UNLABELLED: This is a cost-effectiveness analysis of training rural providers to identify and treat osteoporosis. Results showed a slight cost savings, increase in life years, increase in treatment rates, and decrease in fracture incidence. However, the results were sensitive to small differences in effectiveness, being cost-effective in 70 % of simulations during probabilistic sensitivity analysis. INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of training rural providers to identify and treat veterans at risk for fragility fractures relative to referring these patients to an urban medical center for specialist care. The model evaluated the impact of training on patient life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), treatment rates, fracture incidence, and costs from the perspective of the Department of Veterans Affairs. METHODS: We constructed a Markov microsimulation model to compare costs and outcomes of a hypothetical cohort of veterans seen by rural providers. Parameter estimates were derived from previously published studies, and we conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses on the parameter inputs. RESULTS: Base-case analysis showed that training resulted in no additional costs and an extra 0.083 life years (0.054 QALYs). Our model projected that as a result of training, more patients with osteoporosis would receive treatment (81.3 vs. 12.2 %), and all patients would have a lower incidence of fractures per 1,000 patient years (hip, 1.628 vs. 1.913; clinical vertebral, 0.566 vs. 1.037) when seen by a trained provider compared to an untrained provider. Results remained consistent in one-way sensitivity analysis and in probabilistic sensitivity analyses, training rural providers was cost-effective (less than $50,000/QALY) in 70 % of the simulations. CONCLUSIONS: Training rural providers to identify and treat veterans at risk for fragility fractures has a potential to be cost-effective, but the results are sensitive to small differences in effectiveness. It appears that provider education alone is not enough to make a significant difference in fragility fracture rates among veterans.
UNLABELLED: This is a cost-effectiveness analysis of training rural providers to identify and treat osteoporosis. Results showed a slight cost savings, increase in life years, increase in treatment rates, and decrease in fracture incidence. However, the results were sensitive to small differences in effectiveness, being cost-effective in 70 % of simulations during probabilistic sensitivity analysis. INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of training rural providers to identify and treat veterans at risk for fragility fractures relative to referring these patients to an urban medical center for specialist care. The model evaluated the impact of training on patient life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), treatment rates, fracture incidence, and costs from the perspective of the Department of Veterans Affairs. METHODS: We constructed a Markov microsimulation model to compare costs and outcomes of a hypothetical cohort of veterans seen by rural providers. Parameter estimates were derived from previously published studies, and we conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses on the parameter inputs. RESULTS: Base-case analysis showed that training resulted in no additional costs and an extra 0.083 life years (0.054 QALYs). Our model projected that as a result of training, more patients with osteoporosis would receive treatment (81.3 vs. 12.2 %), and all patients would have a lower incidence of fractures per 1,000 patient years (hip, 1.628 vs. 1.913; clinical vertebral, 0.566 vs. 1.037) when seen by a trained provider compared to an untrained provider. Results remained consistent in one-way sensitivity analysis and in probabilistic sensitivity analyses, training rural providers was cost-effective (less than $50,000/QALY) in 70 % of the simulations. CONCLUSIONS: Training rural providers to identify and treat veterans at risk for fragility fractures has a potential to be cost-effective, but the results are sensitive to small differences in effectiveness. It appears that provider education alone is not enough to make a significant difference in fragility fracture rates among veterans.
Authors: Anna M Sawka; Alexandra Papaioannou; Jonathan D Adachi; Amiram Gafni; David A Hanley; Lehana Thabane Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2005-07-11 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Russel Burge; Bess Dawson-Hughes; Daniel H Solomon; John B Wong; Alison King; Anna Tosteson Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Patricia W Stone; Monika Pogorzelska-Maziarz; Carolyn T A Herzig; Lindsey M Weiner; E Yoko Furuya; Andrew Dick; Elaine Larson Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Richard E Nelson; Michael J Battistone; William D Ashworth; Andrea M Barker; Marissa Grotzke; Timothy A Huhtala; Joanne Lafleur; Robert Z Tashjian; Grant W Cannon Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: John T Schousboe; Brent C Taylor; Howard A Fink; Robert L Kane; Steven R Cummings; Eric S Orwoll; L Joseph Melton; Douglas C Bauer; Kristine E Ensrud Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-08-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Michael J Battistone; Andrea M Barker; Marissa P Grotzke; J Peter Beck; Phillip Lawrence; Grant W Cannon Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-06-27 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Michael J Battistone; Andrea M Barker; Marissa P Grotzke; J Peter Beck; Jeffery T Berdan; Jorie M Butler; Caroline K Milne; Tim Huhtala; Grant W Cannon Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2016-07