Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Archives of Osteoporosis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. US Department of Health and Human Services (2004) Bone health and osteoporosis: a report of the surgeon general. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45513/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK45513.pdf

  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):53–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gehlbach SH, Fournier M, Bigelow C (2002) Recognition of osteoporosis by primary care physicians. Am J Public Health 92(2):271–273

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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):881–888

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Solomon DH et al. (2014) Osteoporosis medication use after hip fracture in U.S. patients between 2002 and 2011. J Bone Miner Res 29(9):1929–1937

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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):1555–1562

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning & Evaluation (2010) Expanding the use of generic drugs, U. S. Department of Health & Human Services, Editor. https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/expanding-use-generic-drugs

  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):2520–2526

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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):123–132

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):2077–2082

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):141–151

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):2631–2637

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1241–1249

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. National Conference of State Legislatures (2016) State laws and legislation related to biologic medications and substitution of biosimilars http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-laws-and-legislation-related-to-biologic-medications-and-substitution-of-biosimilars.aspx

  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):891–897

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Nightingale S (1987) M.J., Generic drugs and the prescribing physician. Journal of American Medical Association 258(9):1200–1204

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):645–648

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Shrank WH et al. (2011) Physician perceptions about generic drugs. Ann Pharmacother 45(1):31–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gu Q et al. (2009) Part D coverage gap and adherence to diabetes medications. Am J Manag Care 16(12):911–918

    Google Scholar 

  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):332–337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kanis J et al. (2012) A reappraisal of generic bisphosphonates in osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 23(1):213–221

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1347–1355

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sheehy O et al. (2009) Differences in persistence among different weekly oral bisphosphonate medications. Osteoporos Int 20(8):1369–1376

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ström O, Landfeldt E (2012) The association between automatic generic substitution and treatment persistence with oral bisphosphonates. Osteoporos Int 23(8):2201–2209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 84:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Dreinhofer KE et al. (2005) Multinational survey of osteoporotic fracture management. Osteoporos Int 16(Suppl 2):S44–S53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):109–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. GoodRx, http://www.goodrx.com/prolia

  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):637–645

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):503–511

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Whitaker M et al. (2012) Bisphosphonates for osteoporosis—where do we go from here? N Engl J Med 366(22):2048–2051

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Laliberte MC et al. (2010) Impact of a primary care physician workshop on osteoporosis medical practices. Osteoporos Int 21(9):1471–1485

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We thank Dr. Abhijit Dasgupta, PhD, for his kind review of statistical methods. This research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Smita Jha.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jha, S., Bhattacharyya, T. Utilization and cost of anti-osteoporosis therapy among US Medicare beneficiaries. Arch Osteoporos 11, 28 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-016-0283-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-016-0283-2

Keywords

Navigation