Use of complementary and alternative medicine providers by fibromyalgia patients under insurance coverage

Bonnie Lind, William E. Lafferty, Patrick Timothy Tyree, Paula K. Diehr, David E. Grembowski

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

36 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective. To quantify how visits and expenditures differ between insured patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) who visit complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) providers compared with patients with FMS who do not. Patients with FMS were also compared with an age- and sex-matched comparison group without FMS. Methods. Calendar year 2002 claims data from 2 large insurers in Washington state were analyzed for provider type (CAM versus conventional), patient comorbid medical conditions, number of visits, and expenditures. Results. Use of CAM by patients with FMS was 2.5 times higher than in the comparison group without FMS (56% versus 21%). Patients with FMS who used CAM had more health care visits than patients with FMS not using CAM (34 versus 23; P < 0.001); however, CAM users had similar expenditures to nonusers among patients with FMS ($4,638 versus $4,728; not significant), because expenditure per CAM visit is lower than expenditure per conventional visit. Patients with FMS who used CAM also had heavier overall disease burdens than those not using CAM. Conclusion. With insurance coverage, a majority of patients with FMS will visit CAM providers. The sickest patients use more CAM, leading to an increased number of health care visits. However, CAM use is not associated with higher overall expenditures. Until a cure for FMS is found, CAM providers may offer an economic alternative for patients with FMS seeking symptomatic relief.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)71-76
Number of pages6
JournalArthritis Care and Research
Volume57
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 15 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Insurance Coverage
Fibromyalgia
Complementary Therapies
Health Expenditures

Keywords

  • Complementary and alternative medicine
  • Fibromyalgia
  • Health services research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Rheumatology

Cite this

Use of complementary and alternative medicine providers by fibromyalgia patients under insurance coverage. / Lind, Bonnie; Lafferty, William E.; Tyree, Patrick Timothy; Diehr, Paula K.; Grembowski, David E.

In: Arthritis Care and Research, Vol. 57, No. 1, 15.02.2007, p. 71-76.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lind, Bonnie ; Lafferty, William E. ; Tyree, Patrick Timothy ; Diehr, Paula K. ; Grembowski, David E. / Use of complementary and alternative medicine providers by fibromyalgia patients under insurance coverage. In: Arthritis Care and Research. 2007 ; Vol. 57, No. 1. pp. 71-76.
@article{abeab69ee3954f4285f10ed7764b4b7c,
title = "Use of complementary and alternative medicine providers by fibromyalgia patients under insurance coverage",
abstract = "Objective. To quantify how visits and expenditures differ between insured patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) who visit complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) providers compared with patients with FMS who do not. Patients with FMS were also compared with an age- and sex-matched comparison group without FMS. Methods. Calendar year 2002 claims data from 2 large insurers in Washington state were analyzed for provider type (CAM versus conventional), patient comorbid medical conditions, number of visits, and expenditures. Results. Use of CAM by patients with FMS was 2.5 times higher than in the comparison group without FMS (56{\%} versus 21{\%}). Patients with FMS who used CAM had more health care visits than patients with FMS not using CAM (34 versus 23; P < 0.001); however, CAM users had similar expenditures to nonusers among patients with FMS ($4,638 versus $4,728; not significant), because expenditure per CAM visit is lower than expenditure per conventional visit. Patients with FMS who used CAM also had heavier overall disease burdens than those not using CAM. Conclusion. With insurance coverage, a majority of patients with FMS will visit CAM providers. The sickest patients use more CAM, leading to an increased number of health care visits. However, CAM use is not associated with higher overall expenditures. Until a cure for FMS is found, CAM providers may offer an economic alternative for patients with FMS seeking symptomatic relief.",
keywords = "Complementary and alternative medicine, Fibromyalgia, Health services research",
author = "Bonnie Lind and Lafferty, {William E.} and Tyree, {Patrick Timothy} and Diehr, {Paula K.} and Grembowski, {David E.}",
year = "2007",
month = "2",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1002/art.22471",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "57",
pages = "71--76",
journal = "Arthritis and Rheumatology",
issn = "2326-5191",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Use of complementary and alternative medicine providers by fibromyalgia patients under insurance coverage

AU - Lind, Bonnie

AU - Lafferty, William E.

AU - Tyree, Patrick Timothy

AU - Diehr, Paula K.

AU - Grembowski, David E.

PY - 2007/2/15

Y1 - 2007/2/15

N2 - Objective. To quantify how visits and expenditures differ between insured patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) who visit complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) providers compared with patients with FMS who do not. Patients with FMS were also compared with an age- and sex-matched comparison group without FMS. Methods. Calendar year 2002 claims data from 2 large insurers in Washington state were analyzed for provider type (CAM versus conventional), patient comorbid medical conditions, number of visits, and expenditures. Results. Use of CAM by patients with FMS was 2.5 times higher than in the comparison group without FMS (56% versus 21%). Patients with FMS who used CAM had more health care visits than patients with FMS not using CAM (34 versus 23; P < 0.001); however, CAM users had similar expenditures to nonusers among patients with FMS ($4,638 versus $4,728; not significant), because expenditure per CAM visit is lower than expenditure per conventional visit. Patients with FMS who used CAM also had heavier overall disease burdens than those not using CAM. Conclusion. With insurance coverage, a majority of patients with FMS will visit CAM providers. The sickest patients use more CAM, leading to an increased number of health care visits. However, CAM use is not associated with higher overall expenditures. Until a cure for FMS is found, CAM providers may offer an economic alternative for patients with FMS seeking symptomatic relief.

AB - Objective. To quantify how visits and expenditures differ between insured patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) who visit complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) providers compared with patients with FMS who do not. Patients with FMS were also compared with an age- and sex-matched comparison group without FMS. Methods. Calendar year 2002 claims data from 2 large insurers in Washington state were analyzed for provider type (CAM versus conventional), patient comorbid medical conditions, number of visits, and expenditures. Results. Use of CAM by patients with FMS was 2.5 times higher than in the comparison group without FMS (56% versus 21%). Patients with FMS who used CAM had more health care visits than patients with FMS not using CAM (34 versus 23; P < 0.001); however, CAM users had similar expenditures to nonusers among patients with FMS ($4,638 versus $4,728; not significant), because expenditure per CAM visit is lower than expenditure per conventional visit. Patients with FMS who used CAM also had heavier overall disease burdens than those not using CAM. Conclusion. With insurance coverage, a majority of patients with FMS will visit CAM providers. The sickest patients use more CAM, leading to an increased number of health care visits. However, CAM use is not associated with higher overall expenditures. Until a cure for FMS is found, CAM providers may offer an economic alternative for patients with FMS seeking symptomatic relief.

KW - Complementary and alternative medicine

KW - Fibromyalgia

KW - Health services research

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33846991936&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33846991936&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/art.22471

DO - 10.1002/art.22471

M3 - Article

C2 - 17266066

AN - SCOPUS:33846991936

VL - 57

SP - 71

EP - 76

JO - Arthritis and Rheumatology

JF - Arthritis and Rheumatology

SN - 2326-5191

IS - 1

ER -