Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35977261›Full record

Observational studyJAMA health forum2022

Evaluation of Federal Policy Changes to the Hospice Benefit and Use of Hospice for Persons With ADRD.

Kan Z Gianattasio, Ali Moghtaderi, Dale Lupu, Christina Prather, Melinda C Power

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in JAMA health forum, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Live Hospice Discharge of Individuals with Cognitive Disabilities: A Systematic Review.Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kan Z GianattasioDepartment of Health Policy and Management, George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, Washington, DC.
Ali MoghtaderiDepartment of Health Policy and Management, George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, Washington, DC.
Dale LupuGeorge Washington University School of Nursing, Washington, DC.
Christina PratherDivision of Geriatric and Palliative Medicine, George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC.
Melinda C PowerDepartment of Epidemiology, George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, Washington, DC.
George Washington University · USMilken Institute · US

Funding

Evaluating impact of recent federal policy changes on hospice utilization among patients with Alzheimers Disease and Related DementiasR03AG061499 · NIA · GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI POWER, MELINDA C · 2019 to 2020
$128k
NIA NIH HHS R03 AG061499
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Hospice is an important end-of-life service for patients with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD). Objective: To determine whether hospice use among patients with ADRD changed in association with recent policies aimed at reducing hospice misuse and long hospice stays, an outcome that may have disproportionately affected patients with ADRD because of their lengthy end-of-life trajectories. Design Setting and Participants: This observational cross-sectional study used Medicare hospice claims data from Medicare hospice episodes of care beginning between July 2008 and December 2019 among Medicare hospice beneficiaries 65 years or older at time of enrollment. Data analysis was conducted between September 2019 and June 2021. Exposures: The 2014 Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation (IMPACT) Act, which systematized audits of hospices with a high proportion of long stays, and the 2016 2-tier payment system, which reduced daily reimbursement rates after 60 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: Monthly percentage of (1) new patient enrollees, (2) patient census, and (3) care days provided to patients with an ADRD code. Results: The sample included 11 124 992 unique hospice episodes between 2008 and 2019; mean (SD) patient enrollment age ranged from 82.0 (8.2) years to 82.8 (8.7) years; the percentage of male patients ranged from 40.5% to 42.7%, and the percentage of Black, Hispanic, and White patients ranged from 7.7% to 8.2%, 1.5% to 2.0%, and 86.2% to 88.8%, respectively, across years. The percentage of new enrollees with an ADRD code dropped significantly during the months of IMPACT passage (-1.42 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.13 to -0.71) and implementation (-1.98 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.70 to -1.26) but rose again during the following months. While no significant changes were observed at the time of 2-tier payment implementation (0.15 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.21 to 0.51), the average rate of increase during the subsequent period was slower (0.01 percentage points per month; 95% CI, 0-0.02) than in earlier periods (0.05; 95% CI, 0.04-0.06 during the baseline period). Similar patterns were observed for the percentage of patient census and care days provided to patients with an ADRD code. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cross-sectional study of Medicare hospice claims data suggested that recent Medicare policies were associated with immediate and lasting reductions in the share of patients receiving hospice care with an ADRD code compared with expectations from preimplementation trends. Future research should examine mechanisms through which hospices enacted change and consequences for quality of care.

Indexed as

Hospice CareHospicesAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesDeathHumansMaleMedicarePolicyUnited States

Identifiers

PMID35977261
PMCPMC9077487
OpenAlexW4229009237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.