Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Health systems and care delivery

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Abstract This study examines the difference in functional outcomes among Traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) during a home health admission, which is unknown. This cohort study used data from the 2019 Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS) and Medicare claims (Home Health (HH) and inpatient), enrollment, and Chronic Condition Warehouse (CCW) files from the CMS. Functional outcome was measured as a change in the composite ADL score (grooming, bathing, toileting, dressing, walking, transferring, ambulation, and hygiene) from HH admission to discharge. A binary logistic model with an outcome variable (1/0: if the composite score was ≤0 (improvement or static) at discharge (1), and 0 if score >0 (decline) from HH admission to discharge) was estimated. The independent predictor was a binary indicator of MA enrollment (if enrolled ≥1 month in 2019). The ADRD cohort was identified based on CCW criteria and ICD-10 codes from inpatient and HH claims. The analysis included 81,735 Medicare beneficiaries; 30.5% had MA, and 69.5% had TM. There was no difference in the number of HH visits between TM and MA enrollees (2.14 vs. 2.13; P=0.39). Adjusting for patients’ demographics, total number of diagnoses, and availability of caregiving support, MA enrollees were 26% less likely to report improvement or maintenance of ADL composite score (95% CI: 0.71-0.77) than TM. A less favorable outcome for MA enrollees highlights the importance of addressing the inefficient use of home health services among people with ADRD in MA.

Key findings

Why it matters

This study compared functional outcomes during home health admissions between traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with dementia. It found Medicare Advantage enrollees were 26% less likely to report improvement or maintenance of daily living scores, which concerns rehabilitation outcomes rather than treating or curing the underlying disease.

Study details

How this study scored 44/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 0 of 4; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 4 of 5; Sample size 4 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 0 of 7; Citations per year 0 of 5; Impact for its field and year 0 of 6; Cited by studies here 0 of 6; Still being cited 0 of 4; Senior author's track record 1 of 4; Institution's track record 0 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 0 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 1 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. Total 44 of 100.44 of 100 points earned56 not earned

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Innovation in Aging)
Journal's citation record 0 / 4 Innovation in Aging: journal h-index 48 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
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 4 / 5 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 4 / 4 81,735 participants
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
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 0 / 7 Cited 0 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 0 / 5 0.0 citations a year over 4 year(s) since 2024
Impact for its field and year 0 / 6 Cited 0.0× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 0 / 6 No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited 0 / 4 Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record 1 / 4 Last-listed author Rashmita Basu: h-index 12 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record 0 / 3 East Carolina University: institution h-index 437 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 0 / 3 OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete)
Indexed in PubMed 1 / 2 Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Total 44 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

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.

APA 7th

Basu, R. (2024). FUNCTIONAL OUTCOME IN HOME HEALTH AMONG TRADITIONAL MEDICARE AND MEDICARE ADVANTAGE BENEFICIARIES WITH DEMENTIA. Innovation in Aging. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igae098.2977

Vancouver

Basu R. FUNCTIONAL OUTCOME IN HOME HEALTH AMONG TRADITIONAL MEDICARE AND MEDICARE ADVANTAGE BENEFICIARIES WITH DEMENTIA. Innovation in Aging. 2024. doi:10.1093/geroni/igae098.2977.

BibTeX

@article{basu2024-21588b63,
  author  = {Basu, Rashmita},
  title   = {{FUNCTIONAL OUTCOME IN HOME HEALTH AMONG TRADITIONAL MEDICARE AND MEDICARE ADVANTAGE BENEFICIARIES WITH DEMENTIA}},
  journal = {Innovation in Aging},
  year    = {2024},
  doi     = {10.1093/geroni/igae098.2977},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igae098.2977}
}

Related studies in Health systems and care delivery

Also tagged “prevalence”

1,224 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,224 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Health systems and care delivery

See all studies in Health systems and care delivery →