Home › Research › Health systems and care delivery
HEDIS Measures for Geriatric Care Quality: Evidence, Equity, and a Governance Framework
Uche Carine Ekemezie, Glory Ohunyon, Emily Sydney. Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research), 2023-01-30
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
The Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set provides the dominant quality measurement framework for Medicare Advantage and commercial health plans, yet HEDIS lacks validated geriatric-specific quality indicators, equitable measurement standards for diverse older adult populations, and governance controls calibrated to the high-stakes Star Ratings financial incentive context. The proposed HEDIS Quality Governance Framework — an integrated architecture combining supplemental geriatric indicators, equity-stratified performance monitoring, anti-gaming controls, and a Digital Quality Measures adoption pathway — designed to advance the clinical relevance, equity, and integrity of Medicare Advantage quality measurement. The HQGF specifies a supplemental geriatric indicator set addressing functional status assessment, cognitive impairment screening, advance care planning completion, and fall prevention quality dimensions absent from the current HEDIS measure set. An equity monitoring protocol tracks performance stratified by race, ethnicity, and area deprivation, with a root-cause analysis requirement for identified gaps. Anti-gaming controls — including override documentation requirements, data integrity audits, and dual-source measurement validation — are specified for the financial incentive environment of Medicare Advantage Star Ratings. A Digital Quality Measures implementation pathway leveraging FHIR R4 APIs enables near-real-time quality management and continuous performance improvement beyond the annual HEDIS measurement cycle. The HQGF provides health plans, quality measurement organisations, and CMS with an actionable framework for making Medicare Advantage quality measurement more clinically meaningful, equitable, and governance-complete. Priority research directions include field testing of proposed supplemental geriatric indicators and evaluation of DQM adoption effects on quality improvement efficiency.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Ekemezie, U. C., Ohunyon, G., & Sydney, E. (2023). HEDIS Measures for Geriatric Care Quality: Evidence, Equity, and a Governance Framework. Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21745900
Vancouver
Ekemezie UC, Ohunyon G, Sydney E. HEDIS Measures for Geriatric Care Quality: Evidence, Equity, and a Governance Framework. Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research). 2023. doi:10.5281/zenodo.21745900.
BibTeX
@article{ekemezie2023-27810fcc,
author = {Ekemezie, Uche Carine and Ohunyon, Glory and Sydney, Emily},
title = {{HEDIS Measures for Geriatric Care Quality: Evidence, Equity, and a Governance Framework}},
journal = {Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.21745900},
url = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21745900}
}
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
- An equity monitoring protocol tracks performance stratified by race, ethnicity, and area deprivation, with a root-cause analysis requirement for identified gaps.
- Anti-gaming controls — including override documentation requirements, data integrity audits, and dual-source measurement validation — are specified for the financial incentive environment of Medicare Advantage Star Ratings.
- A Digital Quality Measures implementation pathway leveraging FHIR R4 APIs enables near-real-time quality management and continuous performance improvement beyond the annual HEDIS measurement cycle.
- The HQGF provides health plans, quality measurement organisations, and CMS with an actionable framework for making Medicare Advantage quality measurement more clinically meaningful, equitable, and governance-complete.
- Priority research directions include field testing of proposed supplemental geriatric indicators and evaluation of DQM adoption effects on quality improvement efficiency.
Why it matters
This paper proposes a governance framework for geriatric quality measures, including cognitive impairment screening, in Medicare Advantage plans. It does not address treating, curing, or preventing Alzheimer's disease.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 38/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 64 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| 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 | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 24 / 64 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 64 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100. |
| Total | 38 / 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 Health systems and care delivery
Also tagged “delirium”
858 studies in the library carry the topic tag “delirium”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 858 tagged studies.