Osteoporosis Testing and Treatment Remain Low in Both Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage

Overview

Journal Osteoporos Int

Specialties Endocrinology
Orthopedics

Date 2024 Nov 21

PMID 39570337

Authors

Tej D Azad

Rachel J Wu

Kelly E Anderson

Michael Darden

Amit Jain

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

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.

Methods: We 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.

Results: MA 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).

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

References

Lewiecki E, Ortendahl J, Vanderpuye-Orgle J, Grauer A, Arellano J, Lemay J . Healthcare Policy Changes in Osteoporosis Can Improve Outcomes and Reduce Costs in the United States. JBMR Plus. 2019; 3(9):e10192. PMC: 6808223. DOI: 10.1002/jbm4.10192. View

Bliuc D, Nguyen N, Milch V, Nguyen T, Eisman J, Center J . Mortality risk associated with low-trauma osteoporotic fracture and subsequent fracture in men and women. JAMA. 2009; 301(5):513-21. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2009.50. View

Qaseem A, Forciea M, Denberg T, Barry M, Cooke M, Fitterman N . Treatment of Low Bone Density or Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures in Men and Women: A Clinical Practice Guideline Update From the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2017; 166(11):818-839. DOI: 10.7326/M15-1361. View

LeBoff M, Greenspan S, Insogna K, Lewiecki E, Saag K, Singer A . The clinician's guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. 2022; 33(10):2049-2102. PMC: 9546973. DOI: 10.1007/s00198-021-05900-y. View

Watts N, Camacho P, Lewiecki E, Petak S . American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis-2020 Update. Endocr Pract. 2021; 27(4):379-380. DOI: 10.1016/j.eprac.2021.02.001. View

King A, Fiorentino D . Medicare payment cuts for osteoporosis testing reduced use despite tests' benefit in reducing fractures. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011; 30(12):2362-70. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0233. View

Meyers D, Trivedi A . Medicare Advantage Chart Reviews Are Associated With Billions in Additional Payments for Some Plans. Med Care. 2020; 59(2):96-100. PMC: 7855237. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001412. View

Jung J, Carlin C, Feldman R, Tran L . Implementation of resource use measures in Medicare Advantage. Health Serv Res. 2022; 57(4):957-962. PMC: 10501335. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.13970. View

Jung J, Carlin C, Feldman R . Measuring resource use in Medicare Advantage using Encounter data. Health Serv Res. 2021; 57(1):172-181. PMC: 8763275. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.13879. View

10.

Kronman A, Freund K, Hanchate A, Emanuel E, Ash A . Nursing home residence confounds gender differences in Medicare utilization an example of Simpson's paradox. Womens Health Issues. 2010; 20(2):105-13. PMC: 4471050. DOI: 10.1016/j.whi.2009.11.016. View

11.

DHoore W, Bouckaert A, Tilquin C . Practical considerations on the use of the Charlson comorbidity index with administrative data bases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996; 49(12):1429-33. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00271-5. View

12.

Nicholas L, Polsky D, Darden M, Xu J, Anderson K, Meyers D . Is there an advantage? Considerations for researchers studying the effects of the type of Medicare coverage. Health Serv Res. 2023; 59(1):e14264. PMC: 10771908. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.14264. View

13.

Weaver J, Sajjan S, Lewiecki E, Harris S . Diagnosis and Treatment of Osteoporosis Before and After Fracture: A Side-by-Side Analysis of Commercially Insured and Medicare Advantage Osteoporosis Patients. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2017; 23(7):735-744. PMC: 10398230. DOI: 10.18553/jmcp.2017.23.7.735. View

14.

Anderson K, Polsky D, Dy S, Sen A . Prescribing of low- versus high-cost Part B drugs in Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare. Health Serv Res. 2021; 57(3):537-547. PMC: 9108062. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.13912. View

15.

Agarwal R, Connolly J, Gupta S, Navathe A . Comparing Medicare Advantage And Traditional Medicare: A Systematic Review. Health Aff (Millwood). 2021; 40(6):937-944. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2020.02149. View

16.

Anderson K, Wu R, Darden M, Jain A . Medicare Advantage Is Associated with Lower Utilization of Total Joint Arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2023; 106(3):198-205. PMC: 11376029. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.23.00507. View

17.

Curtis E, Woolford S, Holmes C, Cooper C, Harvey N . General and Specific Considerations as to why Osteoporosis-Related Care Is Often Suboptimal. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2020; 18(1):38-46. PMC: 7067731. DOI: 10.1007/s11914-020-00566-7. View

18.

Mora A, Blazar P, Rogers J, Earp B . Patient Perceptions and Preferences for Osteoporosis Treatment. J Hand Surg Am. 2019; 45(2):153.e1-153.e5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2019.01.018. View

19.

Neuner J, Schapira M . Patient perceptions of osteoporosis treatment thresholds. J Rheumatol. 2014; 41(3):516-22. PMC: 4060529. DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.130548. View

20.

der Keylen P, Zeschick N, Schlenz A, Kuhlein T . Treatment thresholds and minimal clinically important effect sizes of antiosteoporotic medication-Survey among physicians and lay persons in Germany. PLoS One. 2022; 17(8):e0272985. PMC: 9371311. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272985. View