Explore the vast range of titles available.

Psychosis is a primitive agony that arises from the deepest part of the brain, unregulated by considered thought — raw, visceral, and turbulent. But much of its territory remains uncharted. How is a physician-mother to help her suffering sons?

Physician payments have declined significantly due to budget neutrality rules and reimbursement cuts. Since 2001, Medicare payments to physicians have dropped by 33% when adjusted for inflation. These reductions have been compounded by 2% annual sequestration cuts introduced after the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which continues through 2032. Despite their long-term impact, sequestration cuts receive little public attention.Congress has historically delayed or softened these cuts. However, in 2025, a bill that would have adjusted payment rates was removed from the continuing resolution, resulting in continued reductions. Meanwhile, insurance premiums have risen nearly 400%, highlighting the disparity between healthcare costs and physician compensation.Ironically, while physicians face significant payment cuts, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed on January 10, 2025, a 4.3% payment increase for Medicare Advantage plans-totaling $21 billion in 2026 and an estimated $210 billion over the following decade starting in calendar year 2026. This proposal comes amid ongoing concerns about Medicare Advantage overpayments, estimated at nearly $100 billion annually, and additional funding through annual premiums of $198 from all Medicare beneficiaries, amounting to roughly $13 billion per year.In response, the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) submitted a nonpartisan reform proposal advocating for telehealth protections and elimination of sequester cuts-measures that have received strong bipartisan support in Congress. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate voted to pass a reconciliation bill-nicknamed the \"Big Beautiful Bill\", which has been signed into law by the President recently. It proposes an $8.9 billion investment in the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, with a 2.25% update in 2026. The proposal does not address the budget neutrality provision, growing practice costs, inflationary pressures, or ongoing sequestration and pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) cuts. It also fails to resolve issues with the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA), particularly within the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). On November 1, 2024, CMS finalized a 2.8% cut to physician payments-an estimated $20 billion-while also eliminating telehealth services. These cuts continue to threaten physician sustainability and patient access to care.

Background: Caudal epidural injection of local anesthetics with or without steroids is one of the most commonly used interventions in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain. However, there has been a lack of well-designed randomized, controlled studies to determine the effectiveness of caudal epidural injections in various conditions — disc herniation and radiculitis, post-lumbar laminectomy syndrome, spinal stenosis, and chronic low back pain of disc origin without disc herniation or radiculitis. Study Design: A systematic review of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in managing chronic pain secondary to lumbar disc herniation or radiculitis, post lumbar laminectomy syndrome, spinal stenosis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. Objective: To evaluate the effect of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in managing various types of chronic low back and lower extremity pain emanating as a result of disc herniation or radiculitis, post-lumbar laminectomy syndrome, spinal stenosis, and chronic discogenic pain. Methods: A review of the literature was performed according to the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group Criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as Level I, II, or III based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature of the English language identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to November 2008, and manual searches of bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term ≥ 6 months). Secondary outcome measures of improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake were utilized. Results: The evidence showed Level I for short- and long-term relief in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to lumbar disc herniation and/or radiculitis and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. The indicated evidence is Level II-1 or II-2 for caudal epidural injections in managing low back pain of post-lumbar laminectomy syndrome and spinal stenosis. Limitations: The limitations of this study include the paucity of literature, specifically for chronic pain without disc herniation. Conclusion: This systematic review shows Level I evidence for relief of chronic pain secondary to disc herniation or radiculitis and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. Further, the indicated evidence is Level II-1 or II-2 for caudal epidural injections in managing chronic pain of post lumbar laminectomy syndrome and spinal stenosis. Key words: Chronic low back pain, lower extremity pain, lumbar disc herniation, lumbar radiculitis, lumbar discogenic pain, post lumbar laminectomy or surgery syndrome, spinal stenosis, caudal epidural injections, steroids, local anesthetic

The U.S. health care system faces escalating costs and inefficiencies, with Medicare projected to reach insolvency by 2036. Despite this, Medicare Advantage (MA) plans continue to receive preferential funding, resulting in overpayments, rising patient out-of-pocket expenses and limited accountability, instead of being a tool to achieve lower spending and increase quality. Physicians endure payment cuts, sequestration, and denied services, threatening access to care. To analyze MA plans' growth, costs, and policy implications and assess their impact on Medicare solvency, physician reimbursement, and patient care quality. A comprehensive policy and financial analysis using data from Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Congressional Budget Office, peer-reviewed literature, and federal reports from 1997-2025. We reviewed legislative history, financial trends, and quality metrics of Medicare and MA programs. Specific focus was placed on benchmarks, rebates, risk adjustments, favorable selection, coding intensity, and patient access barriers. Data on enrollment trends, geographic variation, and out-of-pocket costs were analyzed. MA enrollment grew from 6.9 million (16% of Medicare beneficiaries) in 2014 to 33.6 million (54%) in 2024. Payments to MA plans exceed fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare by 22%, translating to $84 billion annually, plus $15 billion in quality bonuses. Out-of-pocket maximums surged 859% since 1999, and inappropriate care denials affect 13%-18% of cases. Risk adjustment and coding practices inflate payments, undermining program sustainability. The present investigation relies on secondary data from government agencies and published literature; real-time administrative and clinical data from MA plans were unavailable due to reporting gaps. Originally intended to reduce costs, MA plans have driven higher expenditures, limited access, and increased patient burdens. Policy reforms-including alignment of MA payments with FFS Medicare, elimination of favorable selection and upcoding incentives, and enforcement of coverage requirements-are critical to preserving Medicare solvency and ensuring equitable patient care.

On July 14, 2025, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released the 2026 Physician Proposed Payment Rule aimed at reducing wasteful spending, enhancing quality measures, improving chronic disease management, and protecting independent practices from systemic financial pressures that have favored large healthcare systems and plagued independent practices. The goals are admirable, but the proposed measures with uniform reductions of 2.5% in physician payments based on efficiency adjustments apply across the board to all physicians. Further, practice expense (PE) reductions of 4% to 6%, meant to apply for hospital-based physicians will inadvertently apply to independent physicians constituting 43% of the physician workforce providing services in ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), as well as hospitals. Thus, reductions of work relative value unit (wRVU) based on efficiency adjustment of 2.5% and PE reductions of 4% to 6%, with total reductions of 7% to 9%, compromise and limit patient care by putting additional pressure on independent physicians. Further, CMS' proposal to start Ambulatory Specialty Model (ASM) for low back pain with specialties of interventional pain management (IPM) and pain management involved. These specialties have no control over costs incurred as an overwhelming majority of patients are chronic pain patients and managed by family physicians, chiropractors, physical therapists, neurosurgeons, and others, resulting in 9% reductions, or increase in reimbursement over a period of 3 years with recurring changes of 3% each year.The proposal includes a 3.8% conversion factor (CF) payment update and increased reimbursement for office-based services, including evaluation, management, and procedures. The changes will increase reimbursement by 8% to 10% for office-based services, but they also decrease reimbursement for all procedures performed outside offices by 7% to 9%. These proposals arrive at a time when non-physician health care providers are striking for wage increase tied to inflation, and ironically, physicians have experienced repeated cuts in reimbursement with occasional stagnation, leading to 33% reduction from 2001 to 2025 in general, and 41% reductions in reimbursement for interventional pain physicians. In addition, there is an additional 2% sequester cut each year from 2011 to last until 2031, and there is a potential for 4% PAYGO cuts starting next year. Further, supply costs have increased 56% to 80% during these years. Further, despite technological advancements such as EMRs and AI, administrative burdens have intensified rather than improved. Independent physicians contend with complex prior authorizations, evolving Medicare coverage policies, growing audit risk with increased documentation and compliance demands from all payers' sources, 30% of interventional pain physicians under audit at any time. Our data on interventional pain physicians and published data on other physicians shows that efficiency has decreased and PEs have been skyrocketing.Ironically, CMS has proposed on January 10, 2025, a 4.3% payment increase to Medicare Advantage Plans, amounting to $21 billion in 2026. To add fuel to the fire, CMS on April 7, 2025, issued a final rule of increasing on average by 5.06% from 2025 to 2026. These proposals come amid growing concerns about Medicare Advantage over payments, including $44 billion due to favorable selection, $40 billion from risk adjustment discrepancies, and $15 billion for duplicative coverage of veterans who already receive benefits through the Veterans Administration (VA). In addition, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), traditional Medicare beneficiaries also face higher costs, contributing an additional $198 annually, totaling roughly $13 billion per year. All of these added together, CMS is spending on Medicare Advantage over $110 billion a year.Thus, as independent practice continues to come under assault, the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) and other societies urge CMS to create a separate identifier for independent pain physicians to distinguish them from hospital-based physicians and prevent these cuts from harming independent practices. This separate but equal treatment of independent physician practices ultimately interferes with patient care.

Background: Comprehensive, evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in the management of chronic spinal pain are described here to provide recommendations for clinicians. Objective: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain. Design: Systematic assessment of the literature. Methods: Strength of evidence was assessed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria utilizing 5 levels of evidence ranging from Level I to III with 3 subcategories in Level II. Outcomes: Short-term pain relief was defined as relief lasting at least 6 months and longterm relief was defined as longer than 6 months, except for intradiscal therapies, mechanical disc decompression, spinal cord stimulation and intrathecal infusion systems, wherein up to one year relief was considered as short-term. Results: The indicated evidence for accuracy of diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks is Level I or II1 in the diagnosis of lumbar, thoracic, and cervical facet joint pain. The evidence for lumbar and cervical provocation discography and sacroiliac joint injections is Level II-2, whereas it is Level II-3 for thoracic provocation discography. The indicated evidence for therapeutic interventions is Level I for caudal epidural steroid injections in managing disc herniation or radiculitis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. The evidence is Level II-1 or II-2 for therapeutic cervical, thoracic, and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks; for caudal epidural injections in managing pain of post-lumbar surgery syndrome, and lumbar spinal stenosis, for cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing cervical pain; for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections; for percutaneous adhesiolysis in management of pain secondary to post-lumbar surgery syndrome; and spinal cord stimulation for post-lumbar surgery syndrome. The indicated evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET), mechanical disc decompression with automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD), and percutaneous lumbar laser discectomy (PLDD) is Level II-2. Limitations: The limitations of these guidelines include a continued paucity of the literature, lack of updates, and conflicts in preparation of systematic reviews and guidelines by various organizations. Conclusion: The indicated evidence for diagnostic and therapeutic inverventions is variable from Level I to III. These guidelines include the evaluation of evidence for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in managing chronic spinal pain and recommendations for managing spinal pain. However, these guidelines do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Further, these guidelines also do not represent “standard of care.” Key words: Interventional techniques , chronic spinal pain, diagnostic blocks, therapeutic interventions, facet joint interventions, epidural injections, epidural adhesiolysis, discography, radiofrequency, disc decompression, spinal cord stimulation, intrathecal implantable systems

Epidural injections with local anesthetics and steroids are one of the most commonly used interventions in managing chronic low back pain and lower extremity pain of various causes. However, despite their extensive use, debate continues on their effectiveness due to the lack of well-designed, randomized, controlled studies to determine the effectiveness of epidural injections in general, and caudal epidural injections in particular. A systematic review of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in managing chronic pain secondary to lumbar disc herniation or radiculitis, post lumbar laminectomy syndrome, spinal stenosis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. To evaluate the effect of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in managing various types of chronic low back pain with or without lower extremity pain emanating as a result of disc herniation or radiculitis, post lumbar laminectomy syndrome, spinal stenosis, and chronic discogenic pain. The available literature on caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in managing various types of chronic low back pain with or without lower extremity pain was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for fluoroscopic observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, or poor based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to December 2011, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures of improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake were utilized. For this systematic review, 73 studies were identified. Of these, 51 were excluded and a total of 16 studies met inclusion criteria for methodological quality assessment with 11 randomized trials and 5 non-randomized studies. For lumbar disc herniation, the evidence is good for short- and long-term relief of chronic pain secondary to disc herniation or radiculitis with local anesthetic and steroids and fair relief with local anesthetic only. In managing chronic axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post surgery syndrome, the indicated evidence is fair. The limitations of this study include the paucity of literature, specifically for chronic pain without disc herniation. There was good evidence for short- and long-term relief of chronic pain secondary to disc herniation or radiculitis with local anesthetic and steroids and fair relief with local anesthetic only. Further, this systematic review also provided indicated evidence of fair for caudal epidural injections in managing chronic axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post surgery syndrome.

Objective: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain. Methodology: Systematic assessment of the literature. Evidence: I. Lumbar Spine • The evidence for accuracy of diagnostic selective nerve root blocks is limited; whereas for lumbar provocation discography, it is fair. • The evidence for diagnostic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and diagnostic sacroiliac intraarticular injections is good with 75% to 100% pain relief as criterion standard with controlled local anesthetic or placebo blocks. • The evidence is good in managing disc herniation or radiculitis for caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; fair for axial or discogenic pain without disc herniation, radiculitis or facet joint pain with caudal, and interlaminar epidural injections, and limited for transforaminal epidural injections; fair for spinal stenosis with caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; and fair for post surgery syndrome with caudal epidural injections and limited with transforaminal epidural injections. • The evidence for therapeutic facet joint interventions is good for conventional radiofrequency, limited for pulsed radiofrequency, fair to good for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, and limited for intraarticular injections. • For sacroiliac joint interventions, the evidence for cooled radiofrequency neurotomy is fair; limited for intraarticular injections and periarticular injections; and limited for both pulsed radiofrequency and conventional radiofrequency neurotomy. • For lumbar percutaneous adhesiolysis, the evidence is fair in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to post surgery syndrome and spinal stenosis. • For intradiscal procedures, the evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) and biaculoplasty is limited to fair and is limited for discTRODE. • For percutaneous disc decompression, the evidence is limited for automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD), percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression, and Dekompressor; and limited to fair for nucleoplasty for which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued a noncoverage decision. II. Cervical Spine • The evidence for cervical provocation discography is limited; whereas the evidence for diagnostic cervical facet joint nerve blocks is good with a criterion standard of 75% or greater relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is good for cervical interlaminar epidural injections for cervical disc herniation or radiculitis; fair for axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post cervical surgery syndrome. • The evidence for therapeutic cervical facet joint interventions is fair for conventional cervical radiofrequency neurotomy and cervical medial branch blocks, and limited for cervical intraarticular injections. III. Thoracic Spine • The evidence is limited for thoracic provocation discography and is good for diagnostic accuracy of thoracic facet joint nerve blocks with a criterion standard of at least 75% pain relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is fair for thoracic epidural injections in managing thoracic pain. • The evidence for therapeutic thoracic facet joint nerve blocks is fair, limited for radiofrequency neurotomy, and not available for thoracic intraarticular injections. IV. Implantables • The evidence is fair for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in managing patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and limited for implantable intrathecal drug administration systems. V. Anticoagulation • There is good evidence for risk of thromboembolic phenomenon in patients with antithrombotic therapy if discontinued, spontaneous epidural hematomas with or without traumatic injury in patients with or without anticoagulant therapy to discontinue or normalize INR with warfarin therapy, and the lack of necessity of discontinuation of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including low dose aspirin prior to performing interventional techniques. • There is fair evidence with excessive bleeding, including epidural hematoma formation with interventional techniques when antithrombotic therapy is continued, the risk of higher thromboembolic phenomenon than epidural hematomas with discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy prior to interventional techniques and to continue phosphodiesterase inhibitors (dipyridamole, cilostazol, and Aggrenox). • There is limited evidence to discontinue antiplatelet therapy with platelet aggregation inhibitors to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and/or to continue antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel, ticlopidine, prasugrel) during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic fatalities. • There islimited evidence in reference to newer antithrombotic agents dabigatran (Pradaxa) and rivaroxan (Xarelto) to discontinue to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and are continued during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic events. Conclusion: Evidence is fair to good for 62% of diagnostic and 52% of therapeutic interventions assessed. Disclaimer: The authors are solely responsible for the content of this article. No statement on this article should be construed as an official position of ASIPP. The guidelines do not represent “standard of care.” Key words: Interventional techniques , chronic spinal pain, diagnostic blocks, therapeutic interventions, facet joint interventions, epidural injections, epidural adhesiolysis, discography, radiofrequency, disc decompression, spinal cord stimulation, intrathecal implantable systems

During the 1960s and early 1970s, America fought two wars in Vietnam: a military war and a war to win the allegiance of the South Vietnamese people to their government—a battle for hearts and minds. Creating a nation in Southeast Asia where none existed was a logical outgrowth of America's post-World War II ideology to forge a new liberal world order conducive to its own economic health and free from communist threats. Unfortunately, the noble pacification effort designed to bring the people of South Vietnam closer to their government failed for a multitude of reasons. Foremost, the South Vietnamese government was an American dependency with little credibility among its people. Additionally, each successive government that came to power in Saigon was corrupt and unresponsive to the needs of the populace. Americans might support, advise, and encourage South Vietnam's leadership toward democracy, but it could not create a principled government. Similarly, the US military might hold off the siege of the nationalist/communist insurgency, but it could never substitute for a strong viable government. Continually engaged in political power struggles, South Vietnamese leaders were reluctant to provide adequate support for pacification. Confusion and controversy in the Saigon ministries responsible for pacification mirrored the disorganization and conflict within the different American agencies operating in South Vietnam in support of pacification. Despite reorganization efforts designed to blend pacification more closely with military efforts, the Test Offensive in 1968 clearly illustrated the failure of the US and South Vietnamese governments to extend the influence and control of the Saigon regime. Moreover, pacification efforts were always damaged by the military's massive use of firepower in South Vietnam. Creating a flood of refugees and disrupting the entire culture of the people, America's military strategy further alienated the populace from their government. In the end, pacification was doomed to fail because of political, economic, and military problems, both in South Vietnam and in America.

Background: Chronic neck pain is a common problem in the adult population with a typical 12-month prevalence of 30% to 50%, and 14% of the patients reporting grade II to IV neck pain with high pain intensity and disability that has a substantial impact on health care and society. Cervical epidural injections for managing chronic neck pain are one of the commonly performed interventions in the United States. However, the literature supporting cervical epidural steroids in managing chronic pain problems has been scant and no systematic review dedicated to the evaluation of cervical interlaminar epidurals has been performed in the past. Study Design: A systematic review of cervical interlaminar epidural injections. Objective: To evaluate the effect of cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing various types of chronic neck and upper extremity pain emanating as a result of cervical spine pathology. Methods: The available literature of cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic neck and upper extremity pain was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as Level I, II, or III based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) for therapeutic interventions. Data sources included relevant literature of the English language identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to November 2008, and manual searches of bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. Results: The indicated evidence is Level II-1 in managing chronic neck and upper extremity pain. Limitations: The limitations of this systematic review include the paucity of literature and lack of randomized trials performed under fluoroscopy. Conclusion: The results of this systematic evaluation of cervical interlaminar epidural injection showed significant effect in relieving chronic intractable pain of cervical origin and also providing long-term relief with an indicated evidence level of Level II-1. Key words: Cervical disc herniation, cervical post surgery syndrome, cervical spinal stenosis, cervical radiculitis, cervical interlaminar epidural injections, local anesthetic steroids, chronic discogenic pain