Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39570337›Full record

ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2025

Osteoporosis testing and treatment remain low in both Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage.

Tej D Azad, Rachel J Wu, Kelly E Anderson, Michael Darden, Amit Jain

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Risk equalization and prevention.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Tej D AzadDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. tazad1@jhmi.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7823-4294
Rachel J WuHopkins Business of Health Initiative, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Kelly E AndersonHopkins Business of Health Initiative, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Michael DardenHopkins Business of Health Initiative, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Amit JainHopkins Business of Health Initiative, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

TRAINING IN HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCHT32HS000029 · AHRQ · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI DY, SYDNEY MORSS · 1987 to 2024
$8.3M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Little is known regarding osteoporosis management between Traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA). MA beneficiaries had higher rates of osteoporosis testing and higher rates of osteoporosis drug treatment initiation rates. Following an osteoporotic fragility fracture, MA beneficiaries were more likely to be prescribed osteoporosis treatment. While osteoporosis testing and treatment initiation rates are low in both TM and MA, rates tended to be higher in MA. PURPOSE: Osteoporosis represents a substantial clinical challenge in the United States, particularly for older women, and requires effective care coordination. Medicare Advantage (MA) plans have financial incentives in the form of star ratings to improve osteoporosis testing and treatment. The objective of this study was to compare osteoporosis management practices between Traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries and MA female enrollees.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study using a nationally representative 20% sample of 2017-2019 TM claims and MA encounter records. We identified 2,994,203 female TM beneficiaries and 1,924,132 MA enrollees. The exposure was enrollment in MA. The primary outcomes were the rates of guideline-recommended bone mineral density (BMD) testing and osteoporosis drug initiation following a new osteoporosis diagnosis and after a new osteoporotic fragility fracture.

resultsMA beneficiaries had higher unadjusted (22.0% vs. 19.8% in TM; P < 0.001) and adjusted rates (0.8 percentage points [p.p.] higher; P < 0.001) of BMD testing. Osteoporosis drug treatment initiation rates were higher in the MA cohort, both unadjusted (24.9% vs. 20.3% in TM; P < 0.001) and adjusted (4.0 p.p. higher; P < 0.001). Following an osteoporotic fragility fracture, MA beneficiaries were more likely to be prescribed pharmacologic treatment (28.7% vs. 21.1% in TM; P < 0.001), with an adjusted increase of 5.9 p.p (P < 0.001).

conclusionOverall osteoporosis testing and treatment initiation rates in both TM and MA enrollees were low, with improved rates in MA compared to TM.

Indexed as

Medicare Part AMedicare Part BMedicare Part COsteoporosisAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansPovertyUnited StatesMedicare advantageOsteoporosisTraditional medicareTreatment

Identifiers

PMID39570337

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.