Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
As Americans increase life expectancies, one disease that has captured federal attention is Alzheimer's disease. Annually, health care professionals see provider billing codes changing to meet regulatory guidelines. In 2017, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services enacted billing code G0505 to provide health care reimbursements for care planning services for clients with Alzheimer's disease. In-depth assessments and screenings included a patient-centered approach with familial interventions. Due to lack of awareness, health care providers demonstrated <1% use of these assessments in eligible older adults. Congress has proposed a bill (H.R. 1873/S880) to promote provider awareness and education training on its key elements. By educating future health care providers on updated legislation, providers will be able to offer an interdisciplinary approach in meeting the health care needs of the aging population. Health care providers can maintain patient advocacy while creating a vision of change for enabling policies specific to identified demographic populations. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 45(12), 7-11.].
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Skipper, A. W., & Zanetos, J. (2019). Using Policy to Improve Access to Care for Persons With Alzheimer's Disease. Journal of gerontological nursing. https://doi.org/10.3928/00989134-20191023-01
Vancouver
Skipper AW, Zanetos J. Using Policy to Improve Access to Care for Persons With Alzheimer's Disease. Journal of gerontological nursing. 2019. doi:10.3928/00989134-20191023-01. PMID: 31755537.
BibTeX
@article{skipper2019-31755537,
author = {Skipper, Alan W and Zanetos, Joanne},
title = {{Using Policy to Improve Access to Care for Persons With Alzheimer's Disease}},
journal = {Journal of gerontological nursing},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.3928/00989134-20191023-01},
pmid = {31755537},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3928/00989134-20191023-01}
}
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
- Due to lack of awareness, health care providers demonstrated <1% use of these assessments in eligible older adults.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Costs & economics →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 39/100
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, 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 22 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 39 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of gerontological nursing) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2019 — within 10 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 | — / 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 31755537) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 22 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 39 out of 100. |
| Total | 39 / 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.