4.4 Article

Identifying Older Adults with Serious Illness: A Critical Step toward Improving the Value of Health Care

期刊

HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH
卷 52, 期 1, 页码 113-131

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.12479

关键词

Medicare; population health; geriatrics; palliative medicine

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging (NIA) [1K23AG040774-01A1]
  2. American Federation for Aging Research
  3. National Palliative Care Research Center
  4. NIA [1K07AG31779, 1K24 AG 22345-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveTo create and test three prospective, increasingly restrictive definitions of serious illness. Data SourcesHealth and Retirement Study, 2000-2012. Study DesignWe evaluated subjects' 1-year outcomes from the interview date when they first met each definition: (A) one or more severe medical conditions (Condition) and/or receiving assistance with activities of daily living (Functional Limitation); (B) Condition and/or Functional Limitation and hospital admission in the last 12months and/or residing in a nursing home (Utilization); and (C) Condition and Functional Limitation and Utilization. Definitions are increasingly restrictive, but not mutually exclusive. Data CollectionOf 11,577 eligible subjects, 5,297 met definition A; 3,151 definition B; and 1,447 definition C. Principal FindingsOne-year outcomes were as follows: hospitalization 33 percent (A), 44 percent (B), 47 percent (C); total average Medicare costs $20,566 (A), $26,349 (B), and $30,828 (C); and mortality 13 percent (A), 19 percent (B), 28 percent (C). In comparison, among those meeting no definition, 12 percent had hospitalizations, total Medicare costs averaged $7,789, and 2 percent died. ConclusionsProspective identification of older adults with serious illness is feasible using clinically accessible criteria and may be a critical step toward improving health care value. These definitions may aid clinicians and health systems in targeting patients who could benefit from additional services.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据