Osteoporosis International

, Volume 14, Issue 6, pp 490–495

Impact of subsidizing effective anti-osteoporosis drugs on compliance with management guidelines in patients following low-impact fractures

Original Article

Abstract.

Early in 2000, proven-effective antiresorptive drugs (alendronate and raloxifene) were included in the national "health basket" in Israel. We carried out the present study to evaluate the effect of subsidizing antiosteoporosis drugs on the use of antiosteoporosis drugs in patients following low-impact fractures. The rates of dispensation of antiosteoporosis drugs, in the hospital and in the community, before and after an incident of a newly diagnosed low-impact fracture, respectively, were evaluated during January and February 1998 and 1999 ("pre-basket") and the corresponding months of 2000 and 2001 ("post-basket"). The study was carried out in a 950-bed teaching hospital, the only one serving the area, and the largest health maintenance organization in the area. Hospital charts of women and men age 50 years and older with new fractures following low- or moderate-impact trauma treated in the emergency room, or admitted to the orthopedic surgery and rehabilitation departments, were reviewed. A centralized pharmacy computerized database was used to follow antiosteoporosis drug dispensation in the community. A significant, approximately two-fold, increase in the baseline (before fracture) rate of osteoporosis drug dispensation was observed between the pre- and post-basket periods. The rate of patients treated after a fracture incident also increased significantly, 1.6 fold, in the post-basket period; however, even in the post-basket period, two-thirds of the patients remained untreated following a fracture incident, and most of those treated received only calcium and vitamin D; only 17% received potent antiosteoporosis drugs. In a multivariate analysis, female gender, hospitalization, having the incident of fracture in the post-basket period, and above all being treated for osteoporosis before the fracture incident, had the greatest effect on the likelihood of being treated following a low-impact fracture incident. The increase in the pooled use of antiosteoporosis drugs and/or calcium/vitamin D supplements was continuous, and subsidizing created no step-up effect, besides a transient increase in the use of potent antiosteoporosis drugs in the first year following the health-basket amendment. We conclude that while subsidizing may have a significant, positive effect on antiosteoporosis drug utilization, other factors may be even more important. There is an ongoing need to find ways to encourage the use of effective pharmacological interventions for primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures.

Keywords

Osteoporosis drug therapy Osteoporotic fractures Physician's practice Guideline adherence Government financing 

References

  1. 1.
    Castel H, Bonneh DY, Sherf M, Liel Y (2001) Awareness of osteoporosis and compliance with management guidelines in patients with newly diagnosed low-impact fractures. Osteoporos Int 12:559–564Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Torgerson DJ, Dolan P (1998) Prescribing by general practitioners after an osteoporotic fracture. Ann Rheum Dis 57:378–379Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Edwards BJ (1999) Implementation of a fracture intervention program. American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, 21st Annual Meeting, St. Louis, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Freedman KB, Kaplan FS, Bilker WB, Strom BL, Lowe RA (2000) Treatment of osteoporosis: Are physicians missing an opportunity? J Bone Joint Surg Am 82-A:1063–1070Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hajcsar EE, Hawker G, Bogoch ER (2000) Investigation and treatment of osteoporosis in patients with fragility fractures. CMAJ 163:819–822Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cuddihy MT, Gabriel SE, Crowson CS, Atkinson EJ, Tabini C, O'Fallon WM, Melton LJ III (2002) Osteoporosis intervention following distal forearm fractures: a missed opportunity? Arch Intern Med 162:421–426Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Juby AG, De Geus-Wenceslau CM (2002) Evaluation of osteoporosis treatment in seniors after hip fracture. Osteoporos Int 13:205–210Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Port L, Center JR, Henderson K, Cumming R, Eisman JA (2002) Osteoporotic fracture: missed opportunity for intervention. J Bone Miner Res 17:S359Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown SH, Miller RA, Camp HN, Guise DA, Walker HK (1999) Empirical derivation of an electronic clinically useful problem statement system. Ann Intern Med 131:117–126Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Freeman AC, Sweeney K (2001) Why general practitioners do not implement evidence: qualitative study. Br Med J 323:1100–1102Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lewis MA (1986) Do contraceptive prices affect demand? Stud Fam Plann 17:126–135Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carlson E, Lamb V (2001) Changes in contraceptive use in Bulgaria, 1995–2000. Stud Fam Plann 32:329–338Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kiefe CI, McKay SV, Halevy A, Brody BA (1994) Is cost a barrier to screening mammography for low-income women receiving Medicare benefits? A randomized trial. Arch Intern Med 154:1217–1224Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kiefe CI, Harrison PL (1993) Post-hospitalization follow-up appointment-keeping among the medically indigent. J Community Health 18:271–282Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stein B, Orlando M, Sturm R (2000) The effect of copayments on drug and alcohol treatment following inpatient detoxification under managed care. Psychiatr Serv 51:195–198Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Werner P, Vered I (2002) Women's willingness to pay out-of-pocket for drug treatment for osteoporosis before and after the enactment of regulations providing public funding: evidence from a natural experiment in Israel. Osteoporos Int 13:228–334Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Endocrine UnitSoroka University Medical CenterBeer-ShevaIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Internal Medicine "C"Soroka University Medical CenterBeer-ShevaIsrael
  3. 3.Southern District of Clalit Health ServicesBeer-ShevaIsrael
  4. 4.Faculty of Health SciencesBen-Gurion University of the NegevBeer-ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations