Cervicogenic dizziness

“…characterized by the presence of imbalance, unsteadiness, disorientation, neck pain, limited cervical range of motion, and may be accompanied by a headache.”

Dizziness can have multiple factors. The cervical spine, or neck region, can have a role in a person feeling unsteady or dizzy.

“…when all other causes of dizziness are excluded”

Before making a jump to the cervical spine, the professional performing the evaluation/examination should rule out red flags. Some of these include an active stroke, instability of the neck region after a major trauma, a severing or tear in an artery that supplies the brain.

Other causes of dizziness are BPPV (Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo), vestibular hypofunction, Ménière’s disease, issues affecting the inner ear such as a fistula and many other conditions. Click here to learn more about vestibular issues and dizziness.

“… dizziness should be closely related to changes in cervical spine position or cervical joint movement”

In order to state that the dizziness is coming from the neck, movements of the neck should create a change in symptoms.

It seems like common sense, but I’ll never state that common sense is in abundance in healthcare.

It’s like a person comes in complaining of shoulder and arm pain when looking down, which goes away when looking up, but the clinician spends all of the allotted time moving the shoulder and arm 🤦🏻‍♀️

“diagnosis of exclusion”

This is important. In order to get to this as the cause of the patient’s symptoms, the clinician has to rule out red flags (really bad stuff), BPPV (fast changing symptoms), vestibular dysfunctions (slow changing), brain issues (really slow changing) and then finally get to the neck.

The reason this is called a diagnosis of exclusion is this: when a person is thorough all of the possibilities have been ruled out. This is all that’s left.

“…no single test is able to diagnose the condition, and the diagnosis can not be verified by outcomes, imaging, laboratory values, or unique signs and/or symptoms”

This is important. If there are no tests to determine that this is the problem, it truly is a last resort to treat. We are hoping that this is the cause, and it takes a hard sell job to get the patient on board for treatment of this problem.

“…a systematic process is a pragmatic tool for differential diagnosis of CGD…with utilization of a rule out, rule in paradigm”

This is important. The rule in/rule out paradigm is another way of sayin whiteboarding, at least in my head.

This not so short video series speaks to performing differential diagnosing. Although as a PT, I am not allowed to issue a medical diagnosis, we have to be able to perform differentials and I’ll explain why.

When a physician refers a patient to PT for these issues, many times the diagnosis code given is “dizziness and giddiness”, “frequent falls”, or generalized weakness. No offense to any physician, but this doesn’t tell me what’s wrong with the patient.

In defense of the physician, they may not be trained to perform the testing required in order to determine what is the underlying, or root cause, of the dizziness. Also, on average physicians don’t get to spend the allowed time with the patient in order to perform these tests. I surely can’t treat something if I don’t have an idea of what is wrong. There must be some clue telling me where to start, and this is the power of doing a differential in order to classify what is the major problem and what may be the lesser problems causing a person to be dizzy or off balance.

Because there is not just one cause, there can not be just one treatment.

Hope this makes sense.

“CGD should not be considered if the patient does not have neck pain…neck pain can occur at rest, with movement or with palpation”

It only makes sense that if we believe that there is a problem in the neck that is causing a major disruption in that persons ability to function that we should also be able to find a problem in the neck if we try hard enough.

Pain is so elusive that it may not present in a typical manner. I have patients that only have neck pain provoked at their end-range, which is limited. This would fit the category.

“Vertigo as an illusion of movement;a sensation as if the external world were revolving around the individual (objective vertigo), or as if the individual were revolving in space (subjective vertigo). Vertigo is not a symptom arising from cervical spine, but rather is caused by peripheral vestibular disorders or lesions within the vestibular pathways of the central nervous system”

This is where things become fun. It reminds me of taking my daughter to a fun house. First, getting into the house was hilarious. It started as a house of mirrors. I can’t believe how many times she hit her face into the mirror because she thought it was the exit. The first time she hit her face on the mirror, I was a concerned dad and tried to offer help. By the time she hit her face on the mirror the third time I couldn’t constrain myself any longer. Because it was a house of mirrors she saw me laughing…1,000 mirrored reflections laughing.

I digress.

To get out of the fun house, we had to cross a bridge that had a tunnel spinning around it, which gave the illusion that we were moving. If one closed the eyes and walked, it was easy. If one kept the eyes opened it was a scene out of a sinking ship. My daughter was holding onto the rails for dear life…even though nothing she was standing on or touching was moving.

Vertigo is something like that 😂.

“The duration of symptoms for CGD can range from days to months to years”

This is where I start to have some issues.

A classification of dizziness that we can’t prove, have no great testing to show us that it is happening can have a duration of a short period of time to a long period of time.

Holy specific Batman! This is why, as healthcare professionals, we can struggle at time. The research doesn’t give us concrete information that is useful when in front of the patient.

Patient: how long can this last

Doctor: 🤷‍♂️ months to years

Patient: how long do you think it will last for me

Doctor: (silence)

“Ménière’s disease is a chronic vestibular disorder characterized by episodic bouts of aural fullness, vertigo, and hearing loss. Cervicogenic dizziness however, typically does not include aural fullness, tinnitus or hearing loss”

What in the world is aural fullness?

This is a full feeling within the ear. Think of feeling pressure or a buildup of within the ear. In Ménière’s disease, this feeling comes and goes. The sensation may be accompanied by spinning sensations and hearing loss.

If the patient is experiencing hearing loss, then we can state that the cervical spine is not having a role in this symptom and additional testing of the vestibular, or balance gauge, system needs to be checked to ensure that nothing was missed.

As Johnnie Cochran has become famous for saying:

“If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit”

Some reading this may not be old enough to u see stand this phrase, but the meaning is that if part of the evidence presented doesn’t fit the case then there must be a different perspective followed.

This means that if you are experiencing dizziness that stems from the neck, you shouldn’t also experience hearing loss. If your provider is not listening to your symptoms, you may be wasting both time and money by undergoing treatment for the wrong classification.

“BPPV is the most common vestibular pathology… crystals become dislodged from the utricle and migrate into one of the three semicircular canals located within the inner ear.”

Benign (not harmful) Paroxysmal (sudden occurrence or intensification of symptoms) Positional (relating to the position of the body against gravity) Vertigo (illusion of movement when no movement is occurring) (BPPV) is very common to experience in one’s lifetime. About 3 out of every hundred will experience this. Although it doesn’t come close to the statistics for back pain, it is the most likely reason for experiencing vertigo.

The bad news: it really sucks to have this happen because any activity becomes difficult when you are experiencing your world spinning.

The good news: it’s treatable in a high percentage of cases with very few visits.

“if a patient has symptoms of vertigo accompanied by nystagmus in response to changing head position in space, then BPPV is more likely than CGD”

The nystagmus is the quick movement of the eyes. If we see a nystagmus (it is visible to the clinician) when moving patients through different positions, this helps to clarify not only that the patient has a positional dizziness, but also where the problem is located based on the position and the movement of the eyes.

For instance, if the patient has symptoms during a Dix-Hallpike, we can assume posterior canal, we then have to know if it is the left side or right sided canal in order to understand the proper direction of treatment.

If the patient has a positive Roll test, then this would implicate the horizontal canal, but again we would have to understand the side of dysfunction.

“… symptom duration lasting only a few seconds were significantly more common in the BPPV group. Cervical neck movement, fatigue, anxiety, and stress were also found to be more common precipitating factors for exacerbation of symptoms in the CGD group as compared to the BPPV group”

BPPV has short lasting symptoms. Once the crystals settle, then the symptoms subside.

The other symptoms of anxiety and stress do not tend to be causative factors in BPPV.

“…acute, unilateral, peripheral vestibular loss due to labrythitis or vestibular neuronitis…marked vertigo, imbalance…nausea and possibly vomiting…spontaneous horizontal, direction fixed nystagmus in room light”

When we see an acute peripheral vestibular loss it’s pretty cool, at least for me, as the eyes are all over the place. Because the eyes have difficulty focusing, the patient will see objects blurred or moving. This can create an imbalance and the movement seen, paired with the lack of actual movement of the body, can create a nausea feeling.

Although it is fun to work with, it is never fun to be vomited 🤮 on. My first year, I had no clue what I was doing and got a lot of vomit on my shoes.

“Key symptoms frequently present in vestibular migraine, but not CGD, are aura, true vertigo , throbbing headaches, sensitivity to auditory or visual sensory stimulation, and oculomotor changes”

If you’ve ever had a migraine, these can be debilitating. The sensitivity to light and sound are the two symptoms I hear the most, along with nausea. Cervicogenic dizziness should not present with the auditory or visual issues as these are controlled by cranial nerves (think brain nerves) and not neck nerves.

“Cervical arterial dysfunction (CAD) and whiplash associated disorders (WAD) are non-vestibular pathologies that can mimic CGD”

I had one patient with cervical artery dysfunction that presented with a dizziness. The dizziness was produced with neck movements, but not with other testing. It wasn’t until he started to demonstrate a nystagmus with the seated rotation extension test, along with neck pain, that I sent him back to his referring physician. An ultrasound confirmed arterial dissection.

It’s common in my practice to see proprioceptive issues, as tested by the JPET, in patients after a car accident. We use the laser frequently with these patients.

“…as CAD related dizziness presents with only one symptom in less than 1% of the cases. Other symptoms of CAD include severe headache, diplopia, nystagmus, numbness around the lips or mouth, dysphagia, dysarthria, and upper motor neuron signs”

The patients that present with a suspicion of cervical artery dysfunction or dissection should be referred back to the physician immediately, as this is a risk factor for major complications like stroke.

“Common symptoms of WAD are cervical neck pain and hypersensitivity, decreased cervical ROM, dizziness, tinnitus, and headache”

I see the hypersensitivity frequently in the clinic, along with reduced movement in the neck and a fear avoidance mentality. We don’t expect to see hypersensitivity in those with cervical based dizziness.

“Positive results on cervical instability testing or CAD testing indicate a need for immediate medical attention and imaging”

Again, this was stated above, but I will leave the quote as it is very important to get these patients medical attention immediately.

“A neurological screen should include an assessment of radicular symptoms, myotomes, dermatomes, deep tendon reflexes, upper motor neuron signs and cranial nerve function”

This is a basic evaluation.

Has your PT ever checked your lower reflexes or

“…the vestibular examination should be next”

This type of evaluation is looking at the health of the vestibular nerve and possibly the cochlear nerve through special tests.

The semicircular canals are also tested through positional testing, described later in the post.

Some of the testing performed in the clinic are as follows:

Head Impulse Test or Head Thrust

Head shaking test

The DVAT is described below.

“A thorough evaluation of the cervical spine is best performed in step 4 because first ruling out vestibular dysfunction increases the probability that the cervical spine is the cause of the dizziness”

This goes back to the classification of exclusion. If we’ve cleared the brain of signs of stroke, cleared the canals for signs of BPPV, cleared the nerve of signs of hypofunction and looked at other possibilities such as fistula, then we are left with the neck.

Treating the neck can be helpful for many, but it shouldn’t be the first line of treatment for a patient walking off of the street with complaints of dizziness.

The JPET is one way to test the cervical spine for deficits in spatial awareness.

The Head neck differentiation test is another way of assessing the neck region for dizziness.

“…oculomotor evaluation should include evaluation of nystagmus, skew, smooth pursuit, saccades, Dix-Halpike test, static and dynamic visual acuity, and the vestibule-ocular reflex (VOR) including VOR cancellation and the head thrust test”

Another video showing a nystagmus

The Test of skew is a part of the HINTs exam, which could indicate an active stroke.

Smooth pursuit is another test to measure brain involvement in dizziness.

Saccadic testing is easy to perform in the clinic.

The Dix-Hallpike maneuver is classic for testing of the posterior semi-circular canal, which is typically implicated in BPPV.

The DVAT is used to classify BVH and UVH. (I am choosing to use a student page for this one to help support student programs).

“A horizontal, direction, fixed nystagmus, is consistent with unilateral peripheral vestibular hypofunction.”

These are hard to imagine without context. This video is perfect to demonstrate a quick horizontal beat towards the stronger side.

The eyes will slowly drift in one direction and rapidly correct towards the other direction. This is an indication that one vestibular nerve is “stronger” than the opposite nerve.

This can be treated successfully through rehab.

Article

Medicare for all

Are you paying attention?

Medicare for all would not be a great option, since we can barely sustain Medicare for some.

Government has to get more and more creative in order to make the 💰 last longer.

Part of that creativity is to reduce output.

Another part of that will be to increase revenue to this system.

Reducing output is easy. They are simply paying less for services and taking less risk than previous years.

For instance, ACO (hospitals and other entities) are seeing less reimbursement than previous years for the same procedure.

Less income means that the hospitals have to find other ways to generate income or to become “leaner” in their operations. This may mean less one-one time for PTs.

What do you think the solution should be?

See some of the comments to understand why we are running into problems.

Functional movement screening: the use

The FMS (TM) can be used to assess movement, but not predict injuries in all populations.

“The rehabilitation professional must realize that in order to prepare individuals for a wide variety of activities, screening of fundamental movements is imperative.”

I agree with this statement. I disagree that we yet have a tool that can screen all individuals from all sports. This screening tool has yet to prove its worthiness of use on athletes.

I recently was certified by USAW as a weightlifting coach. I really like what they use to screen participants before allowing them to train the weightlifting lifts of the clean and jerk and snatch. They use the basic movement patterns, without load or speed, that are needed in order to perform the entire lift safely.

This makes logical sense, but I don’t think a study has been performed to see if this is a good/bad thing to do prior to allow safe lifting.

The FMS is proposed to be a screening tool for athletes and tactical workers. I’m not sure this one tool can encompass all of the movements required in life.

It’s still a good thing to learn about, not for use as a screen, but instead to better understand how the body as a system can move through the spectrum of very stiff and weak through very mobile and supportive.

“Many individuals train around a pre-existing problem or simply do not train their weaknesses during strength and conditioning (fitness) programs.”

If a person is unaware of a problem, this is also a problem. I would be all for a low cost screening tool, which everyone is required to have tested on a yearly/decade basis.

For instance, someone that lacks ankle mobility may not know that they are unable to squat without something under their heels. They may not know that this leads to increased use of the anterior chain, which increases knee stresses. They may not utilize their hips and may round their back when performing their repetitive squatting activities.

There are so many possibilities for a person to lose mobility, that this should be screened. The problem is that we have yet to know an effective screening tool.

“The perception of many past researchers is that no set standards exist for determining who is physically prepared to participate in activities”

If there are no standards, then everyone can participate in a physical training program. This is only partially true. There are some standards, but not many.

1. The person must be breathing

2. The person must not be at a major risk of death if participating in an exercise program

3. Start exercising!

“…the main goals in performing pre-participation, performance, or return to sport screening are to decrease the potential for injury, prevent re-injury, enhance performance, and ultimately improve quality of life”

This is what makes a universal screening tool so hard to find. I don’t even think we have a tool for different positions of the SAME sport because the requirements are so diverse. I keep bringing up the USAW screening tool, but that’s because the athlete, in the end only needs to be safe enough to perform TWO movements. The screening tool has more movements than needs to be performed. If this were to hold true for any other sport, the screening tool would be too long to be useful.

“…intended purpose of movement screening (1) identify individuals at risk, who are attempting to maintain or increase activity level (2) assisting in program design by systematically using corrective exercise to normalize or improve fundamental movement patterns (3) providing a systematic tool to monitor progress and movement pattern development…(4) creating a functional movement baseline”

I can agree with all of the above stated. Im not sure if research supports these statements, but they sound pretty good.

I do like the idea of creating a movement baseline, but that baseline measurement will need to be extensive enough to capture relevant information to that patient.

“The FMS (TM) is comprised of seven fundamental movement patterns (tests) that require a balance of mobility and stability (including neuromuscular/motor control)”

This is true. The seven movement patterns tested are adequate tests for ADL’s but I don’t know if it goes far enough to test anything other than a persons baseline movement.

“The term ‘regional interdependence’ is used to describe the relationship between regions of the body and how dysfunction in one region may contribute to dysfunction in another region”

I speak with many PTs throughout the week that know this term and can recall this term, but don’t apply this term on a daily basis when working with people. For example, a significant loss of dorsiflexion (ankle flexibility) will keep the knee from bending and shifting towards your toes. This will in turn cause you to learn more forward with your hips.

A loss of movement at your shoulder can make you move your back more when reaching overhead.

This is the term regional interdependence at play.

“Programmed altered movement patterns have the potential to lead to further mobility and stability imbalances, which have previously been identified as risk factors for injury”

This is where I start to deviate a little from the article. There are way too many logical jumps being made without proof that a screening tool is predictive of injury.

“…an important factor in prevention of injuries and improving performance is to quickly identify deficits in symmetry, mobility, and stability because of their influences on creating altered motor programs throughout the kinetic chain”

I don’t agree with this.

Everything here forward is my opinion and I don’t have any proof that it’s true: we live in an asymmetrical world. We start off as one handed or one footed. We play sports that drive this asymmetry. It’s hard to say that moving towards a more symmetrical society will improve performance in asymmetrical sports or activities.

I personally don’t think it happens.

There are many saying that at a young age that kids shouldn’t specialize, and I would agree with that, but at what age does specialization become more appropriate. I remember hearing stories about Ken Griffey Jr (one of the greatest baseball players of all time with baseball being a very asymmetrical sport) playing basketball in order to improve mobility and hand eye coordination.

It’s a theory that working towards symmetry improves performance, in just not at that point yet.

“Scores serve to tell the professional when a person needs more investigation or assessment”

The score on the movement screen does not predict injury. It just states that the person doesn’t move like the ideal.

For instance, my shoulder mobility for the internal/external rotation test is not ideal. That’s expected for me because I have shorter arms and am overweight. The investigation of this test is that I have to lose weight in order to see if that has an effect on my testing. The same “problem” of being overweight can affect the rotary test in quadruped as the belly can get in the way of the test. “Problem” solved. It may not be a muscle/joint problem at all.

Read the article to see the testing and what the authors propose that the test is measuring.

Link to article

PT and tendons: where are we at?

“Complicating matters further is the mismatch between reported pain (and disability) and imaging (and pathology), as well as evidence of widespread sensory nervous system sensitization in some tendonopathies.”

A little background. Pain is not always viewable. This is a large debate even among the highest level of pain organizations. The IASP (Thanks to Colin Windhu for catching a mistake) is looking to change the definition of pain to include tissue based problems, or at least perceived problems.

Not all pain has a tissue based component, as some have a cognitive and emotional based component. For instance, I treated a person that was so afraid of performing activities that this person developed a pain from the thought of movement. After establishing that movement was safe, this person more than 10X increased the ability on a functional test…in less than 6 weeks.

This person, and others that I’ve worked with, have a “stinking thinking” type of pain. This may not be the fault of the patient, but instead it may be the fault of the faulty medical system. One that drives fear.

How many people have heard a physician say

“This is the worst spine I have seen”

“You shouldn’t squat/run because it’s bad for your knees”

“You shouldn’t work with heavy weights because it’s bad for your back”

“Your knees/hips are bone on bone and you will need a new knee/hip in the future”

Your pain is because you have a rotator cuff tear/disc herniation/arthritis etc”

These types of interactions do more to hurt the patient than help the patient and can start the cycle of inactivity out of fear of breaking oneself.

Don’t buy into the hype. A little stat, when a physician diagnoses your back pain as a herniated disc, arthritis, muscle strain, stenosis, etc do you know that the diagnosis is only right about 10% of the time?!

People are hanging their health habits in a guess that has a worse chance of being right than flipping a coin. You would have better odds of getting 4 of a kind in Texas Holdem.

Let’s start by not placing too much weight into the diagnosis because it’s a best guess at best.

Here’s what we think may happen. Some pain can cause more pain. Nerves can communicate with each other.

It’s similar to an infection. Any nerve that comes in contact with the nerve that is irritated can then become infected (irritated). Hmm?

I’ve seen many patients that experience widespread pain even though “everything is healthy”.

Yet another reason not to hang your hat on one specific tissue problem.

“… A diagnosis of tendinopathy is reasonably easy to make clinically, on the basis localized pain over the tendon that is associated with loading of the tendon.”

If you hurt your biceps and you ask your biceps to work, it makes sense that it may not like that.

If you hurt/injured your biceps and it hurts when you make your ankle muscles work, we wouldn’t expect that to create a problem in the biceps if the problem is localized to the biceps.

Make sense?

In other words, when a tendon is injured, we expect specific behaviors like

1. Pain with contraction under load that may increase with increasing loads

2. Pain with compression of that area

3. Pain with stretching that specific area

4. No issues when that area is not moving.

If the symptoms operate outside of this narrow set of parameters, it may not be only a tendon issue. This is not to say there isn’t a tendon issue, but instead is meant to say that the tendon may only be a part of the problem and we have no idea how much of a part it is until more assessment is done.

“…management of tendinopathy should optimally involve addressing loading of the tendon”

A tendon connects a muscle to a bone. It doesn’t have a ton of blood flow and can be slow to heal.

It needs to work in order to get back to its normal function.

This is what it means to load the tendon. Make it work, but don’t irritate/create harm. As long as the tendon/pain is not worse following an activity…awesomesauce…no harm done.

“Management of load…usually commenced with complete removal of offending activities and the introduction of appropriate and graduated loading activities”

If you break your leg, you will expect to be on crutches. This is to allow the bone time to heal. This stage lasts anywhere from 4-6 weeks. Loading before then one is ready to accept load can result in worsening the injury. You would know this because the pain worsened or you would break it further.

Loading a tendon before it is ready to be loaded OR more than it is ready to accept will lead to increased pain in that area, pain that is lasting and worsening function over time.

These are the clues a patient needs to give their attention towards.

Sometimes you need to remove all load from a tendon to allow it to rest and others you can perform your normals daily activities, but any more would result in increased pain that lingers.

When the pain no longer lingers after an activity, it is time to do more activities and create a new norm.

It doesn’t have to be any more complicated than this. Some research shows that 1200 repetitions of calf raises should be performed weekly, but it doesn’t have to be this structured.

“…requires patient buy-in…involves the clinician educating the patient about the nature of the tendinopathy, its relationship to loading, and a likely recovery trajectory.”

This is by far and away the most important detail.

If the patient is not educated on how the body should respond AFTER performing the activity, then the patient may be reluctant to continue anything that creates transient (short-lived) pain.

This is one of those issues that only gets better with direct loading. It doesn’t “fix” with time because it needs to be strong enough to handle the loads that you would throw at it on a daily basis.

“This exercise program should be adequately supervised, reviewed, and progressed to ensure adherence and resolution of the tendinopathy.”

SOAPBOX: ADEQUATELY SUPERVISED DOES NOT MEAN THREE TIMES PER WEEK FOR SIX TO EIGHT WEEKS. THE PATIENT SHOULD BE PERFORMING THE HOME PROGRAM AND THE THERAPIST IS IDEALLY ONLY A PHONE CALL AWAY. THE PATIENT SHOULD RETURN IF SOMETHING U EXPECTED HAS OCCURRED OR THE PATIENT NO LONGER IS ABLE TO REPRODUCE THE SYMPTOMS WITH THE LOAD THEY ARE USING AT HOME.

“(a) symptom-guides management, (b) symptom-modification management (c) compressive versus tensile load (d) stages of loading through the rehabilitation process (isometric and isotonic strengthening, energy storage and release, return to play), and (e) what I will refer to as movement competency…in a way that does not provoke pain.”

This doesn’t need to be summarized and is great advice for most soft tissue disorders.

“In the lower limb (Achilles tendon, patellar tendon), it appears that pain up to 5/10 on a numeric pain rating scale during and after training is not harmful and may be desirable”

This is a little more aggressive than I go initially, but the patient’s response gets to dictate how hard we push.

If there is a 3 point change and the patient is no worse after repeatedly creating a 3-point change, the. They have earned the right to go to a 4-point change. At some point, we would predict that too much of an increase would lead to an inflammatory effect, but we just don’t know what that number is for that specific patient.

The only way we will ever know is to test it.

“The fad of giving all patients with tendinopathy an eccentric exercise program from the onset has largely abated; however, after adequate strength of the muscle has been achieved, it is necessary to use eccentric exercises to reinstitute the energy storage/return capacity of the musculotendinous complex”

Not sure if this is any different than just load the tissue. The tissue needs to be able to contract under load and stretch under load. That’s normal mechanics for a muscle.

“Movement competency…is mainly about the form and shape (posture and alignment) with which physical activity is performed.”

This is consistent with what Dr. Kelly Starrett has been preaching for years through his books, videos and interviews.

A squat should look like a certain shape and many things look similar, such as a lunge (squat with one leg), clean start position, deadlift start position, standing up from the toilet etc.

Of course I know there are nuances between the squat and deadlift regarding hip height and back angle, the clean and lunge regarding shin angle etc, but in the end the basic shape still applies (knee bent and hip bent with shoulders forward and back fairly flat with head looking straight ahead). The similarities are where most people need to function and the nuances are what make the exceptional athletes different.

Link to article

Reflections from “The Alchemist” Part II

“Everyone seems to have a clear idea of how other people should lead their lives, but none about his or her own.”

Are you happy?

Do you love your profession?

Are you satisfied with the time you spend with your family?

Matthew 7:5

You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

This is the first passage that comes to mind when I think of the above quote.

I’ve met many people in my life say I should’ve been a lawyer, I should’ve gone to medical school, I should’ve done this or that. A wise dumpster diver, turned scholar, turned flight attendant by the name of John Patrick Luby III used to say “Never should (shit) on yourself!”

All that really matters is that I’m happy in life and content with where I’m at as a professional. When I introduce myself and people say what do you do you I said I do physical therapy. I rarely say that I’m a physical therapist.

As much as I do for the profession and within the profession, I never want the profession to define me. I am a father. I am a husband. I am a son. I am my own person.

Lately, I have been spending time counseling others on clear pass. I try my best to stay unbiased and to not give my opinion as much as I try to receive answers and ask questions to those that are looking for their careers. I do my best to give an objective opinion regarding finances, regarding passions, regarding job stability, job, but most importantly happiness.

It’s not my job, nor my want, to try to push someone into a direction. I personally feel it’s my responsibility to help those that are seeking assistance in finding their own career path I never do this by pushing them in a direction, but instead help them to see where their passions may lie.

I’ve met many people that are dissatisfied with how their life is playing out, but what they fail to see is that it’s now until they’re no longer living, they are free to make choices to affect the outcome going to change their future is the president. Their past Cano want to change it, but the choices they make today will affect the outcome as of tonight and tomorrow. I making different choices they can choose to take a different path in life, but many have difficulties making those decisions. There are outside forces that may hold people in certain positions in life, such as golden handcuffs, family responsibilities, stature and such.

Ultimately, it is not my job to direct others, not other’s job to direct me.

Patients with Medicare using PT

“Services were required because the individual needed therapy services”

For a person to need therapy services, they must have a plan of care certified as necessary by a physician or other referring professional.

“A plan for furnishing such services has been established by a physician/NPP or by a therapist providing such services and is Eperiodically reviewed by a physician/NPP”

A PT is allowed to establish a plan of care for patients, but the insurance doesn’t necessarily have to pay for it. In order for Medicare to pay for a plan of care that is established by a physical therapist, a physician or other referring provider must sign off on that plan of care.

“Services are or were furnished while the individual is or was under the care of a physician…In certifying an outpatient plan of care for therapy a physician/NPP is certifying that the above conditions are met. Certification is required for coverage and payment of a therapy claim.”

If a physician/NPP provides a referral at the time of evaluation, this ensures that the patient was under the care of a referral source at the time of the evaluation. This becomes important because there are patients that will wait to start therapy for months or years after a referral was issued. There is not guarantee that the referral source will certify the POC at this later date. If this POC is not certified, then the treatment will not be covered by Medicare.

“Claims submitted for outpatient PT, OT, and SLP services must contain the National Provider (NPI) of the certifying physician identified for a PT, OT, and SLP plan of care”

Although this is a technicality, this may cause a denial of payment if the NPI number, of the referring professional, is not included on claims.

“Although there is no Medicare requirement for an order, when documented in the medical record, an order provided evidence that the patient both needs therapy services and is under the care of a physician. The certification requirements are met when the physician certifies the plan of care”

Again, this needs to be reiterated over and and over, the patient needs to be under the care of a physician when in physical therapy. The referral can serve to show that the patient was under the care of a physician at the time of the initial evaluation. In the end, the only thing that matters is that the physician/NPP signs off on the plan of care established by the PT.

“Payment is dependent on the certification of the plan of care rather than the order, but the use of an order is prudent to determine that a physician is involved in care and available to certify the plan”

Have you had enough of this yet.

Do you think that there is a reason this is spelled out so frequently in the documentation?

Some don’t follow the rules of the game.

“The services must relate relate directly and specifically to a written treatment plan as described…must be established before treatment is begun…written or dictated.”

We all know that a plan is required.

Some don’t know how to write frequency and duration.

Some don’t know how to write interventions, or some perform interventions not written.

They must be written and signed off on in order to perform.

“The signature and professional identity of the person who established the plan, and date it was established must be recorded with the plan”

No brainer…or is it?

Stamped signatures are not signatures according to CMS, and stamps are not approved.

“Outpatient therapy services shall be furnished under a plan established by:

A physician/NPP

The physical therapist who will provide the physical therapy services”

This is critical. A therapist doesn’t need to have a POC signed if the physician/NPP creates the plan and it is abided by the PT verbatim.

Also, the PT doesn’t need to be licensed if practicing under a physician.

“The plan may be entered into the patient’s therapy record either by the person who established the plan or by the provider’s or supplier’s staff when they make a written record of that person’s oral orders before treatment is begun.”

This is a formality, but it has to do with dictating a note. Treatment can not be started by anyone other than the PT or immediately supervised by the PT that created the plan, before it is entered into record.

“The evaluation and treatment may occur and are both billable either on the same day or at subsequent visits.”

I tend to do one billable unit on the days of an evaluation. This is based on how much time you spend with the patient covering an intervention, or if an untamed intervention is performed.

“Therapy may be initiated by qualified professionals or qualified personnel based on a dictated plan. Treatment may begin before the plan is committed to writing only if the treatment is performed or supervised by the same clinician who established the plan”

This means that the PT or PTA can start treatment on the initial visit. The PT must be in the office supervising the PTA at this point.

Some people, like Anthony Maritato, use this method to establish a relationship between the treating therapist and the patient.

Others, like Rick Gawenda, find this to be a less efficient use of time.

“It is acceptable to treat under two separate plans of care when different physicians/NPP refer a patient for different conditions. It is also acceptable to combine the plans of care into one plan covering both conditions if one or the other referring physician/NPP is willing to certify the plan for both conditions”

I’ve seen some clinic totally prefer to treat the patient 2x/week for one ailment and 2x/week for another ailment.

Take a guess why…it sure ain’t for the patient’s benefit.

Medicare limits how many units can be charged in a session (essentially how much money can be paid in a session). If there is a way around this, you can bet that money hungry clinics will find this workaround.

“The plan of care shall contain, at minimum, the following information as required by regulation:

Diagnosis

Long term goals

Type amount and frequency of therapy services”

The evaluation doesn’t need much. It would be great if it established medical necessity, but is it required…NOPE!

The diagnosis can either be ICD codes or the written diagnosis since it is not spelled out.

“Long term treatment goals should be developed for the entire episode of care in the current setting”

This is something new to many therapists. Medicare doesn’t specifically require short term goals. If they are not required, do they need to be done? In school it is taught to set short term goals as a step towards the long term goal. In reality, every minute counts. The time spent creating and typing short term goals could be used elsewhere. Creating short term goals is literally robbing Peter to pay Paul, but Paul doesn’t need the money.

“…long term goals may be specific to the part of the episode that is being certified. Goals should be measurable and pertain to identified functional impairments”

Goals should be measurable and timely. They should relate to function. There is a lot of grey area in this portion. Subjective measurements are not the most reliable and maybe shouldn’t be used in goal writing.

I see frequently “to increase hip abduction strength to 4/5”

This goal is measurable, albeit loosely and has no tie to function.

I personally like to use outcome measures and specific functional testing in my goal writing. For instance, the patient will improve the (TUG, Tinetti, Berg, chair rise, single leg stance, lower/upper extremity functional scale, yellow flag risk form) in order to …

“…documentation should state the clinical reasons progress cannot be shown”

This is built into many EMRs now.

Sometimes I will write that the symptoms are not reducible through movement or modulation. Other times, I will write that the patient is not consistent with the HEP. Sometimes, it’s that it is a maintenance case and the patient is unsafe to perform exercises with an untrained professional due to fall risk, BP fluctuations or rapidly changing SpO2.

This is where it really pays off to have read some of the textbooks that were recommended in PT school. I particularly recommend the ACSM handbook.

“The amount of treatment refers to the number of times in a day the type of treatment will be provide…one treatment session a day is assumed”

In an outpatient setting, this is typically one. In an acute or subacute setting it may be BID (twice in a day) or even TID (thrice in a day).

“The frequency refers to the number of times in a week the type of treatment is provided”

I struggle with this one. Many therapists are putting 3 times per week for 4 weeks on all their plans. This isn’t being done because they believe it’s what is best for the patient, but because there is a corporate policy to get as many visits in per week as able.

I get frustrated with this type of plan. If you are a therapist and working in this setting, but only putting this plan down to keep from rocking the boat…you are abusing Medicare and should call CMS to report this activity.

Please and thank you.

“The duration is the number of weeks, or the number of treatment sessions, for THIS plan of care.”

This question is asked frequently. I will typically put down the number of weeks if I know that the surgeon only wants so many weeks of PT per a protocol. If it is not protocol based, the. I will typically put down the total number of visits expected for the episode.

Many of my patients (>80%) require an authorization and are typically given 12 visits to start. In this case, I will make the plan for 12 visits or 90 days, whichever comes sooner. I know that I have to do a progress note and get a recertification and ask for more visits at this time anyways.

“It may be appropriate for therapists to taper the frequency of visits as the patient progresses toward and independent or caregiver assisted self-management program with the intent of improving outcomes and limiting treatment time.”

Again, I frequently get 12 visits to start. I try to make these visits as worthwhile for the patient as possible. For some cases I will see 3 times per week, but for many I will see 1 visit per week or 2 per 10 days. This way we are able to see the patient for the timeline of change that is expected. For instance, strength usually occurs in the first 6 weeks due to neuromuscular changes and hypertrophy happens after this timeframe. If we are seeing the patient for 12 visits in 4 weeks, then we may have exhausted the benefits before noting the change.

To me, that is a waste. Many patients agree with me on this because we make the POC together based on their finances (copays need to be paid each day regardless of how many times you are seen per week), work schedules and need/expectation to change over a given time period.

Again…PTs, if you don’t have this autonomy to create your own Plan of Care, are you truly an autonomous practitioner or are you simply a technician that is doing what a higher figure is telling you to do?

“When tapered frequency is planned, the exact Number of treatments per frequency level is not required to be projected in the plan, because the changes should be made based on assessment of daily progress”

This is one of the aspects that I take advantage of in the plan. At this point, I will write 12 visits over 12 weeks or 12 visits over 6 weeks. This way I may start at 3 visits and taper down to one visit per week.

“The clinician should consider any comorbidities, tissue healing, the ability of the patient and/or caregiver to do more independent self-management as treatment progresses, and any other factors related to frequency and duration of treatment”

I had a patient that hadn’t walked in years. The person had fluctuating blood pressures with activity and at times therapy was halted due to elevated BP. This patient was not safe to perform gait training independently due to fall risk and intermittent cardiac crises. This patient was treated 1-2 times per week with gait training and performed a Nu Step at home. The interventions that were skilled were performed in the clinic and the unskilled interventions were issued for HEP.

“…optional elements: short term goals, goals and duration for the current episode of care, specific treatment interventions, procedures, modalities or techniques and the amount of each.”

As much as this says “optional”, I’m not sure it is fully optional. For instance, this report notes that a therapist did not have the type of intervention in his POC as one of many reasons for repayment.

“Changes to procedures and modalities do not require physician signature when they represent adjustments to the plan that result from a normal progression in the patient’s disease or condition or adjustments to the plan due to the lack of expected response unchanged. Only when the patient’s condition changes significantly, making revision of term goals necessary, is a physician/NPP’s signature required on the change.”

For me personally, when there is a major change in status that requires a change in goals and expectations, I phone the physician and alert the medical team to the change in status. I feel that it is important to relay this information to the physician personally, in addition to writing a progress note or re-evaluation.

“Certification requires a dated signature on the plan of care or some other document that indicates approval of the plan of care… The date of the certification is signed is important to determine if it is timely or delayed”

This small detail is important. Although the physician may sign it, it also must be dated. I’ve had to send many evaluations back for a date.

“The physician/NPP’s certification of the plan satisfies all of the certification requirements noted above in (section) 220.1 for the duration of the plan of care, or 90 calendar days from the date of the initial evaluation, whichever is less.”

This is where things get confusing. If you set your plan for 90 days, then everything is good and no confusion.

If you set your plan for 6 weeks, then you would need to get another certification past 6 weeks.

I’ve seen some therapists just write the plan for 90 days on each evaluation in order to check the 90 day box. Don’t be that person. Put thought into your plan and don’t just set up your plan for 90 days because it’s the maximal allowable in one episode.

My duration varies from 4 weeks for acute back pain, 6 weeks for vestibular dizziness up to 12 weeks for neurological disorders. The only downside of doing this is that there is paperwork more frequently. The upside is that it forces a reassessment, which indicates whether or not a patient is responding to care.

“…the physician/NPP shall certify the initial plan as soon as it is obtained, or within 30 days of the initial therapy treatment.”

At my clinic, we have a spreadsheet that has the evaluation name, date and signature (yes/no). Once the signature is obtained, the name is removed from the spreadsheet.

Also, when discharging a chart we have a checklist of items that are expected to be in the chart. The signed evaluation is one of these items on the checklist.

“Evidence of diligence in providing the plan to the physician may be considered by the Medicare contractor during review in the event of a delayed certification”

Again, this is more of a standard operating procedure. When a note is faxed to a physician, the fax cover letter becomes a part of the record. This is done to demonstrate that due diligence was performed in attempting to get a note signed.

“Payment and coverage conditions require that the plan must be reviewed, as often as necessary but at least whenever it is certified or re-certified to complete the certification requirements. It is not required that the same physician/NPP who participated initially in recommending and planning the patient care certify and/or re-certify the plans”

This is also an opportunity for PTs. If a patient has a better relationship with the PCP compared to the orthopedic surgeon, it may be prudent to have the patient get the PCP to sign off on the recertification.

“If the physician wishes to restrict the patient’s treatment beyond a certain date when a visit is required, the physician should certify a plan only until the date of the visit.”

The evaluation template that we use from Theraoffice provides an area for the physician to change the plan if deemed appropriate.

“Certifications and recertification’s by Doctors of podiatric medicine must be consistent with the scope of the professional services provided by a doctor of podiatric medicine as authorized by applicable state law… Chiropractors may not certify or recertify plans of care for therapy services.”

This is huge. For instance, a podiatrist physician is only allowed to write a referral for their scope of practice. Seeing a patient from a podiatrist for an ailment that is outside of the scope of practice may result in a sticky situation, like Seinfeld encountered.

Also, Chiropractic physicians are not allowed to certify plans of care for PT. This applies to Medicare. You must be aware of the patient’s insurance in order to determine if other insurances have the same regulations.

“… The provider is precluded from charging the beneficiary for services denied as a result of missing certification”

This means that the provider or company that the provider work for will hound the physician’s office to get the evaluation or progress report signed. Otherwise, the amount paid was not approved to be performed.

The clinics are not allowed to charge the patient due to a lack of certification.

This is not meant to be legal advice, as this is my take on the Important passages from This manual regarding our profession.

If in need of more information on Medicare compliance, check out Nancy Beckley or Rick Gawenda

Part I: TBCS revision

“In order to optimize the treatment effect, patients with LBP should be classified into homogeneous subgroups and matched to a specific treatment. Subgroup-matched treatment approaches have ben shown to result in improved outcomes compared with nonmatched alternative methods.”

There is more information coming out over time that demonstrates certain patients do well with specific treatments related to that particular patient.

Looking at the broad scale, there are many people with LBP across the world.  Not everyone with LBP has similar symptoms or will respond to the same treatment.

For instance, if your pain gets worse with repeated or prolonged bending, prolonged sitting an standing slouched, your treatment will look differently than someone that gets better with the aforementioned activities.

This is what is meant by subgrouping patients into groups.  We take the patient’s presentation and history and match that to an intervention that tends to work well for that group.

One such method of subgrouping can be found here.

This article will highlight a different approach to subgrouping, the Treatment-Based Classification System. This is a post that I previously wrote on this system.

“There are 4 primary LBP classification systems that attempt to match treatments to subgroups of patients using a clinically driven decision-making process: 1. the mechanical diagnosis and therapy classification model described by McKenzie, 2. the movement system impairment syndromes model described by Sahrmann, 3. the mechanism-based classification system described by O’Sullivan and 4. the treatment-based classification system described by Delitto et al.”

I won’t hide from my deficiencies.  I am well versed in the MDT system and fairly well versed in the treatment based classification system.  I am not well versed in the MIS or the MBC.  I will limit my advice to that which I am knowledgeable.

Yet, these systems-without exceptions- have 4 main shortcomings:

  1. No single system is comprehensive enough in considering the various clinical presentations of patients with LBP or how to account for changes in the patient’s status during an episode of care.
  2. Each system has some elements that are difficult to implement clinically because they require expert understanding in order to be utilizied efficiently.
  3. None of these classification systems consider the possibility that some patients with LBP do not require any medical or rehabilitation intervention and are amendable for self-care management.
  4. The degree to which the psychosocial factors are considered varies greatly among these systems, which runs contrary to the clinical practice guidelines established by the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) that advocate using the biopsychosocial model as a basis for classification.”

I will address these points regarding my knowledge of MDT and TBC.  I will not address the MIS or the MBC due to my lack of knowledge regarding these systems.

1. No single system is comprehensive enough or accounts for changes in status during an episode of care.

First, I can’t fully agree with this statement.  Yes, there is no system to date that can account for every patient that walks through the door.  This is true.  This is why a therapist must be well versed in multiple systems.  For instance, MDT is a system that doesn’t take into account non-movement based pain presentations.  When paired with an approach that takes this patient presentation into account, it makes for a great pairing.

The TBC does not account for change during the patient’s episode of care.  Once a patient is classified and the intervention is applied, there is no algorithm for further improvement or progression.

This is not true though for MDT.  For instance, a patient can be classified into one of three categories.  The first two categories have built in progressions, regressions and modifications to movement.  The third category is a category that doesn’t require much intervention aside from advice.

With the first category, derangement (another way to say this would be rapidly changing) there is a clear progression.  Let’s start with the term derangement.  No one likes this term to be used for patients.  It’s a long running joke that we should never tell patients that they have a derangement. Words do matter and the patient’s perception of this term may be just as important as our expectations for the patient.

Now, moving on to the important part of the post.  When a person is classified as a der…I mean a rapidly changing presentation, here is what the progression looks like in the clinic:

  1. Reduce the der…Dangit! I almost did it again.  Make the symptoms better quickly.
  2. Make sure that the patient can maintain the reduction in symptoms.
  3. Return to the functional activities that the patient would normally do during the day without reproducing symptoms
  4. Teach how to prevent the symptoms from returning

That seems like a fairly simple strategy when bringing patients through a program in PT, but unfortunately this simple construct is lost on a lot of professionals.

 

Why you ask?

 

Thanks for asking.

 

Because unfortunately, there is no profit in getting people better.  Shhhh….You didn’t hear it from me.

 

Regarding the second category of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy: Dysfunctional tissues, it also comes with a game plan that is easier to follow than the first, but not as fun to implement.

Also, the name dysfunction is another term that I have gotten away from in the clinic.  Again, patients don’t want to be deranged or dysfunctional, although if given the choice, I would much rather have a derangement.  They want to know is it going to improve and if yes, what’s the timeline.

These issues are like hamstring or achilles problems…they tend to get better if left alone until….WHAM! You goin for a quick sprint to keep your child from running out of the door at the grocery store.  OR you run down the stairs because you are feeling froggy.

It let’s you know….DUFUS! YOU NEVER CORRECTED THIS PROBLEM!

This tissue issue (say that 5 times fast!) needs to be loaded to the point of pain and then allowed to recover before it is loaded again.

Like one of my mentors Annie O’Connor says in her courses “No pain… No gain…No guts…No glory”

This example is rarely used in therapy, but this is one case in which this example is fitting.  Ideally, this tissue is loaded consistently.  I have seen research that states the achilles tendon should be loaded about 1200X/week.  That’s a whole hell of a lot of repetitions.

As a matter of fact, if you would like to read more about this, you can find a previous article that I commented at this link.

  1. “Each system has some elements that are difficult to implement clinically because they require expert understanding in order to be utilized efficiently.”

I would wholeheartedly agree with this statement.  There is research that demonstrates good reliability when MDT is applied by those that have taken, and passed, the credentialing exam.  It has been shown multiple times, but here is one of the more current articles.

The systems are not easy to use, nor should they be easy to utilize.  It irritates me to no end when I hear about a therapist “using the McKenzie exercises” even though he/she has no idea regarding the wrongness of the statement.  Open mouth…insert foot.

There has to be something sacrificed in order to learn a method or system.  Time, money, life…these are all things that I sacrificed in order to get to where I am at in my career, which much to learn remaining.

 

“None of these classification systems consider the possibility that some patients with LBP do not require any medical or rehabilitation intervention and are amendable for self-care management.”

Again, can I disagree with these statements.  At one of the MDT conferences (they blend together), Nadine Foster presented on the STarTBack screening tool.  MDT is advancing to keep up with the research.

Those that keep up with the research or attend MDT-based conference, understands that not all patients require follow-up, or even an evaluation!  Some patients do get better with time.

To follow-up with this, there is still one classification that I didn’t describe yet. This is the postural syndrome. In this syndrome, the patient has no signs or symptoms of a problem…unless he/she maintains one position for too long.  Once the patient moves from that position…the symptoms disappear.  It’s like Wizzo (it’s a Chicago thing).  I bet you didn’t know that you were going to get a history lesson.

“The degree to which the psychosocial factors are considered varies greatly among these systems, which runs contrary to the clinical practice guidelines established by the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) that advocate using the biopsychosocial model as a basis for classification.”

I agree with this, in that MDT or the TBCS doesn’t appear to utilize psychosocial factors in classifying patients.  There is another classification that appears to be paired well with MDT.  Check out this podcast with Annie describing this system.

This will be continued in the next article that goes more into depth on TBCS.

If you would like to read the article highlighted above, you can find it at this link.

Thanks for reading.  For those that gained a little knowledge from this article…please share so others can learn about classification of low back pain.

 

 

The influence of patient choice

“Approximately $85 billion are spent annually on spine-oriented conditions, and an additional $10 to $20 billion are attributed to economic losses in productivity…Per-patient costs have increased by 49% from 1997 to 2006.”

Spine related issues cost our country about $1 Trillion over the course of a decade. Seeing as how we are dealing with a pandemic, people now have a better understanding what $1T can do for the country.

It can give each person thousands in financial relief. It can give small businesses hundreds of thousands in relief.

The number seems arbitrary until you actually see what a Trillion dollar bailout looks like.

If we can reduce the impact of back pain on society, we could keep this money in the economy because there wouldn’t be lost productivity, out of pocket spending and other expenses that come with back pain.

Healthcare would forever be changed if we can reduce the economic impact of back pain, as it is the most prevalent issue seen in outpatient clinics, many emergency departments and most primary care physician offices.

There would be so much opportunity to actually focus on maintaining a healthy population instead of trying to solve a pain/disability problem.

“despite the rising costs, there has been no real improvement in terms of disability or reduction in the proportions of individuals who report back or neck pain.”

This is a little bit of a controversial fact for me. Our ability to treat back pain through classification has improved over the years. For instance, a recent study on downstream costs shows that when using MDT there is fewer follow-up visits and extensive diagnostics required.

I don’t think that we will ever stop people from experiencing pain, back pain or any other locations. People experience pain. This is a fact. Pain can be a good sign to keep us from doing things that create pain in the first place. The problem, in my opinion, is when we allow pain to prevent us from doing things that are considered a normal part of life.

For example, most experience pain when touching a hot stove. This can be used as a warning signal that hot stoves are dangerous.

Unfortunately, many experience pain when bending forward. The same logic applies and some believe that they are actually creating harm when bending forward, so it’s avoided altogether.

This is where I believe a good PT can be worth his/her weight in gold. Teaching a patient to return back to normal activities that the patient previously believed to be dangerous could increase the patients quality and possibly quantity of life.

I now want to address the rising costs of treating pain. The next unfortunate issue is that I personally know practitioners that are so out of touch with current research that they continue to treat patients as if it is 1980. We wonder why, as a whole, we are no better at treating patients.

Why do you think this happens?

One reason is that healthcare is a business.

There’s a ton of conspiracy theorists out there that believe the government is hiding the cure for cancer so that the businesses that treat cancer can continue to make money. For some reason this same conspiracy hasn’t made its way down to back pain.

I’m not sure if you saw the amount of money spent on back pain, but if not then go back up to the top of the post.

There’s big money in back pain.

Why should providers want to get you better faster?

In all honesty, I think the providers want you to get better faster. The providers don’t typically make much less if you get better faster.

The business on the other hand stands to lose a lot of money if the patient gets better at a faster rate.

I’ll speak specifically to physical therapy and use real numbers.

On average a clinic with 2 PT sees about 10 new patients per week. Let’s just say that 8 of the 10 are for some version of spine pain.

This would mean that on average we are seeing 400 new cases of spine related pain in a two person clinic per year.

On average, the reimbursement per treatment session in IL is $95-$100 per session.

If the business asks (more like demands) that a PT keeps the patient for 13 sessions, where’s the therapist with less supervisory demands sees the patient for 8 visits, there is a major difference in the overall income for the clinic.

Clinic 1:

400 (new patients) x 13 (visits)= 5,200 visits

At $95/visit

5,200(visits) x $95(per visit)= $494K

Clinic 2:

400(new patients) x 8(visits)=3,200 visits

At $95/visit

3,200(visits) x $95(per visit)=$304K

Are you starting to understand the problem?

The clinic that requires PTs to see a patient for a specific number of visits stands to generate an extra $190K. This is an example for a two therapist clinic.

Multiply that by the hundreds of thousands of PTs in the country treating back pain and you see how the costs are artificially inflated.

Until insurance companies cut back on what is reimbursed, we will not see a change in practice. What we are seeing insurance companies do is a step in the right direction, bu I personally believe that they are doing it incorrectly.

Right now the insurance companies are giving us typically 8-12 visits that are to be used over the course of 6-8 weeks.

What I would like to see is an insurance company give us a stipend of a few thousands of dollars to care for that one patient over the course of the year. Meaning any problem that occurs with that particular patient is our responsibility to rehab. We become accountable for that patients health.

We are seeing this with some Medicare Advantage Plans, and it seems to be effective at countering the rising costs of healthcare.

Until a drastic change in how we get reimbursed happens, we will continue to see the numbers rise like they have.

I just don’t think that the changes that have happened, restricting the number of visits, is enough to make companies take responsibility for actually helping patients.

“The estimated proportion of persons with back or neck problems to self-report physical functioning limitations increased from 20.7% to 24.7% from 1997 to 2005, suggesting that current care models may be insufficient.”

I have personally seen patients reporting increased disability with time.

Part of what has to be considered is “how many of these individuals reporting disability also have secondary gain issues?”

Meaning, how many people reporting increased disability are actually receiving disability payments?

Secondary gain issues would have to be considered a limiting factor when reporting these numbers.

The next aspect to be considered is the affective component of the impairment. Meaning, how many people are experiencing increased disability due to the environment they spend their time and the situations they surround themselves.

It’s like the opposite of herd immunity. I’ve been part of many FB groups specifically designed for support, but the groups offer anything but support. These groups offer misrepresentation of diagnoses and prognoses. Many people looking for support and assurance are met with information about lifelong disability, surgical options and nocebo language.

There’s more to disability than pain.

A persons belief about pain has an impact on disability. We know this.

We really need to look at changing the narrative about back pain.

“Clinical practice guidelines for primary care management of spinal conditions generally suggest initial management strategies of self-care and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications. Referral to specialist, including physical therapist or for diagnostic imaging is only encouraged for those who failed to respond after period of watchful waiting.”

This is part of the problem. Instead of stratifying the patient based on risk factors for developing persistent pain, which I’ve written about one tool previously, they are treating all back pains similarly.

Some patients will get better on their own without any treatment.

Others would benefit from early treatment.

The medical system has to do a better job of separating these groups in order to maximize outcomes and reduce disability numbers.

“recommended best practices based on such clinical practice guidelines are to avoid bedrest, to use opioid medications for a limited time, and to obtain magnetic resonance imaging only for specific presentation of radicular symptoms.”

This seems very basic.

Unfortunately, these aren’t necessarily followed. I have many patients, over my career that are opioid dependent. There is research showing that long term opioid usage can actually increase a person’s sensitivity to pain. Think about that, medication that initially makes a person unable to sense pain, over time makes a person feel more pain (either frequency or intensity).

I believe that the idea that imaging should be minimized until needed has be adopted more so than the short term usage of opioids.

I rarely see patients coming into the clinic for an evaluation that received an MRI prior to physical therapy. Part of this has to do with insurance companies not approving MRIs until conservative care has been attempted. This has to be commended.

Now we just need our profession to stop looking at patients like an ATM and start to see each case as one that could go to surgery if we don’t make progress.

We have to see the months that the patient would be unable to work and function. We have to employ empathy.

The state of the profession currently sees patients as widgets to be accounted for in productivity measures.

Again, this needs to change in order for us to have an impact on the disabling mentality that is growing with regards to back pain.

“… alternative care models offering direct access (The ability to seek and receive the examination, valuation, and intervention by physical therapist without requiring physician referral for legal or insurance coverage) to physical therapy have suggested fewer days of care and lower costs.”

Looking purely at costs, direct access has the potential to save insurance companies and patients money. This savings would come at the expense of the physicians, hospital systems and emergency departments.

But how you ask?

As it stands, patients would require a referral in most states to be evaluated and treated in a physical therapy environment for longer than 4 weeks. Because of this, a patient would need to go to a physician in order to receive a referral for physical therapy. Each time the patient sees the physician, the costs is about $80.

If PTs has direct access, which in my mind doesn’t just include the ability to be assessed and treated by a physical therapist, but also consists of having that particular patient’s insurance pay for the assessment and treatment, then we would have fewer trips to the emergency department, quick care or physician.

This would save money immediately for the healthcare system and saves the patient time. Instead of waiting to get into a physician and then waiting to see the PT, the patient could walk into the PT office and be assessed within 24-48 hours.

“The majority of the 447 patients included in the analysis chose traditional medical referral (61.7%).”

This is interesting for me to navigate. The group that chose to go the route of direct access ended up saving about $1,500 in total cost of care. This number is misleading though because it didn’t take into account the amount of money that the patient actually paid out of pocket.

For instance, in a 90%/10% coverage plan, the patient would have only paid an extra $150 out of pocket (assuming the deductible was met). That’s a large difference from the patient paying an extra $750 if the patient has an insurance that pays 50%.

Because this $1,500 can vary patient to patient, I’m not sure if it is a good metric to use because it really tells us how much money we are saving the insurance company, instead of telling us how much money we are saving the patient.

I understand the argument that if we save the insurance company money, then we would save the patient money on a lower premium, but I just don’t believe that we will make enough of a dent in healthcare costs to ever drop premiums. It is a business after all and the scenario I more likely see is the business pocketing a larger profit for the money we save them.

This brings us to the next topic : why would patients choose to go to see a physician first before going to PT as a direct access visit?

I think that this would make a good quantitative study to determine what are the factors that correlate with seeing a physician first for back pain prior to seeing a PT.

The other questions to be asked are what would make one choose a chiropractic physician, naprapathic doctor, accupuncturist, massage therapist or physical therapist for specific ailments?

In the end, we know that we have the potential to save the patient money if the patient chooses a direct access (walk into the clinic off of the street) when compared to seeing a physician prior to receiving a referral for physical therapy. Because a majority of patients in this particular study still chose the physician first, there must be other issues in play as to why patients aren’t choosing direct access OR the patients aren’t aware that we could actually save them money.

Link to article

A novel case study

I was just speaking about this case to one of the PTs that works with me this week, and felt it a good learning opportunity to post to the inter webs.

78 year old male was referred to me from another PT. The patient underwent 6 weeks of PT with another therapist also certified in MDT.

I helped train that PT and she felt that the patient should be referred to me to see if there was anything missed during the appointments.

The patient had an extrusion at L3, affecting quad strength. He also had a loss of light touch sensation at the anterior thigh.

His only complaint was pain that would wake him up at 2 AM, which was very intense. He would take a Norco and walk for 30-45 minutes to reduce his pain. He could sleep until 6 or 7 AM, which is when the excruciating pain would return. Again, he would take a Norco and walk. The pain would go away and not return the rest of the day until 2AM. He was very active with Tai Chi and Kung Fu over 10 hrs per week.

His only complaint was pain in the middle of the night.

I couldn’t provoke his pain during the evaluation.

He had already been through 6 weeks of PT without change, so I was only trying to figure out his sleep issue.

I had a working hypothesis

1. Overnight, the disc imbibes fluid and increases in size.

2. It was possible that the change in fluid content was increasing his pain since the pain went away when he was up walking during the night

3. If I could prevent the disc from taking on fluid, his pain might shut off

That was my only thought pattern that made sense for his symptoms.

I had him sleep in a recliner and to call me in 2 days with the result.

He was painfree in the recliner and did not wake at all.

Because he already had 6 weeks with an MDT trained clinician, I didn’t feel that bringing him into the clinic was going to be productive, so I followed by phone.

After two weeks, which is how long it is expected to see results if given the right direction and load, he was able to return to bed without waking.

This patient returned to therapy for a different issue a year later and we had a conversation about his back (he was seeing a different therapist). His strength recovered and he didn’t require surgery.

Moral of the story:

1. Sometimes you have to think outside of the box

2. Don’t let the image dictate treatment

3. Only treat the patient if we can improve their lot in life

4. Always develop a relationship with the patient you are treating.

Plantar Fasciitis and Ultrasound: questionable at best

“The plantarfascia is a thick, nonelastic, multilayered connective tissue crossing the plantar part of the foot. Plantar fasciitis is the main cause of pain in the plantar surface of the heel.”

The plantarfascia is located at the bottom of the foot, between the heel and the toes.   It is very thick and a tough band.

A part of physical therapy school includes dissecting the human body.  Some people find this disgusting, but it is actually an honor.  We were told that only 5% of college students will ever be able to dissect the human.  The bottom of the foot is very intricate. There are multiple layers of muscles, but the plantar fascia is a very taut band that requires a scalpel in order to tear.  In other words, it is very strong tissue.

“In the United States, more than 2 million people are treated for plantar fasciitis every year…the most common signs for identifying plantar fasciitis are pain and tenderness in the medial …heel bone, as well as an increase in pain when taking first steps in the morning and pain in prolonged weight bearing.”

First, plantar fasciitis is mostly diagnosed through a patient’s history.

Second, there are a lot of people with plantar fasciitis that seek out treatment.

This leads us to the next statement from the article

“…researchers have not determined the most effective combination of treatments due to the dearth of high quality research in this area.”

Feel good about this condition yet? So many treatment options are available, but few with solid research to back them up.

If you are interested in learning more, check out this  Link

“One of the most widely used electrical devices among physical therapists in Israel and worldwide is therapeutic ultrasound…Yet there is insufficient high quality scientific evidence to support the clinical use of therapeutic ultrasound in treating musculoskeletal problems.”

I find it funny that PT’s should know this information and yet they act opposite of what the evidence indicates.  There are running jokes that using ultrasound may be just as effective turned off as when turned on.

If your PT continues to utilize ultrasound, ask why?

Sometimes the answer may simply be: it is easy, it can be charged and it will do no harm.

Treatment:

Both groups were given stretches for the Achilles/calf and the plantar fascia.  One group was issued ultrasound at a higher intensity in order to create a thermal effect and the other group was given ultrasound that was low intensity and not postulated to have any physiological effect, as the intensity was low and the depth of treatment was considered more superficial.

There was no significant difference in the number of treatments per group.

Result: There was no additive effect of ultrasound on the treatment of plantar fasciitis for pain, function or quality of life.

There are reasons to use ultrasound from a business perspective, but the more and more that I read research I find fewer reasons to perform the intervention medically.

Reference:

Yigal K, Haidukov M, Berland OM et al. Additive Effect of Therapeutic Ultrasound in the Treatment of Plantar Fasciitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Orthop Sports Phys. 2018;48(11):847-855.