The Wilk vs. AMA (American Medical Association) Lawsuit
Another inquiry that further validated chiropractic came about through an antitrust suit filed by four members of the chiropractic profession against the American Medical Association (AMA). and a number of other medical organizations in the United States (Wilk et al v. AMA et al, No.90-542, October 1990).
In 1987, following 11 years of legal action, a federal appellate court judge ruled that the AMA had engaged in a “lengthy, systematic, successful and unlawful boycott” designed to restrict cooperation between MDs and chiropractors in order to eliminate the profession of chiropractic as a competitor in the United States health care system. During the preceedings it was shown that the AMA attempted to :
- Undermine Chiropractic schools
- Undercut insurance programs for Chiropractic patients
- Conceal evidence of the effectiveness of Chiropractic care
- Subvert government inquires into the effectiveness of Chiropractic
- Promote other activities that would control the monopoly that the AMA had on health care
- (This was upheld by the 7th United States Circuit Court of Appeals.)
The AMA offered a patient care defense; however, data from Workmen’s Compensation Bureau studies served to validate chiropractic care. Specifically, studies comparing chiropractic care to care by a medical physician were presented which showed that chiropractors were “twice as effective as medical physicians, for comparable injuries, in returning injured workers to work at every level of injury severity.”
The settlement of the suit included an injunctive order in which the AMA was instructed to cease its efforts to restrict the professional association of chiropractors and AMA members. The AMA was also ordered to notify its 275,000 members of the court’s injunction. In addition, the American Hospital Association (AHA) sent out 440,000 separate notices to inform hospitals across the United States that the AHA has no objection to allowing chiropractic care in hospitals.
Since the court findings and conclusions were released, a growing number of medical doctors, hospitals, and health care organizations in the United States have begun including the services of chiropractors.
Numerous research studies and various government inquiries have resulted in increasingly widespread recognition of chiropractic, and generally support the efficacy of chiropractic treatment. Excerpts from some of these studies have been highlighted below.
The Agency for Health Care Policy and Research
On December 8, 1994, The Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, released an extensive study of diagnostic and treatment methods for acute low back pain. This condition is the most common health complaint experienced by working Americans today, and a condition which costs the economy at least $50 billion a year in lost wages and productivity.
The AHCPR panel — a 23-member committee of medical doctors, nurses,chiropractic doctors, experts in spine research, physical therapists, a psychologist, an occupational therapist and a consumer representative — concluded, among other things, that:
spinal manipulation is a recommended treatment for acute low back problems in adults;
conservative treatment such as manipulation should be pursued — in most cases — before surgical interventions are considered;
prescription drugs such as oral steroids, antidepressant medications and colchicine are not recommended for acute low back problems.
Canadian Studies on Chiropractic – The Manga Report
A major report on the effectiveness of chiropractic treatment was published in 1993. Tile report, entitled The Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Chiropractic Management of Low-Back Pain, was funded by the Ministry of Health in Ontario to assess the most appropriate use of health care resources.
The Ministry was particularly interested in reducing the incidence of work-related injuries and in improving the rehabilitation of disabled and injured workers. The report stated that in the past year, “twelve to thirty percent of people in modern industrialized societies reported low back pain.’
In light of these concerns, a massive literature review on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of chiropractic treatment was undertaken by an independent panel of researchers associated with the University of Ottawa. Their findings, outlined below, overwhelmingly support the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of chiropractic for the treatment of low-back pain:
Scientifically valid clinical studies support the fact that chiropractic spinal manipulation is “more effective than alternative treatments for LBP (low-back pain). Many medical therapies are of questionable validity or are clearly inadequate.
“There would be a highly significant cost savings if more management of LBP was transferred from physicians to chiropractors. Evidence from Canada and other countries suggests potential savings of hundreds of millions annually. The literature clearly and consistently shows that the major savings from chiropractic management come from fewer and lower costs of auxiliary services, much fewer hospitalizations, and a highly significant reduction in chronic problems, as well as in levels and duration of disability.”
“There is no clinical or case-control study that demonstrates or even implies that chiropractic spinal manipulation is unsafe in the treatment of low-back pain. Some medical treatments are equally safe, but others are unsafe and generate iatrogenic complications for LBP patients … The literature suggests that chiropractic manipulation is safer than medical management of low-back pain.”
“While it is prudent to call for even further clinical evidence of the effectiveness and efficacy of chiropractic management of LBP, what the literature revealed … is the much greater need for clinical evidence of the validity of medical management of LBP. Indeed, several existing medical therapies of LBP are generally contraindicated on the basis of the existing clinical trials. There is also some evidence in the literature to suggest that spinal manipulations are less safe and less effective when performed by non-chiropractic professionals.”
“There is an overwhelming body of evidence indicating that chiropractic management of low-back pain is more cost-effective than medical management … The evidence includes studies showing lower chiropractic costs for the same diagnosis and episodic need for care.”
“There is good empirical evidence that patients are very satisfied with chiropractic management of LBP and considerably less satisfied with physician management. Patient satisfaction is an important health outcome indicator and adds further weight to the clinical and health economic results favouring chiropractic management of LBP.”
The report concluded with various recommendations including fully integrating chiropractic services into the health care system, shifting policy to encourage and prefer chiropractic services for most patients with low-back pain, employing chiropractors in tertiary hospitals, and extending hospital privileges to chiropractors.
The following are summaries of additional Canadian studies on Chiropractic:
A study of spinal manipulation involving 283 patients with chronic low-back and leg pain was conducted at a “specialized university back pain clinic reserved for patients who have not responded to previous conservative or operative treatment” located at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. In this study, which involved research conducted by both a medical doctor and a chiropractor, all patients were initially classified as totally disabled. Daily spinal manipulations were administered and the effects of this treatment were assessed at one month and at three months. Results revealed that 81% of the patients became symptom free or achieved a state of mild intermittent pain with no work restrictions. (Kirkaldy-Willis, Cassidy 1985).
A study of 744 patients with neck and back pain who had been referred from hospitals, private practice specialists, general practitioners, and chiropractors analyzed tile effectiveness of chiropractic manipulation. The results revealed that 36% of the patients recovered (became symptom-free with no work restrictions), 34.5% became much improved (mildly symptomatic and able to function normally), 7.3% slightly improved (possible activity restrictions), 21.6% showed no change, and 0.6% became worse, The study also revealed that “post- surgical patients do very well under chiropractic care, and in fact at this center, patients are routinely referred back to us three months after surgery for maintenance care” (Potter 1977).
The Back Pain Clinic at the Royal University Hospital in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, reviewed literature pertinent to “Side Posture Manipulation for Lumbar Intervertebral Disk Herniation.” The authors of the study concluded that “the treatment Intervertebral disk herniation by side posture manipulation is both safe and effective” (Cassidy et al. 1993).
Other Studies on Chiropractic
In addition to the Canadian studies previously cited, many other studies have explored chiropractic treatment. These have focused on tile effectiveness of chiropractic treatment for back pain, for work-related Injuries, and for other disorders. The following is a brief summary of some of these studies:
RAND, a non-profit research organization, has completed three studies in the United States on chiropractic, with a fourth study currently underway.
The first study, a population-based estimate concerning the use of chiropractic services, reported in the American Journal of Public Health, that “chiropractors deliver a substantial amount of health care to the U.S. population, and there are significant geographic variations in the rate and intensity of use of chiropractic services” (Skekelle 1991).
The second study, “Spinal Manipulation for Low-Back Pain,” published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, affirmed that spinal manipulation is of benefit to some patients with acute low-back pain (Shekelle and Adams 1992).
The third study created two sets of appropriateness ratings for spinal manipulation. One set of ratings was developed by a multi-disciplinary panel and the other set was prepared by an all-chiropractic panel (Shekelle et al. 1992).
The fourth study, currently underway, is to determine the types of health case problems for which people seek chiropractic care and the types of care people receive from chiropractors. This study is expected to be completed in 1994.
In Australia, a 12-month study conducted by the Australian Centre for Chiropractic Research included all work-related low-back pain claimants. Individuals were identified who received care either from a chiropractor or a medical practitioner. The results indicated that:
When chiropractic management was chosen fewer claimants required compensation and fewer compensation days were taken
When medical management was chosen, the average payment per claim was greater and a greater number of patients regressed to chronic status (Ebrall 1992).
A study reported in the British Medical Journal included 741 patients between the ages of 18 and 65 who suffered from chronic or severe back pain and who sought care in chiropractic and hospital out-patient clinics. After two years of patient monitoring, researchers concluded that “for patients with low-back pain in whom manipulation is not contraindicated, chiropractic almost certainly confers worthwhile, long-term benefit in comparison with hospital out-patient management” (Meade et al. 1990).
Researchers conducted a study of workers’ compensation cases in Florida and concluded that “a claimant with a back-related injury, when initially treated by a chiropractor versus a medical doctor, is less likely to become temporarily disabled, or if disabled, remains disabled for a shorter period of time; and claimants treated by medical doctors were hospitalized at a much higher rate than claimants treated by chiropractors” (Wolk 1988).
From a survey of those receiving care from health maintenance organizations (HMOs) in Washington state it was concluded that “…patients of chiropractors were three times as likely as patients of family physicians to report that they were satisfied with the care they received for low-back pain… Chiropractic patients were also more likely to have been satisfied with the amount of information they were given and to believe their doctor was concerned about them” (Cherkin and MacComack 1989)
“Family Physicians, Chiropractors, and Back Pain,” is the title of an article published in the Journal of Family Practice (November 1992), addressing a comparative United States study of patients of family physicians and chiropractors. The article stated that “the number of days of disability for patients seen by family physicians was significantly higher (mean 39,7) than for patients managed by chiropractors (mean 10.8)” (Curtis and Bove 1992). A related editorial published in We same issue of the Journal of Family Practice stated that family physicians should accept the fact that “…spinal manipulation is one of the few conservative treatments for low-back pain that have [sic] been found to be effective in randomized trials. The risks of complications from lumbar manipulation are also very low” (Cherkin 1992). The latter conclusion is supported by a study published by the Chiropractic Journal of Australia which reported that “a descriptive analysis of obtainable literature on complications from low-back SMT (spinal manipulation treatment) from 1911 to 1991 indicates that, on the average, less than one case per year occurs” (Terrett and Kleynhans 1992).
The Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, published in the United States, reported results of a study of women between the ages of 20 and 49 with a history of dysmenorrhea (painful menstruation); ”
SMT may be an effective and safe non-pharmacolocical alternative for relieving the pain and distress of primary dysmenorrhea, at least for a short period of time after treatment” (Kokjohn et al. 1992).
A number of United States clinical studies cite success rates ranging from 72% to 90% for the treatment of headaches utilizing spinal manipulation therapy. For