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.

43/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Digital health tools

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Plain-language summary

Objective The objective of this study was to examine the effect of treatment timing on risk of institutionalization of Medicaid patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and to estimate the economic implications of earlier diagnosis and treatment initiation. Methods New Jersey Medicaid claims data (1997-2009) were used retrospectively to study the effect of treatment on time to institutionalization. Observed Medicaid payments were used to calculate savings from delayed institutionalization, adjusting for cost offsets resulting from concurrent changes in use of other medical services. Results Initiation of existing therapies at earliest symptomatic onset is predicted to delay institutionalization by 91 days, reducing Medicaid costs by $19,108/institutionalized patient. Incorporating an 18.5% cost offset from increased use of other medical services as well as drug costs associated with earlier treatment results in net savings of $12,687/patient. Projected annual Medicaid savings exceed $1 billion. Conclusion Earlier treatment leads to a small delay in institutionalization among AD patients, resulting in significant costs savings to Medicaid.

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

APA 7th

Geldmacher, D. S., Kirson, N. Y., Birnbaum, H. G., Eapen, S., Kantor, E., Cummings, A. K., et al. (2014). Implications of early treatment among Medicaid patients with Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2013.01.015

Vancouver

Geldmacher DS, Kirson NY, Birnbaum HG, Eapen S, Kantor E, Cummings AK, et al. Implications of early treatment among Medicaid patients with Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2013.01.015. PMID: 23643457.

BibTeX

@article{geldmacher2014-23643457,
  author  = {Geldmacher, D. S. and Kirson, N. Y. and Birnbaum, H. G. and Eapen, S. and Kantor, E. and Cummings, A. K. and Joish, V. N.},
  title   = {{Implications of early treatment among Medicaid patients with Alzheimer's disease}},
  journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
  year    = {2014},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.jalz.2013.01.015},
  pmid    = {23643457},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2013.01.015}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record reports “18.5%”. A statistically significant result can still be small in daily life.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Results Initiation of existing therapies at earliest symptomatic onset is predicted to delay institutionalization by 91 days, reducing Medicaid costs by $19,108/institutionalized patient.
Incorporating an 18.5% cost offset from increased use of other medical services as well as drug costs associated with earlier treatment results in net savings of $12,687/patient.
Conclusion Earlier treatment leads to a small delay in institutionalization among AD patients, resulting in significant costs savings to Medicaid.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →

Study details

Effect size18.5%
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 43/100

Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomized / 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 and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association)
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	1 / 5	2014 — within 20 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	2 / 3	Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization 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
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 23643457)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	25 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100.
Total	43 / 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.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Digital health tools from nearby years

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.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →