Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Our sample included 3,361,950 Medicare enrollees with ADRD (2,156,995 women [64%]; mean [SD] age, 83 [8.0] years; 2,646,405 white [78%], 344,478 black [10%], 224,010 Hispanic [7%]). The receipt of replacement among people with ADRD changed similarly between CJR-participating treatment and control areas after CJR model was implemented, suggesting no association of CJR model with the receipt of replacement. Among people with ADRD who received joint replacement, the CJR model was associated with a $1029 decrease in spending per episode (95% confidence interval [CI] -$1577, -$481, p < 0.001), a 1.62 percentage point decrease in discharges to an institutional post-acute care setting (95% CI -3.17, -0.07, p = 0.04), but no changes in 90-day readmission (95% CI -2.68, 0.00, p = 0.051). Despite concerns that the CJR model could hinder people with ADRD from receiving joint replacement, the receipt of joint replacement did not change among people with ADRD under CJR. The CJR model was associated with decreased spending for people with ADRD who received joint replacements, driven by reduced discharges to an institutional post-acute care setting, without any changes in 90-day readmission.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Kim, H., Juarez, C. A., Meath, T. H. A., Quiñones, A. R., & Teno, J. M. (2022). Association of Medicare bundled payment model with joint replacement care for people with dementia. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.17836
Vancouver
Kim H, Juarez CA, Meath THA, Quiñones AR, Teno JM. Association of Medicare bundled payment model with joint replacement care for people with dementia. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2022. doi:10.1111/jgs.17836. PMID: 35635471.
BibTeX
@article{kim2022-35635471,
author = {Kim, Hyunjee and Juarez, Cesar A and Meath, Thomas H A and Quiñones, Ana R and Teno, Joan M},
title = {{Association of Medicare bundled payment model with joint replacement care for people with dementia}},
journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1111/jgs.17836},
pmid = {35635471},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.17836}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Our sample included 3,361,950 Medicare enrollees with ADRD (2,156,995 women [64%]; mean [SD] age, 83 [8.0] years; 2,646,405 white [78%], 344,478 black [10%], 224,010 Hispanic [7%]).
- The receipt of replacement among people with ADRD changed similarly between CJR-participating treatment and control areas after CJR model was implemented, suggesting no association of CJR model with the receipt of replacement.
- Among people with ADRD who received joint replacement, the CJR model was associated with a $1029 decrease in spending per episode (95% confidence interval [CI] -$1577, -$481, p < 0.001), a 1.62 percentage point decrease in discharges to an institutional post-acute care setting (95% CI -3.17, -0.07, p = 0.04), but no changes in 90-day readmission (95% CI -2.68, 0.00, p = 0.051).
- Despite concerns that the CJR model could hinder people with ADRD from receiving joint replacement, the receipt of joint replacement did not change among people with ADRD under CJR.
- The CJR model was associated with decreased spending for people with ADRD who received joint replacements, driven by reduced discharges to an institutional post-acute care setting, without any changes in 90-day readmission.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Costs & economics →
Study details
- Study designcohort study
- Participants3,361,950
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 70/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 39 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 70 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A cohort study following people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 4 / 4 | 3,361,950 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 35635471) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 39 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 39 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 70 out of 100. |
| Total | 70 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Costs and economics
Also tagged “costs”
265 studies in the library carry the topic tag “costs”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 265 tagged studies.