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

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM Osteoporosis International Pub Date : 2024-11-21 DOI:10.1007/s00198-024-07318-8
Tej D Azad, Rachel J Wu, Kelly E Anderson, Michael Darden, Amit Jain
{"title":"Osteoporosis testing and treatment remain low in both Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage.","authors":"Tej D Azad, Rachel J Wu, Kelly E Anderson, Michael Darden, Amit Jain","doi":"10.1007/s00198-024-07318-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall osteoporosis testing and treatment initiation rates in both TM and MA enrollees were low, with improved rates in MA compared to TM.</p>","PeriodicalId":19638,"journal":{"name":"Osteoporosis International","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Osteoporosis International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-024-07318-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在传统医疗保险和医疗保险优势计划中,骨质疏松症检测和治疗的比例仍然很低。
人们对传统医疗保险(TM)和医疗保险优势(MA)之间的骨质疏松症管理知之甚少。MA受益人接受骨质疏松症检测的比例较高,开始接受骨质疏松症药物治疗的比例也较高。发生骨质疏松性脆性骨折后,MA 受益人更有可能接受骨质疏松症治疗。目的:骨质疏松症在美国是一项重大的临床挑战,尤其是对老年妇女而言,需要有效的护理协调。医疗保险优势计划(MA)以星级评定的形式对改善骨质疏松症检测和治疗提供经济激励。本研究旨在比较传统医疗保险(TM)受益人和医疗保险女性参保者的骨质疏松症管理方法:我们使用具有全国代表性的 20% 2017-2019 年 TM 索赔样本和 MA 遇险记录进行了一项横断面研究。我们确定了 2,994,203 名女性 TM 受益人和 1,924,132 名 MA 投保人。接触对象为 MA 注册者。主要结果是在新的骨质疏松症诊断后和新的骨质疏松性脆性骨折后进行指南推荐的骨质密度(BMD)检测和开始服用骨质疏松症药物的比率:结果:医疗保险受益人的未调整率较高(22.0%对19.8%;P 结论:医疗保险受益人的未调整率较低(22.0%对19.8%;P 结论:医疗保险受益人的未调整率较高):在 TM 和 MA 参保者中,骨质疏松症检测和治疗的总体启动率都很低,与 TM 相比,MA 的启动率有所提高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Osteoporosis International
Osteoporosis International 医学-内分泌学与代谢
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
224
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: An international multi-disciplinary journal which is a joint initiative between the International Osteoporosis Foundation and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, Osteoporosis International provides a forum for the communication and exchange of current ideas concerning the diagnosis, prevention, treatment and management of osteoporosis and other metabolic bone diseases. It publishes: original papers - reporting progress and results in all areas of osteoporosis and its related fields; review articles - reflecting the present state of knowledge in special areas of summarizing limited themes in which discussion has led to clearly defined conclusions; educational articles - giving information on the progress of a topic of particular interest; case reports - of uncommon or interesting presentations of the condition. While focusing on clinical research, the Journal will also accept submissions on more basic aspects of research, where they are considered by the editors to be relevant to the human disease spectrum.
期刊最新文献
Metaphyseal comminution in distal radius fractures: a predictor of secondary fragility fractures and the role of osteoporosis treatment. Time trend analysis of osteoporosis prevalence among adults 50 years of age and older in the USA, 2005-2018. Ultra-processed food intake and prevalence of osteoporosis in US adults aged 50 years and older: a cross-sectional analysis. Focal dermal hypoplasia: a probable underrecognized low bone mass disorder secondary to aberrant Wnt signaling. Response to the letter "OSIN-24-D-01312, letter to the editor commenting on 'evaluation of bone mineral density (BMD) and trabecular bone score (TBS) in pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma; a multi-centric case-control study from India'".
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1