MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795090951 · doi:10.3822/ijtmb.v11i1.380

A Regional Analysis of U.S. Insurance Reimbursement Guidelines for Massage Therapy

2018· article· en· W2795090951 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robin Streit Miccio, Virginia S. Cowen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Therapeutic Massage & Bodywork Research Education & Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMassageReimbursementMedicineHealth carePhysical therapyScope of practiceThematic analysisChiropracticFamily medicineBusinessNursingAlternative medicineQualitative researchPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Massage techniques fall within the scope of many different health care providers. Physical therapists, occupational therapists, and chiropractors receive insurance reimbursement for health care services, including massage. Although many patients pay out of pocket for massage services, it is unclear how the insurance company reimbursement policies factor provider qualifications into coverage. This project examined regional insurance reimbursement guidelines for massage therapy in relation to the role of the provider of massage services. METHODS: A qualitative content analysis was used to explore guidelines for 26 health insurance policies across seven US companies providing coverage in the northeastern United States. Publicly available information relevant to massage was obtained from insurance company websites and extracted into a dataset for thematic analysis. Data obtained included practice guidelines, techniques, and provider requirements. Information from the dataset was coded and analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of the policies reviewed, 23% explicitly stated massage treatments were limited to 15-minute increments, 19% covered massage as one part of a comprehensive rehabilitation plan, and 27% required physician prescription. Massage techniques mentioned as qualifying for reimbursement included: Swedish, manual lymphatic drainage, mobilization/manipulation, myofascial release, and traction. Chiropractors, physical therapists, and occupational therapists could directly bill for massage. Massage therapists were specifically excluded as covered providers for seven (27%) policies. CONCLUSION: Although research supports massage for the treatment of a variety of conditions, the provider type has not been separately addressed. The reviewed policies that served the Northeastern states explicitly stated massage therapists could not bill insurance companies directly. The same insurance companies examined reimbursement for massage therapists in their western U.S. state policies. Other health care providers were able to bill directly for massage services to companies that did not accept direct billing by massage therapists. The specific exclusion of massage therapists as eligible providers violates the Affordable Care Act's non-discriminatory provision. Massage therapists should continue to advocate for reimbursement privileges to spur wider acceptance of massage therapy in health care.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.398
GPT teacher head0.595
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Therapeutic Massage & Bodywork Research Education & PracticeSame topicComplementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesFrench-language works237,207