Cost-effectiveness of Acupuncture Needling for Older Adults with Chronic Low Back Pain

Patricia M. Herman, Samuel J. Mann, Lynn L. DeBar, Andrew Avins, Morgan Justice, Arya Nielsen, Alice R. Pressman, Katie L. Stone, Robert D. Wellman, Andrea J. Cook

ResearchPosted on rand.org Nov 21, 2025Published in: Spine (2025). DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000005549

Study Design

Pre-planned economic evaluation alongside a clinical trial.

Objective

Determine the one-year cost-effectiveness from healthcare sector and Medicare perspectives of adding either standard acupuncture (SA; ≤15 treatment sessions over 12 wk) or enhanced acupuncture (EA; SA plus ≤ 6 additional sessions) to usual medical care (UMC) versus UMC alone.

Summary of Background Data

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is common and expensive to treat largely due to the use of non-guideline-concordant pharmaceuticals and procedures. CLBP is also more common in older populations. Acupuncture has been shown to be effective and cost-effective for CLBP, but no studies have focused specifically on older adults.

Methods

Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses comparing SA and EA to UMC using data from a randomized trial across three U.S. healthcare systems. Bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap techniques were used to generate 95% confidence intervals.

Results

EA (n=225) reduced annual back pain-related healthcare sector costs by $491 (CI: -$2,861, $1,144) per participant versus UMC (n=225), and reduced Medicare-reimbursed costs by $421 (CI: -$2,707, $1,249) per participant. These cost savings came with a statistically and clinically significant gain in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; 0.037; CI: 0.013, 0.062), and a significant increase in the percentage of participants achieving a clinically meaningful improvement (CMI) in their Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores (18.5% points; CI: 9.0%, 27.9%). SA (n=222) was more expensive than UMC; the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from the healthcare-sector perspective was $52,897/QALY. The QALY gains (0.014; CI: -0.014, 0.043) and increase in percentage of participants with a CMI (6.9%; CI: -2.7%, 16.4%) in SA versus UMC were not statistically significant.

Conclusion

EA was cost saving and SA may be cost-effective from the healthcare-sector and Medicare perspectives compared with UMC for older adults with CLBP in three large healthcare systems in California and Washington State.

Read More

Topics

Document Details

  • Copyright: Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc
  • Availability: Non-RAND
  • Year: 2025
  • Pages: 1
  • Document Number: EP-70999

This publication is part of the RAND external publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.