Observational studyJournal of the American Medical Directors Association2025
Changes in Medicare's Chronic Condition Files and Disparities in Dementia Identification.
Observational study in Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesIn 2017, the Chronic Condition Warehouse released a 30-condition Chronic Condition file (CC30), which fully replaced the prior 27-condition file (CC27) in 2022. CC30 shortened the look-back period for dementia identification from 3 to 2 years and raised the required outpatient/carrier claims from 1 to 2. This change may disproportionately affect individuals with limited access to health care. This study aimed to quantify how the CC27-CC30 transition affects dementia identification across population subgroups.
designObservational study. SETTING AND
participantsMedicare beneficiaries with dementia, including 12,951,241 person-years between 2018 and 2021.
methodsWe linked 2018-2021 Medicare Beneficiary Summary Files (base file, CC27, and CC30) with publicly available data. Beneficiaries with Alzheimer's disease (AD) or Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) in either CC27 or CC30 were identified. Disagreement was defined as having dementia in one file but not the other. Logistic regression was used to examine patient-level (eg, race/ethnicity, dual status, age, gender) and area-level (eg, mental health provider shortages, social deprivation) factors associated with the disagreement.
resultsCC30 identified approximately 70% to 72% of AD and ADRD cases in CC27, and added very few additional ADRD cases (0.04%). Disagreement (mainly driven by the exclusion of individuals previously identified by CC27) varied by individual and community characteristics. For example, Asian and Hispanic beneficiaries had 51% to 55% and 20% to 26% higher odds of disagreement for ADRD, respectively (P < .01). Rural residence was associated with an 11% to 13% increase in the odds of disagreement of ADRD (P < .01). Residents in communities with higher socioeconomic deprivation and lower proportions of White residents also had a higher likelihood of disagreement in ADRD dementia identification. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Transitioning from CC27 to CC30 reduces identified AD and ADRD dementia cases, disproportionately affecting certain subpopulations. Researchers and policymakers should consider these changes when interpreting trends and designing dementia care interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.