# Introduction of the Cost-Effectiveness Studies of Fracture Liaison Service in Other Countries

## Article information

J Bone Metab. 2020;27(2):79-83
Publication date (electronic) : 2020 May 31
doi : https://doi.org/10.11005/jbm.2020.27.2.79
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Eulji University Hospital, Daejeon, Korea.
2Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
3Department of Rehabilitation, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.
Corresponding author: Yong-Chan Ha. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, 102 Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul 06973, Korea. Tel: +82-2-6299-1577, Fax: +82-2-822-1710, hayongch@naver.com
Received 2019 December 11; Revised 2020 January 21; Accepted 2020 February 03.

## Abstract

Osteoporosis and osteoporosis related fractures contribute a large part of the medical cost in developed countries. Considering the preventive effect of osteoporotic medications, high rate of mortality and complications, poor quality of life after osteoporosis related fractures, the growing trend of older populations in the future, osteoporosis and osteoporosis related fractures are important targets of preventive treatment and also targets of socioeconomic cost reduction. Treating osteoporosis and preventing osteoporosis related fractures have become an essential element in Korean medical system. Despite the various differences in the health care system, hospitals in many other countries are operating fracture liaison service and they have confirmed its cost-effectiveness. In Korea's health care system, further research on cost-effectiveness as well as its clinical effects is needed.

## KOREAN AGING AND ECONOMIC BURDEN

According to the 2019 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) health statistics, the life expectancy of Korean-born children in 2017 is reported to be 82.7 years old, which is the same as Norway and which is close to 84.2 years old in Japan.[1] One report on future life expectancy in 35 industrialized countries predicts that life expectancy will be the highest in the world for both men and women born in 2030.[2] In 2017, life expectancy was over 20 years at age 65 and the world's highest rise rate of the elderly population 65 years or older is observed in Korea.[2] However, 81.5% of these ages assess their health status as poor or fair, which is very high compared to an average of 56.8% in 35 OECD countries. This change is also observed in medical facilities with an increase in the elderly population. Number of long-term care beds in facilities and hospitals were 60.9 per 1,000 population aged 65 and over.[2] This is an increase of 36.1 compared to 2007, which is the highest increase compared to the average −3.4 in 24 OECD countries over the same period. In addition, Korea's medical expenditure trend is also the highest in the world. Annual growth in health expenditure per capita was 5.4% in 2008 to 2013 and 7.3% in 2013 to 2018.[2] According to the National Health Insurance Comprehensive Plan of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, medical expenditure was expected to be 62.29 trillion won in 2018, and it is expected to increase significantly to 94.32 trillion won in 2023.[3] However, despite the rising medical expenses, the government's medical expenditure on long-term care is only 0.6% of growth domestic product, which is less than half of the OECD average of 1.7%.[2]

## SOCIOECONOMIC BURDEN OF OSTEOPOROSIS & OSTEOPOROTIC FRACTURE

The debate on how to reduce the cost of health care due to the increasing aging population has emerged as an important social issue in socioeconomic aspects as well as in health care systems. Among senile diseases, osteoporosis and osteoporosis related fractures contribute a large part of the medical cost in developed countries.[456] Considering the preventive effect of osteoporotic medications, high rate of mortality and complications, poor quality of life after osteoporosis related fractures (especially in hip fractures), the growing trend of older populations in the future, osteoporosis and osteoporosis related fractures are important targets of preventive treatment and also targets of socioeconomic cost reduction.[7] Cost of Medicare programs in the US are reported to increase by 50% by 2020 compared to 2012, and most of these are expected to be caused by ages 65 and older.[8] In the US, the total cost of fracture care with osteoporosis in 2005 is estimated to be $17 billion and increase to$25 billion by 2025.[89] In the analysis of the health care costs of osteoporotic fractures over 50 years old using the Korea national claim database from 2008 to 2011, Kim et al. [10] reported that total estimated healthcare costs of osteoporotic fractures was $722 million in 2011, and this is an increase of 31.6% compared with 2008. During this period, the number of osteoporotic fractures increased by 28.9% and the mean healthcare cost was highest for hip fractures ($8,302 in 2011). In 2016, the number of hip fractures was 35,729 and it is expected to increase by 1.4 times to 51,259 by 2025.[6] In Australia, direct or indirect medical expenditures for osteoporosis and osteopenia over the age of 50 are estimated at 2.75 billion Australian dollars (AUD) in 2012 and 3.84 billion AUD in 2022.[11] A study examining the economic burden of caregivers in hip fracture patients reported that 20% of caregivers felt a high economic burden and even increased depression scores at 6 months after hip fracture.[12] Therefore, many countries are working to reduce medical costs for osteoporosis and osteoporosis related fracture, one of which is fracture liaison service (FLS).

## INTRODUCTION OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF FLS

There are various reports of FLS for the prevention of osteoporotic secondary fractures.[13] These studies implemented various types of FLS services and reported good results in increased rates of osteoporosis medication and bone mineral density (BMD) testing, high fracture prevention rate.[7] Nevertheless, the overall implementation of all hospitals in countries where FLS is implemented is not possible because the costs associated with FLS settings are a barrier.[14] Therefore, this review introduces reports on cost-effectiveness among FLS reports of other countries.

### 1. Glasgow FLS in United Kingdom

West Glasgow FLS, established in 1999, covers all men and women who have had low-trauma fractures over 50 years old.[15] Patient identification is performed by an osteoporosis nurse specialist, assessment of osteoporosis and fracture risk is performed in the osteoporosis nurse specialist fracture risk-assessment clinic. The patient is then sent to the general practitioner (GP) and medication is started. A cost-effectiveness study of FLS reported by McLellan et al. [14] compared the FLS pathway with the usual pathway. The FLS pathway has 2 pathways depending on the assessment of osteoporosis and is further subdivided according to the use of osteoporosis medication and performing of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). The usual pathway has 3 pathways: assessment by GP, hospital assessment, and no assessment and is further subdivided according to the use of osteoporosis medication and performing of DXA. Analysis of the database revealed that 74% of patients in West Glasgow FLS and 15% to 38% of patients in usual care needed treatment and they designed a Markov model using this ratio. New vertebral fractures were excluded due to their low cost and severity, and included only hip, wrist and humerus fractures. Evaluation contents for this study were number of refractures, life-years, and quality adjusted life-years (QALYs; a unit of measurement of both the quality and quantity of life lived).

When 1,000 hypothetical cohorts were applied to the Markov model, the number of patients receiving medication was 686 in the FLS pathway and 193 in the usual care pathway. Compared with the manual care pathway, the FLS pathway was able to prevent 18 fractures, resulting in a cost savings of £312,000. In addition, FLS pathway gained 3 life-years, 22 QALYs, and saved 266 hospital bed days. The cost of assessments was £98,000 and £14,000 for the FLS and usual care, respectively; the cost of medications was £292,000 and £85,000, respectively. Overall, the FLS saved an estimated £21,000 over the lifetimes of 1,000 patients.

### 2. FLS of John Hunter Hospital in Australia

Most cost-effective analysis studies of FLS have analyzed its economic effects by calculating the current level of medical use or cost, and creating a model for predicting medical costs. However, Major et al. [16] analyzes the economic impact of FLS, including the past actual direct medical costs charged to patients in the FLS group and patients in the usual care group and all costs used to run the FLS office in the hospital where the FLS was implemented. This study was conducted on patients over 50 years of age who visited the emergency department with minimal trauma fracture from July to December 2010. The medical cost and refracture fractures were checked for 3 years. There were 515 FLS groups and 416 usual care groups. The mean age was 77 and 79 years, respectively. The medical costs of the FLS group included the wages of nursing staff, the paper, postage and telephone costs involved in operating the FLS, and the cost of medication and osteoporosis evaluation and the cost of re-fracture treatment.

### 5. Cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis liaison service in Japan

In Japan, the life expectancy at births in 2017 was 84.2 years, the highest in the world. And, the age-standardized all-cause mortality rates per 100,000 in 2017 were 567, the lowest in the OECD.[1] A nationwide survey of hip fractures in Japan reported that the total number of hip fractures in 2012 was 175,700, which is a significant increase compared to 116,800 in 2007.[1819] The annual costs for osteoporotic fractures is estimated to be US $7,974 to 9,895 billion, which is expected to increase in the future.[20] Moriwaki and Noto [21] conducted a patient-level state transition model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of 65-year-old women who experienced femoral neck fracture below BMD −2.5. In this study, secondary fracture prevention resulted in an additional lifetime cost of$3,396 per person and conferred an additional 0.118 QALY, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of \$28,880 per QALY gained. According to the results of scenario analyses, Secondary fracture prevention by osteoporosis liaison service is cost-effective in Japanese women with osteoporotic hip fracture.

## CONCLUSIONS

Osteoporosis and osteoporosis related fractures are major health concern not only in Korea but also in other developed countries. Mortality and comorbidity, as well as the medical cost of osteoporosis and osteoporosis related fractures, have a significant impact on the quality of life of patients and are socioeconomic burdens. Therefore, treating osteoporosis and preventing osteoporosis related fractures have become an essential element in Korean medical system. Despite the various differences in the health care system, hospitals in many other countries are operating FLS and they have confirmed its cost-effectiveness. In Korea's health care system, further research on cost-effectiveness as well as its clinical effects is needed.

## Notes

Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable.

Conflict of interest: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

## References

1. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Health at a glance 2019: OECD indicators Paris, FR: OECD Publishing; 2019.
2. Kontis V, Bennett JE, Mathers CD, et al. Future life expectancy in 35 industrialised countries: projections with a Bayesian model ensemble. Lancet 2017;389:1323–1335. 28236464.
3. Ministry of Health and Welfare. Life expectancy and life expectancy excluding disease period 2019. cited by 2020 Jan 1. Available from: http://www.index.go.kr/potal/main/ EachDtlPageDetail.do?idx_cd=2758.
4. Cooper C, Campion G, Melton LJ 3rd. Hip fractures in the elderly: a world-wide projection. Osteoporos Int 1992;2:285–289. 1421796.
5. Gullberg B, Johnell O, Kanis JA. World-wide projections for hip fracture. Osteoporos Int 1997;7:407–413. 9425497.
6. Ha YC, Kim TY, Lee A, et al. Current trends and future projections of hip fracture in South Korea using nationwide claims data. Osteoporos Int 2016;27:2603–2609. 27112763.
7. Si L, Winzenberg TM, Palmer AJ. A systematic review of models used in cost-effectiveness analyses of preventing osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 2014;25:51–60. 24154803.
8. Solomon DH, Patrick AR, Schousboe J, et al. The potential economic benefits of improved postfracture care: a cost-effectiveness analysis of a fracture liaison service in the US health-care system. J Bone Miner Res 2014;29:1667–1674. 24443384.
9. Burge R, Dawson-Hughes B, Solomon DH, et al. Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005–2025. J Bone Miner Res 2007;22:465–475. 17144789.
10. Kim HY, Ha YC, Kim TY, et al. Healthcare costs of osteoporotic fracture in Korea: Information from the National Health Insurance Claims Database, 2008-2011. J Bone Metab 2017;24:125–133. 28642857.
11. Watts JJ, Abimanyi-Ochom J, Sanders KM. Osteoporosis costing all Australians: a new burden of disease analysis - 2012 to 2022 Glebe, AU: Osteoporosis Australia; 2013.
12. Parry JA, Langford JR, Koval KJ. Caregivers of hip fracture patients: The forgotten victims? Injury 2019;50:2259–2262. 31604572.
13. Ganda K, Puech M, Chen JS, et al. Models of care for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 2013;24:393–406. 22829395.
14. McLellan AR, Wolowacz SE, Zimovetz EA, et al. Fracture liaison services for the evaluation and management of patients with osteoporotic fracture: a cost-effectiveness evaluation based on data collected over 8 years of service provision. Osteoporos Int 2011;22:2083–2098. 21607809.
15. McLellan AR, Gallacher SJ, Fraser M, et al. The fracture liaison service: success of a program for the evaluation and management of patients with osteoporotic fracture. Osteoporos Int 2003;14:1028–1034. 14600804.
16. Major G, Ling R, Searles A, et al. The costs of confronting osteoporosis: cost study of an Australian fracture liaison service. JBMR Plus 2019;3:56–63. 30680364.
17. Yong JH, Masucci L, Hoch JS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a fracture liaison service-a real-world evaluation after 6 years of service provision. Osteoporos Int 2016;27:231–240. 26275439.
18. Orimo H, Yaegashi Y, Hosoi T, et al. Hip fracture incidence in Japan: estimates of new patients in 2012 and 25-year trends. Osteoporos Int 2016;27:1777–1784. 26733376.
19. Orimo H, Yaegashi Y, Onoda T, et al. Hip fracture incidence in Japan: estimates of new patients in 2007 and 20-year trends. Arch Osteoporos 2009;4:71–77. 20234789.
20. Harada A, Matsui Y, Takemura M, et al. Cost-utility analysis of osteoporosis. Nihon Ronen Igakkai Zasshi 2005;42:596–608. 16408495.
21. Moriwaki K, Noto S. Economic evaluation of osteoporosis liaison service for secondary fracture prevention in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients with previous hip fracture in Japan. Osteoporos Int 2017;28:621–632. 27699441.