Search

ContextPalliative care can improve the lives of people with serious illness, yet clear operational definitions of this population do not exist. Prior efforts to identify this population have not focused on Medicare Advantage (MA) and commercial health plan enrollees.ObjectivesWe aimed to operationalize our conceptual definition of serious illness to identify those with serious medical conditions (SMC) among commercial insurance and MA enrollees, and to compare the populations identified through electronic health record (EHR) or claims data sources.MethodsWe used de-identified claims and EHR data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse (2016-2017), to identify adults age ≥18 with SMC and examine their utilization and mortality. Within the subset found in both data sources, we compared the performance of claims and EHR data.ResultsWithin claims, SMC was identified among 10% of those aged ≥18 (5.4% ages 18-64, 27% age ≥65). Within EHR, SMC was identified among 9% of those aged ≥18 (5.6% ages 18-64, 21% ages ≥65). Hospital, emergency department and mortality rates were similar between the EHR and claims-based groups. Only 50% of people identified as having SMC were recognized by both data sources.ConclusionThese results demonstrate the feasibility of identifying adults with SMC in a commercially insured population, including MA enrollees; yet separate use of EHR or claims result in populations that differ. Future research should examine methods to combine these data sources to optimize identification and support population management, quality measurement, and research to improve the care of those living with serious illness.

Background: In response to a growing need for accessible, efficient, and effective palliative care services, we designed, implemented, and evaluated a novel palliative care at home (PC@H) model for people with serious illness that is centered around a community health worker, a registered nurse, and a social worker, with an advanced practice nurse and a physician for support. Our objectives were to measure the impact of receipt of PC@H on patient symptoms, quality of life, and healthcare utilization and costs. Methods: We enrolled 136 patients with serious illness in this parallel, randomized controlled trial. Our primary outcome was change in symptom burden at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included change in symptom burden at 3 months, change in quality of life at 6 weeks and 3 months, estimated using a group t‐test. In an exploratory aim, we examined the impact of PC@H on healthcare utilization and cost using a generalized linear model. Results: PC@H resulted in a greater improvement in patient symptoms at 6 weeks (1.30 score improvement, n = 37) and 3 months (3.14 score improvement, n = 21) compared with controls. There were no differences in healthcare utilization and costs between the two groups. Unfortunately, due to the COVID‐19 pandemic and a loss of funding, the trial was not able to be completed as originally intended. Conclusions: A palliative care at home model that leverages community health workers, registered nurses, and social workers as the primary deliverers of care may result in improved patient symptoms and quality of life compared with standard care. We did not demonstrate significant differences in healthcare utilization and cost associated with receipt of PC@H, likely due to inability to reach the intended sample size and insufficient statistical power, due to elements beyond the investigators' control such as the COVID‐19 public health emergency and changes in grant funding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the National Institute of Aging's (NIA) push for inclusion of diverse older adults in clinical studies as of September 2024. Topics covered include the barriers of comorbidities' exclusion, age limits, concerns on vulnerable persons, and distrust of the healthcare system, and the needs to ensure representation and for appropriate analysis and research expertise in designing trials. Also noted is the NIA's support of initiatives to diversify the research workforce.

ContextMost hip fracture care models are grounded in curative models where the goal is to return the patient to independent function. In many instances, however, hip fractures contribute to continued functional decline and mortality. Although the negative impact of hip fractures is appreciated once they have occurred, what is less understood is what proportion of older adults have high illness burden before experiencing hip fracture and might benefit from geriatric palliative care.ObjectivesUsing data from the Health and Retirement Study linked to Medicare claims (January 1992 through December 2010), we sought to understand the extent of premorbid illness burden before hip fracture.MethodsCharacteristics were based on the interview before hip fracture. Features used to indicate need for geriatric palliative care included evidence of functional and medical vulnerability, pain, and depression.ResultsEight hundred fifty-six older adults who experienced a hip fracture were compared to 851 age-, gender-, and race-matched controls. Older adults with hip fractures had significantly more premorbid functional vulnerability (activities of daily living dependent 25.7% vs. 16.1% [P

ObjectivesTo compare healthcare use in the last months of life between physicians and nonphysicians in the United States.DesignA retrospective observational cohort study.SettingUnited States.ParticipantsFee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries: decedent physicians (n = 9,947) and a random sample of Medicare decedents (n = 192,006).MeasurementsMedicare Part A claims data from 2008 to 2010 were used to measure days in the hospital and proportion using hospice in the last 6 months of life as primary outcome measures adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics and regional variations in health care.ResultsInpatient hospital use in the last 6 months of life was no different between physicians and nonphysicians, although more physicians used hospice and for longer (using the hospital: odds ratio (OR) = 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.93-1.04; hospital days: mean difference 0.26, P = .14); dying in the hospital: OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.95-1.04; intensive care unit (ICU) or critical care unit (CCU) days: mean difference 0.35 more days for physicians, P < .001); using hospice: OR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.18-1.29; number of days in hospice: mean difference 2.06, P < .001).ConclusionThis retrospective, observational study is subject to unmeasured confounders and variation in coding practices, but it provides preliminary evidence of actual use. U.S. physicians were more likely to use hospice and ICU- or CCU-level care. Hospitalization rates were similar.

ImportanceIncreasing numbers of older, community-dwelling adults have functional impairments that prevent them from leaving their homes. It is uncertain how many people who live in the United States are homebound.ObjectivesTo develop measures of the frequency of leaving and ability to leave the home and to use these measures to estimate the size of the homebound population in the US population.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study collected in 2011 in the contiguous United States. Participants were a nationally representative sample of 7603 noninstitutionalized Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older.Main outcomes and measuresWe defined homebound persons as those who never (completely homebound) or rarely (mostly homebound) left the home in the last month. We defined semihomebound persons as those who only left the home with assistance or had difficulty or needed help leaving the home. We compared demographic, clinical, and health care utilization characteristics across different homebound status categories.ResultsIn 2011, the prevalence of homebound individuals was 5.6% (95% CI, 5.1%-6.2%), including an estimated 395,422 people who were completely homebound and 1,578,984 people who were mostly homebound. Among semihomebound individuals, the prevalence of those who never left home without personal assistance was 3.3% (95% CI, 2.8%-3.8%), and the prevalence of those who required help or had difficulty was 11.7% (95% CI, 10.9%-12.6%). Completely homebound individuals were more likely to be older (83.2 vs 74.3 years, P

Background: Heart failure (HF) and dementia both have profound effects on function and mortality in older persons. However, we have limited knowledge about the impact of co‐occurring HF and dementia. Our goal was to understand how often persons with HF have dementia and the impact of their co‐occurrence. Methods: Retrospective analysis of participants (age > 65) in the 2015 wave of the nationally representative Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) with linkage to Medicare claims. 912 participants with HF (45% older than 80, 51% women) using Medicare claims. We used the validated NHATS dementia algorithm to identify those with probable dementia. Outcomes of interest included the need for help with activities of daily living (ADLs) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) at baseline, functional decline, hospitalization over 1 year, and mortality over 2‐years. Baseline functional status, functional decline, and hospitalization were compared using adjusted logistic regression, mortality was analyzed using adjusted Cox regression models adjusted for demographics, socio‐economic status, baseline health, and baseline functional status. Results: 200 (21%) of the participants with HF also had dementia. For each I/ADL, patients with both HF and dementia were more likely to need help than those with HF without dementia. 71.8% of participants with HF and dementia needed help with medications versus 16.6% with HF without dementia (p < 0.001). Having HF and dementia was associated with an increased risk of requiring help with additional ADLs after one year (aOR = 2.69, 95% CI 1.53, 4.73). Participants with HF and dementia had an increased risk of being hospitalized within one year (aOR = 2.02 95% CI 1.16, 3.54), or dying within two years (aHR = 1.52 95% CI 1.03, 2.26). Conclusions: One‐fifth of persons over age 65 with HF also have comorbid dementia. Co‐occurring HF and dementia markedly increase functional impairment and subsequent ADL decline, hospitalization, and death. These results highlight the need for physician awareness for signs of dementia, and appropriate adjustments in the management of HF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Medicare Hospice Benefit increasingly serves people dying with dementia. We sought to understand characteristics, hospice use patterns, and last-month-of-life care quality ratings among hospice enrollees with dementia coexisting with another terminal illness as compared to enrollees with a principal hospice diagnosis of dementia, and enrollees with no dementia. Methods: We conducted a pooled cross-sectional study among decedent Medicare beneficiaries age 70+ using longitudinal data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) (last interview before death; after-death proxy interview) linked to Medicare hospice claims (2011–2017). We used unadjusted and adjusted regression analyses to compare characteristics of hospice enrollees with coexisting dementia to two groups: (1) enrollees with a principal dementia diagnosis, and (2) enrollees with no dementia. Results: Among 1105 decedent hospice enrollees age 70+, 40% had coexisting dementia, 16% had a principal diagnosis of dementia, and 44% had no dementia. In adjusted analyses, enrollees with coexisting dementia had high rates of needing help with 3–6 activities of daily living, similar to enrollees with principal dementia (62% vs. 67%). Enrollees with coexisting dementia had high clinical needs, similar to those with no dementia, for example, 63% versus 61% had bothersome pain. Care quality was worse for enrollees with coexisting dementia versus principal dementia (e.g., 61% vs. 79% had anxiety/sadness managed) and similar to those with no dementia. Enrollees with coexisting dementia had similar hospice use patterns as those with principal diagnoses and higher rates of problematic use patterns compared to those with no dementia (e.g., 16% vs. 10% live disenrollment, p = 0.004). Conclusions: People with coexisting dementia have functional needs comparable to enrollees with principal diagnoses of dementia, and clinical needs comparable to enrollees with no dementia. Changes to hospice care models and policy may be needed to ensure appropriate dementia care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Assessing activity limitations is central to aging research. However, assessments of activity limitations vary, and this may have implications for the populations identified. We aim to compare measures of activities of daily living (ADLs) and their resulting prevalence and mortality across three nationally-representative cohort studies: the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), the Health and Retirement Survey (HRS), and the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS). Methods: We compared the phrasing and context of questions around help and difficulty with six self-care activities: eating, bathing, toileting, dressing, walking inside, and transferring. We then compared the prevalence and 1-year mortality for difficulty and help with eating and dressing. Results: NHATS, HRS, and MCBS varied widely in phrasing and framing of questions around activity limitations, impacting the proportion of the population found to experience difficulty or receive help. For example, in NHATS 12.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.5%–13.4%] of the cohort received help with dressing, while in HRS this figure was 6.4% [95% CI 5.7%–7.2%] and MCBS 5.3% [95% CI 4.7%–5.8%]. When combined with variation in sampling frame and survey approach of each survey, such differences resulted in large variation in estimates of the older population of older adults with ADL disability. Conclusions: In order to take late-life activity limitations seriously, we must clearly define the measures we use. Further, researchers and clinicians seeking to understand the experience of older adults with activity limitations should be careful to interpret findings in light of the framing of the question asked. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medicare home health could be leveraged to care for those near the end of life (EOL), especially for those who cannot access nor desire the Medicare hospice benefit. It is unknown what role home health currently has either preceding or as an alternative to hospice use. Objective: The aim of this study is to compare populations served and visit patterns of Medicare beneficiaries receiving home health/hospice/both near the EOL. Design: Nationally representative cohort study of National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) respondents. Setting/Subjects: A total of 1,057 U.S. decedents in NHATS from 2012 to 2017 with linked Medicare claims were included in this study. Measurements: Measurements included the proportion of decedents who received home health/hospice/both/neither (yes/no) in the last six months of life (EOL) and mean number of visits by discipline (nurse/therapist [physical/occupational speech–language pathologist]/social worker/home health aide) per 30 eligible days at home for home health/hospice/both at the EOL. The primary independent variable was the clinician discipline providing services (nurse/therapist/social worker/aide). Results: In our sample, 19.9% received home health only, 25.8% hospice only, 18.8% both, and 35.6% neither at the EOL. These populations varied in their demographic, region, and clinical characteristics. Decedents who received home health only compared with hospice only were younger (44.1% over age 85 vs. 58.4%), members of a racially/ethnically diverse group (19.7% vs. 10.9%), and with less disability (37.2% required no assistance with activities of daily living vs. 22.7%), all p values <0.05. In adjusted models, those receiving home health versus hospice received similar numbers of visits per 30 days (average 5.4/30 vs. 6.6/30), while those receiving both received more visits (10.5/30). Home health provided more therapy visits, while hospice provided more social work and aide visits. Conclusions: More than one in three Medicare decedents nationwide received home health at the EOL. Home health has the potential to serve a population not reached by hospice and improve the quality of end-of-life care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this study was to characterize multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) among seriously ill adults receiving palliative care at the end of life. A latent class analysis was conducted to identify latent subgroups of seriously ill older adults based on a baseline Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) measurement, a measure of comorbidity burden, and mortality risk. The three latent subgroups were: (1) low to moderate CCI with MCC, (2) high CCI with MCC, and (3) high CCI and metastatic cancer. The "low to moderate CCI and MCC" subgroup included older adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cardiovascular disease, congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, dementia, diabetes, and lymphoma. A "high CCI and MCC" subgroup included individuals with severe illness including liver or renal disease among other MCCs. A "high CCI and metastatic cancer" included all participants with metastatic cancer. This study sheds light on the MCC profile of seriously ill adults receiving palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]