ArticleArchives of osteoporosis2016
Utilization and cost of anti-osteoporosis therapy among US Medicare beneficiaries.
Article in Archives of osteoporosis, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness of secondary fracture prevention intervention for Medicare beneficiaries.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2021Article
- Is It Time to Stop (or Pause) Vertebral Augmentation?Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
unlabelledThere 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.
methodsDescriptive data were produced from Microsoft Excel and SPSS regarding the anti-osteoporotic drugs of interest.
resultsIn 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.
conclusionsThese 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.