One of the issues raised at the multi-stakeholder Work Comp Summit I attended in Dallas last week (more on that later), was this question: “Are Treatment Protocols and Evidence-Based Guidelines a Benefit or a Burden?” Evidence-based medicine (EBM for short) and evidence-based treatment guidelines have been controversial in some quarters, especially when they don’t support popular (and lucrative) treatments. Skeptics have pointed to the lack of “real world” proof that following these guidelines actually does produce better outcomes.
As a near-miraculous coincidence, we have HARD FACTS to contribute to that discussion as of today. A landmark paper has just been published that will / should attract wide attention — particularly in the regulatory and commercial marketplaces. The new study says it is describing the development of a methodology for assessing the impact of treatment guidelines — but in so doing it has produced the first tidbits of hard evidence that adhering to EBM treatment guidelines significantly improves outcomes of work-related injury claims, in terms of both medical cost and duration.
There’s an easy-to-read article about it entitled Study Supports Benefits of Evidence-Based Medicine in this week’s on-line Workers’ Comp Forum published by Risk & Insurance. According to that article, the researchers believe this is the first scientific proof that consistently applied treatment guidelines are more effective in treating injured workers — when compared to non-evidence-based care. If you’re a details type, read the original article entitled A New Method of Assessing the Impact of Evidence-Based Medicine on Claim Outcomes. It’s in this month’s issue of the Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine.
To the methodologists and kvetchers among us – any comments on this merits of the methodology they used? Do we have an opportunity to IMPROVE the methodology? And just in case there are any advocates of EBM among us, anyone want to yell YAHOOOOOOO? I do!
The study was supported in part by AF Group, formerly Accident Fund Holdings Inc which owns a family of workers’ compensation companies and is itself a for-profit subsidiary of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. It was AF Group’s workers’ comp claim data that was analyzed using ODG’s treatment guidelines.
ACOEM membership includes a subscription to JOEM, so if you know an ACOEM member, ask them to get the article for you. It may be simpler to purchase your own copy on JOEM’s website. The authors are Hunt, Dan L. DO; Tower, Jack MS; Artuso, Ryan D. PhD; White, Jeffrey A. MS; Bilinski, Craig MS; Rademacher, James BA; Tao, Xuguang MD, PhD; Bernacki, Edward J. MD, MPH. Dr. Bernacki works at both the University of Texas and Johns Hopkins University, and has done some superior research in the past on questions of real practical interest. The full citation is JOEM: May 2016 – Volume 58 – Issue 5 – p 519–524 doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000000718.
I sure wish this study had been done based on ACOEM’s Occupational Medicine Practice Guidelines which are the clearly superior product from my (informed) point of view. That’s the NEXT study that should be done.