My editorial on the Affordable Care Act’s section that prohibits insurance companies from discriminating against classes of health care providers is now posted at Health Insights Today.
When fully implemented, this federal nondiscrimination policy will for the first time forbid any American health insurance company from refusing to cover services legally provided by a class of licensed health care practitioners (e.g., chiropractors, acupuncturists or clinical social workers) acting within the scope of their state licenses, if it covers those services when provided by a different class of practitioners (e.g., medical or osteopathic physicians). While the Affordable Care Act does not mandate equal payment for equal work (i.e., paying a chiropractor providing a service the same rate as an MD providing the same service), friend and foe alike understand that Section 2706 would make it illegal for insurers to cover any health service for one class of providers licensed to perform it while rejecting coverage for another also licensed to do so. (This nondiscrimination policy does not apply to the two largest government insurance plans—Medicare, which offers partial chiropractic coverage nationwide, and Medicaid, where coverage varies from state to state.)
This part of the law goes into effect on January 1, 2014. Because it applies to all services that a practitioner is licensed to provide under state law, the implications are quite broad. I’ll be writing more about this in the near future, and presenting on the prevention and health promotion part of this equation at the March ACC-RAC conference in Washington, DC. (ACC-RAC is the annual Association of Chiropractic Colleges Research Agenda Conference).
This is a very clarifying study for those who follow the controversy about specific vs. nonspecific effects of acupuncture. It strongly counters the claim that nonspecific effects are the whole story and that therefore one can insert needles at random and achieve effects equal to classical acupuncture. Conceptually, this also relates to the specific and nonspecific effects of manual therapies including spinal manipulation.
The full text is available here: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/2013/427265/
Karner M, Brazkiewicz F, Remppis A, et al. Objectifying Specific and Nonspecific Effects of Acupuncture: A Double-Blinded Randomised Trial in Osteoarthritis of the Knee. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2013;2013:7.
Abstract: Acupuncture was recently shown to be effective in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. However, controversy persists whether the observed effects are specic to acupuncture or merely nonspecifc consequences of needling. Therefore, the objective of this study is to determine the efficacy of different acupuncture treatment modalities. Materials and Methods. We compared between three different forms of acupuncture in a prospective randomised trial with a novel double-blinded study design. One-hundred and sixteen patients aged from 35 to 82 with osteoarthritis of the knee were enrolled in three study centres. Interventions were individualised classical/ modern semistandardised acupuncture and non-specifc needling. Blinded outcome assessment comprised knee flexibility and changes in pain according to the WOMAC score. Results and Discussion. Improvement in knee flexibility was significantly higher after classical Chinese acupuncture (10.3 degrees; 95% CI 8.9 to 11.7) as compared to modern acupuncture (4.7 degrees; 3.6 to 5.8). All methods achieved pain relief, with a patient response rate of 48 percent for non-specific needling, 64 percent for modern acupuncture, and 73 percent for classical acupuncture. Conclusion. This trial establishes a novel study design enabling double blinding in acupuncture studies. The data suggest a specific effect of acupuncture in knee mobility and both non-specific and specific effects of needling in pain relief.