Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

ACC 2024 Congress

Catch up on all the top stories and latest evidence in cardiology research with our ACC 2024 Congress hub page.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Archives of Osteoporosis
Published in: Archives of Osteoporosis 1/2016

01-12-2016 | Original Article

Utilization and cost of anti-osteoporosis therapy among US Medicare beneficiaries

Authors: Smita Jha, Timothy Bhattacharyya

Published in: Archives of Osteoporosis | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Summary

There is a strong impetus to prevent and treat osteoporosis to prevent fractures. $990 million dollars was spent on anti-osteoporosis drugs in 2013. As we shift our focus on primary prevention of fractures, providers are encouraged to find the most cost-effective anti-osteoporosis therapy for patients.

Purpose

Osteoporosis is a major global problem with osteoporotic fractures posing a potentially avoidable burden on healthcare resources. We studied the utilization and cost of anti-osteoporotic therapy using the 2013 Medicare Part D data.

Methods

Descriptive data were produced from Microsoft Excel and SPSS regarding the anti-osteoporotic drugs of interest.

Results

In total, Medicare and its beneficiaries spent approximately $990 million on anti-osteoporotic therapy in 2013. Despite this cost, only one in two adults with osteoporosis aged 65 and older received a prescription for an anti-osteoporosis drug. $756 million (77 %) was attributable to brand name drugs which accounted for 2,459,931 claims (22 %). Generic dispensing rate varied from 57–86 % (mean 77 ± 6) across the different states in the USA. States that mandate substitution with generic equivalents had a higher generic dispensing rate compared to the states that permit generic substitution (92 vs. 90 %; p < 0.05). After adjusting for claim counts, we found that if the states that permit substitution with generic equivalents showed the same generic dispensing rate of 92 % as the states that mandate such substitution, there is a potential for savings of $7.5 million, approximately 9 % of the total expenditure in these states on oral bisphosphonates alone. Thirty-eight percent of the total prescriptions from orthopedic surgeons were for Forteo® or Prolia® compared to 12.5 % from specialists.

Conclusions

These findings highlight the need for ongoing training for physicians who engage in the care of patients with osteoporosis to manage the disease in a cost-effective manner.
Literature
1.
2.
Singer A et al. (2015) Burden of illness for osteoporotic fractures compared with other serious diseases among postmenopausal women in the United States. Mayo Clin Proc 90(1):53–62CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
Rianon N, Anand D, Rasu R (2013) Changing trends in osteoporosis care from specialty to primary care physicians. Curr Med Res Opin 29(8):881–888CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
Bawa HS, Weick J, Dirschl DR (2015) Anti-osteoporotic therapy after fragility fracture lowers rate of subsequent fracture: analysis of a large population sample. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97(19):1555–1562CrossRefPubMed
7.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (2015) Office of Enterprise Data and Analytics, Medicare Fee-For Service Provider Utilization & Payment Data Part D Prescriber Public Use File: A Methodological Overview
8.
AARP Public Policy Institute (2009) The Medicare beneficiary population
9.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2015) Medicare Fee-For Service Provider Utilization & Payment Data Part D Prescriber Public Use File, C.f.M.M. Services, Editor. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: CMS.​gov
10.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2015) CMS releases prescriber-level Medicare data for first time
11.
12.
Wright NC et al. (2014) The recent prevalence of osteoporosis and low bone mass in the United States based on bone mineral density at the femoral neck or lumbar spine. J Bone Miner Res 29(11):2520–2526CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Vlahiotis A et al. (2011) Discontinuation rates and health care costs in adult patients starting generic versus brand SSRI or SNRI antidepressants in commercial health plans. J Manag Care Pharm 17(2):123–132PubMed
14.
Cummings SR et al. (1998) Effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with low bone density but without vertebral fractures: results from the Fracture Intervention Trial. JAMA 280(24):2077–2082CrossRefPubMed
15.
Rosen CJ et al. (2005) Treatment with once-weekly alendronate 70 mg compared with once-weekly risedronate 35 mg in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: a randomized double-blind study. J Bone Miner Res 20(1):141–151CrossRefPubMed
16.
Bonnick S et al. (2006) Comparison of weekly treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis with alendronate versus risedronate over two years. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 91(7):2631–2637CrossRefPubMed
17.
Chesnut CH III et al. (2004) Effects of oral ibandronate administered daily or intermittently on fracture risk in postmenopausal osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 19(8):1241–1249CrossRefPubMed
18.
19.
Haas J (2005) P.K., Gerstenberger E, Segar A, Potential savings from substituting generic drugs for brand-name drugs: medical expenditure panel survey, 1997-2000. Ann Intern Med 142(11):891–897CrossRefPubMed
20.
Nightingale S (1987) M.J., Generic drugs and the prescribing physician. Journal of American Medical Association 258(9):1200–1204CrossRef
21.
Steinman MA, Chren MM, Landefeld CS (2007) What's in a name? Use of brand versus generic drug names in United States outpatient practice. J Gen Intern Med 22(5):645–648CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
23.
Gu Q et al. (2009) Part D coverage gap and adherence to diabetes medications. Am J Manag Care 16(12):911–918
24.
Shrank WH et al. (2006) The implications of choice: prescribing generic or preferred pharmaceuticals improves medication adherence for chronic conditions. Arch Intern Med 166(3):332–337CrossRefPubMed
25.
Kanis J et al. (2012) A reappraisal of generic bisphosphonates in osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 23(1):213–221CrossRefPubMed
26.
Lai PSM et al. (2012) The effect of mandatory generic substitution on the safety of alendronate and patients’ adherence. Curr Med Res Opin 28(8):1347–1355CrossRefPubMed
27.
Sheehy O et al. (2009) Differences in persistence among different weekly oral bisphosphonate medications. Osteoporos Int 20(8):1369–1376CrossRefPubMed
28.
Ström O, Landfeldt E (2012) The association between automatic generic substitution and treatment persistence with oral bisphosphonates. Osteoporos Int 23(8):2201–2209CrossRefPubMed
29.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2015) Strategies used by adults to reuse their prescription drug costs: United States, 2013, U.S.D.o.H.a.H. Services, Editor. January
30.
Alberto J, Espay M, et al. (2015) Placebo effect of medication cost in Parkinson disease. Neurology 84:1–9CrossRef
31.
Dreinhofer KE et al. (2005) Multinational survey of osteoporotic fracture management. Osteoporos Int 16(Suppl 2):S44–S53CrossRefPubMed
32.
Federman AD, Halm EA, Siu AL (2007) Use of generic cardiovascular medications by elderly Medicare beneficiaries receiving generalist or cardiologist care. Med Care 45(2):109–115CrossRefPubMed
33.
34.
Ettinger B et al. (1999) Reduction of vertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated with raloxifene: results from a 3-year randomized clinical trial. Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) Investigators. JAMA 282(7):637–645CrossRefPubMed
35.
Sambrook PN et al. (2004) Alendronate produces greater effects than raloxifene on bone density and bone turnover in postmenopausal women with low bone density: results of EFFECT (Efficacy of FOSAMAX versus EVISTA Comparison Trial) International. J Intern Med 255(4):503–511CrossRefPubMed
36.
Whitaker M et al. (2012) Bisphosphonates for osteoporosis—where do we go from here? N Engl J Med 366(22):2048–2051CrossRefPubMed
37.
Laliberte MC et al. (2010) Impact of a primary care physician workshop on osteoporosis medical practices. Osteoporos Int 21(9):1471–1485CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Utilization and cost of anti-osteoporosis therapy among US Medicare beneficiaries
Authors
Smita Jha
Timothy Bhattacharyya
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
Springer London
Published in
Archives of Osteoporosis / Issue 1/2016
Print ISSN: 1862-3522
Electronic ISSN: 1862-3514
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-016-0283-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Archives of Osteoporosis 1/2016 Go to the issue

Original Article

Bone mineral density in children with acute leukemia and its associated factors in Iran: a case-control study

Short Communication

Secondary prevention of osteoporosis following fragility fractures of the distal radius in a large health maintenance organization

Original Article

Chronic widespread bodily pain is increased among individuals with history of fracture: findings from UK Biobank

Original Article

Effects of acupuncture on quality of life and pain in patients with osteoporosis—a pilot randomized controlled trial

Original Article

Excess mortality of 1 year in elderly hip fracture patients compared with the general population in Beijing, China

Obituary

In Memoriam: Pierre J. Meunier