifu D, editor. Braddom’s physical medicine and rehabilitation. 5th ed. New York, NY: Elsevier; 2015. p. 117–30.Google Scholar
- 3.Medicine Io. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; 2001.Google Scholar
- 4.Services DoHH. Quality payment program-MIPS overview. 2017. https://qpp.cms.gov/mips/overview. Accessed 01–05-2018.
- 13.Cheng J, Chambless L, McGirt M. Trends in geriatric low back pain. AANS Neurosurgeon. 2011;20(2). http://v1archives.aansneurosurgeon.org/200811/6/807. Accessed 19 Oct 2017.
- 15.Manchikanti L, Falco FJ, Pampati V, Cash KA, Benyamin RM, Hirsch JA. Cost utility analysis of caudal epidural injections in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation, axial or discogenic low back pain, central spinal stenosis, and post lumbar surgery syndrome. Pain Physician. 2013;16(3):E129–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Price C, Arden N, Coglan L, Rogers P. Cost-effectiveness and safety of epidural steroids in the management of sciatica. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England). 2005;9(33):1–58. iiiGoogle Scholar
- 25.Varela E, Oral A, Ilieva E, Küçükdeveci AA, Valero R, Berteanu M, et al. Musculoskeletal perioperative problems. The role of physical and rehabilitation medicine physicians. The European perspective based on the best evidence. A paper by the UEMS-PRM Section Professional Practice Committee. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2013;49(5):753–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.NASS. Spine registry. 2017. https://www.spine.org/ResearchClinicalCare/Research/SpineRegistry.aspx. Accessed 25 Nov 2017.
- 29.CMS.GOV. The quality payment program overview fact sheet. 2016. https://qpp.cms.gov/docs/Quality_Payment_Program_Overview_Fact_Sheet.pdf.
- 30.Group TL. CMS bundled payments for care improvement initiative models 2–4: year 2 evaluation & monitoring annual report. Falls Church: The Lewin Group; 2016.Google Scholar