Home › Research › Health systems and care delivery
Performance of Claims-based Dementia Algorithms in Medicare Fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage Populations
You Wu, Chan Mi Park, Lan Luo, Xiecheng Chen, Eunji G Kim, Sandra Shi, Dae Hyun Kim, Ellen P. McCarthy. Innovation in Aging, 2025-12-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Abstract Claims-based dementia algorithms have not been evaluated in the Medicare Advantage (MA) population, a critical gap given the rapid growth of MA and concerns about data completeness. Using community-dwelling participants from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) Round 7 (2017; n = 5,058), Round 9 (2019; n = 4,048), and Round 11 (2021-2022; n = 3,109), we validated the Bynum Standard and Chronic Condition Warehouse (CCW) dementia algorithms against NHATS classification for probable dementia. The prevalence of probable dementia was similar between MA (8.2%-9.1%) and FFS (8.1%-8.5%) across rounds. Overall, both algorithms had comparable performance in MA vs FFS populations, demonstrating high specificity (>97.9%) and negative predictive value [NPV] (>92.9%). The Bynum algorithm had similar sensitivity between MA and FFS in Round 7 (30.2% vs. 29.1%) and 11 (25.6% vs. 23.9%), but statistically significant and clinically meaningful lower sensitivity in MA for Round 9 (25.0% vs. 36.4%). However, positive predictive value [PPV] was similar between MA (62.7%-70.6%) and FFS (62.1%-70.4%) in all rounds. Comparatively, the CCW algorithm had statistically significant and clinically meaningful lower sensitivity in MA than FFS for Round 9 (30.8% vs. 46.9%) and 11 (35.0% vs. 49.3%), yet similar sensitivity for Round 7 (40.4% vs. 42.2%). The PPV in MA and FFS varied across rounds, from Round 7 (76.3% vs. 71.2%) to 11 (68.5% vs. 76.4%). Claims-based dementia algorithms have lower or comparable sensitivity in MA vs. FFS, with similarly moderate PPV and consistently high specificity and NPV. Researchers should consider these trade-offs when selecting algorithms for MA and FFS.
Key findings
- Overall, both algorithms had comparable performance in MA vs FFS populations, demonstrating high specificity (>97.9%) and negative predictive value [NPV] (>92.9%).
- The Bynum algorithm had similar sensitivity between MA and FFS in Round 7 (30.2% vs. 29.1%) and 11 (25.6% vs. 23.9%), but statistically significant and clinically meaningful lower sensitivity in MA for Round 9 (25.0% vs. 36.4%).
- Comparatively, the CCW algorithm had statistically significant and clinically meaningful lower sensitivity in MA than FFS for Round 9 (30.8% vs. 46.9%) and 11 (35.0% vs. 49.3%), yet similar sensitivity for Round 7 (40.4% vs. 42.2%).
Why it matters
This study tested two claims-based dementia algorithms against a gold-standard classification in Medicare Advantage and fee-for-service populations. It found the algorithms had high specificity but lower sensitivity in Medicare Advantage in some years, which matters for identifying dementia cases but does not address treating or curing the disease.
Study details
- Participants5,058
- Effect size8.2%; 9.1%; 8.1%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 40/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 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 | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 5,058 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 3 year(s) since 2025 |
| 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 | 3 / 4 | Last-listed author Ellen P. McCarthy: h-index 67 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 3 / 3 | Harvard University: institution h-index 3,235 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 1 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Total | 40 / 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. The record names 8 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.
APA 7th
Wu, Y., Park, C. M., Luo, L., Chen, X., Kim, E. G., Shi, S., et al. (2025). Performance of Claims-based Dementia Algorithms in Medicare Fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage Populations. Innovation in Aging. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igaf122.4238
Vancouver
Wu Y, Park CM, Luo L, Chen X, Kim EG, Shi S, et al. Performance of Claims-based Dementia Algorithms in Medicare Fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage Populations. Innovation in Aging. 2025. doi:10.1093/geroni/igaf122.4238.
BibTeX
@article{wu2025-56754501,
author = {Wu, You and Park, Chan Mi and Luo, Lan and Chen, Xiecheng and Kim, Eunji G and Shi, Sandra and Kim, Dae Hyun and McCarthy, Ellen P.},
title = {{Performance of Claims-based Dementia Algorithms in Medicare Fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage Populations}},
journal = {Innovation in Aging},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1093/geroni/igaf122.4238},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igaf122.4238}
}
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.