4.5 Article

Hip fracture trends in the United States, 2002 to 2015

Journal

OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL
Volume 29, Issue 3, Pages 717-722

Publisher

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-017-4345-0

Keywords

DXA; Fracture; Medicare; Osteoporosis; Reimbursement

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An analysis of United States (US) Medicare claims data from 2002 to 2015 for women aged >= 65 years found that age-adjusted hip fracture rates for 2013, 2014, and 2015 were higher than projected, resulting in an estimated increase of more than 11,000 hip fractures. Introduction Hip fractures are a major public health concern due to high morbidity, mortality, and healthcare expenses. Previous studies have reported a decrease in the annual incidence of hip fractures in the US beginning in 1995, coincident with the introduction of modern diagnostic tools and therapeutic agents for osteoporosis. In recent years, there has been less bone density testing and fewer prescriptions for osteoporosis treatments. The large osteoporosis treatment gap raises concern of possible adverse effects on hip fracture rates. Methods We assessed hip fracture incidence in the US to determine if the previous decline in hip fracture incidence continued. Using 2002 to 2015 Medicare Part A and Part B claims for women >= 65 years old, we calculated age-adjusted hip fracture rates, weighting to the 2014 population. Results We found that hip fracture rates declined each year from 2002 to 2012 and then plateaued at levels higher than projected for years 2013, 2014, and 2015. Conclusions The plateau in age-adjusted hip fracture incidence rate resulted in more than 11,000 additional estimated hip fractures over the time periods 2013, 2014, and 2015. We recommend further study to assess all factors contributing to this remarkable change in hip fracture rate and to develop strategies to reduce the osteoporosis treatment gap.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available