Variability in Patient-Incurred Costs and Protocols of Regenerative Medicine Procedures for Musculoskeletal Conditions in the United States

Abstract

Background: The use of regenerative medicine as an “off label” treatment for musculoskeletal conditions has increased in recent years. However, the literature is sparse regarding the costs of these treatments to patients. Purposes: We sought to determine the patient-incurred costs for regenerative medicine treatments performed by physicians for musculoskeletal conditions in the United States, according to primary specialty, geographic region, practice setting, and years in practice. We also sought to characterize pre- and posttreatment protocols and image guidance use. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study with data collection occurring between April 2020 and April 2021. It began with the distribution of an online survey through an email campaign by the American College of Sports Medicine to its members. Approximately 90 emails were sent by our research team as well. Throughout the year, various participant recruitment methods were used (through Twitter, for example). Survey data included physician demographics, practice/training information, types/costs of regenerative medicine treatments performed, and pre-/postprocedure protocols. Results: One hundred physicians who self-reported performing standalone regenerative medicine procedures participated in this online survey. According to the responses, the most common treatments performed were platelet-rich plasma (PRP; 100%), bone marrow concentrate (BMC; 41%), microfragmented adipose grafting (36%), prolotherapy (33%), and bone marrow aspirate (BMA; 21%) administered to the peripheral joints, tendons/muscles, ligaments, and/or spine. Overall, the respondents reported large variations in treatment costs to patients; BMA and BMC were the most expensive and had the largest ranges in costs for all anatomical locations. Costs for PRP were lower than those for BMA and BMC, with less variation. Physicians in private practice reported higher PRP, BMC, and BMA costs in the peripheral joints than those in academic settings. Most physicians recommended avoiding non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs pre- and postprocedure, and 74% recommended physical therapy postprocedure. Conclusions: Findings from a survey of physicians who provide regenerative medicine procedures as off-label treatment for musculoskeletal conditions suggest that there is variation in related patient-incurred costs. Future studies should explore associations between treatment costs and outcomes.