Cost-Utility Analysis of the Ontario Fracture Screening and Prevention Program.

BACKGROUND: The Fracture Screening and Prevention Program (FSPP), a fracture liaison service (FLS), was implemented in the province of Ontario, Canada, in 2007 to prevent recurrent fragility fractures and to improve post-fracture care. The objective of this analysis was to determine the cost-effectiveness of the current model of the FSPP compared with usual care (no program) from the perspective of the universal public health-care payer (Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care [MOHLTC]), over the lifetime of older adults who presented with a fragility fracture of the proximal part of the femur, the proximal part of the humerus, or the distal part of the radius and were not taking medications to prevent or slow bone loss and reduce the risk of fracture (bone active medications). METHODS: We developed a state-transition (Markov) model to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of the FSPP in comparison with usual care. The model simulated a cohort of patients with a fragility fracture starting at 71 years of age. Model parameters were obtained from published literature and from the FSPP. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs in 2018 Canadian dollars were predicted over a lifetime horizon using a 1.5% annual discount rate. Health outcomes included subsequent proximal femoral, vertebral, proximal humeral, and distal radial fractures. Scenario and subgroup analyses were reported. RESULTS: The FSPP had lower expected costs ($277 less) and higher expected effectiveness (by 0.018 QALY) than usual care over the lifetime horizon. Ninety-four percent of the 10,000 Monte Carlo simulated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) demonstrated lower costs and higher effectiveness of the FSPP. CONCLUSIONS: The FSPP appears to be cost-effective compared with usual care over a lifetime for patients with fragility fracture. This information may help to quantify the value of the FSPP and to assist policy-makers in deciding whether to expand the FSPP to additional hospitals or to initiate similar programs where none exist. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and Decision Analysis Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Identifying and Addressing Barriers to Osteoporosis Treatment Associated with Improved Outcomes: An Observational Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and address patient-reported barriers in osteoporosis care after a fracture. METHODS: A longitudinal cohort of fragility fracture patients over 50 years of age was seen in a provincewide fracture liaison service. Followup interviews were done at 6 months for osteoporosis care indicators. Univariate statistics were used to describe baseline characteristics, osteoporosis-related outcomes, and reasons cited for not achieving them. Two phases of this program were compared (Phase I: education and communication, and Phase II: risk assessment education and communication). Phase II was further divided into those who fully participated and those who declined. RESULTS: Phase I (n = 3997) had lower testing and treatment rates than Phase II (n = 1363). Rates were highest in those confirmed as having participated in Phase II (n = 569). Phase II nonparticipants (n = 794) had results as in Phase I. In Phase I, the main patient-reported barriers for not visiting their physician or not having a bone mineral density (BMD) test were patient- and physician-oriented (e.g., being instructed by their physician to not have the BMD test). In Phase II, BMD testing was part of the program, thus the main barriers were around treatment choices. Phase II eligible nonparticipants experienced many of the same barriers as Phase I patients, with lower BMD testing rates (54.9% and 65.4%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Evaluating and addressing barriers to guideline implementation reduced those barriers and was associated with higher downstream treatment rates. Monitoring barriers in a program like this provides useful insights for program changes and research interventions.

A coordinator program in post-fracture osteoporosis management improves outcomes and saves costs.

BACKGROUND: The orthopaedic unit at a university teaching hospital hired an osteoporosis coordinator to identify patients with a fragility fracture and to coordinate their education, assessment, referral, and treatment of underlying osteoporosis. We report the results of an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the use of a coordinator (in comparison with the use of no coordinator) in avoiding future costs of subsequent hip fracture. METHODS: A one-year decision-analysis model was developed. The health outcome was subsequent hip fracture; only direct hospital costs were considered. With use of patient-level data from a previously described coordinator program and data from the literature, the expected annual incidence of subsequent hip fracture was calculated, on the basis of the type of index fracture (wrist, hip, humerus, other), attribution to osteoporosis, age, and gender. The rate of patient referral, the initiation of osteoporosis treatment, and adherence to therapy were modeled to modify the expected incidence of future hip fracture in the presence of a coordinator (with use of data from the program) and in the absence of a coordinator (with use of data from the literature). Sensitivity analysis modeling techniques were used to assess variable uncertainty and to evaluate coordinator cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Deterministic cost-effectiveness analysis showed that a tertiary care center that hired an osteoporosis coordinator who manages 500 patients with fragility fractures annually could reduce the number of subsequent hip fractures from thirty-four to thirty-one in the first year, with a net hospital cost savings of C$48,950 (Canadian dollars in year-2004 values), with use of conservative assumptions. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 90% probability that hiring a coordinator costs less than C$25,000 per hip fracture avoided. Hiring a coordinator is a cost-saving measure even when the coordinator manages as few as 350 patients annually. Greater savings are anticipated after the first year and when additional costs such as rehabilitation and dependency costs are considered. CONCLUSIONS: Employment of an osteoporosis coordinator to manage outpatients and inpatients who have fragility fractures is predicted to reduce the incidence of future hip fractures and to save money (a dominant strategy). A probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a high probability of cost-effectiveness of this intervention from the hospital cost perspective.