Cost-effectiveness of secondary fracture prevention intervention for Medicare beneficiaries
Smita Nayak, MD, Andrea Singer, MD, Susan L. Greenspan, MD
Abstract
Background: Secondary fracture prevention intervention such as fracture liaison services are effective for increasing osteoporosis treatment rates, but are not currently widely used in the United States. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of secondary fracture prevention intervention after osteoporotic fracture for Medicare beneficiaries.
Methods: An individual-level state-transition microsimulation model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of secondary fracture prevention intervention compared with usual care for U.S. Medicare patients aged 65 and older who experience a new osteoporotic fracture. Patients who initiated pharmacotherapy and remained adherent were assumed to be treated for 5 years. Outcome measures included subsequent fractures, average lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in 2020 U.S. dollars per QALY gained. The model time horizon was lifetime, and analysis perspective was payer.
Results: Base-case analysis results showed that the secondary fracture prevention intervention strategy was both more effective and less expensive than usual care—thus, it was cost-saving. Model findings indicated that the intervention would reduce the number of expected fractures by approximately 5% over a 5-year period, preventing approximately 30,000 fractures for 1 million patients. Secondary fracture prevention intervention resulted in an average cost savings of $418 and an increase in QALYs of 0.0299 per patient over the lifetime; for 1 million patients who receive the intervention instead of usual care, expected cost savings for Medicare would be $418 million dollars. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses supported base-case findings of cost savings.
Conclusion: Secondary fracture prevention intervention for Medicare beneficiaries after a new osteoporotic fracture is very likely to both improve health outcomes and reduce healthcare costs compared with usual care. Expansion of its use for this population is strongly recommended.