BACKGROUND: Community-based services are preferred to institutional care for people requiring long-term care (LTC). States are increasing their Medicaid waiver programs, although Program of All-Inclusive Care For Elderly (PACE)-prepaid, community-based comprehensive care-is available in 31 states. Despite emerging alternatives, little is known about their comparative effectiveness. METHODS: For a two-county region of South Carolina, we contrast long-term survival among entrants (n = 2040) to an aged and disabled waiver program, PACE, and nursing homes (NHs), stratifying for risk. Participants were followed for 5 years or until death; those lost to follow-up or surviving less than 5 years as on August 8, 2005 were censored. Analyses included admission descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier curves. To address cohort risk imbalance, we employed an established mortality risk index, which showed external validity in waiver, PACE, and NH cohorts (log-rank tests = 105.42, 28.72, and 52.23, respectively, all p < .001; c-statistics = .67, .58, .65, p < .001). RESULTS: Compared with waiver (n = 1,018) and NH (n = 468) admissions, PACE participants (n = 554) were older, more cognitively impaired, and had intermediate activities of daily living dependency. PACE mortality risk (72.6% high-to-intermediate) was greater than in waiver (58.8%), and similar to NH (71.6%). Median NH survival was 2.3 years. Median PACE survival was 4.2 years versus 3.5 in waiver (unstratified, log rank = .394; p = .53), but accounting for risk, PACE's advantage is significant (log rank = 5.941 (1); p = .015). Compared with waiver, higher risk admissions to PACE were most likely to benefit (moderate: PACE median survival = 4.7 years vs waiver 3.4; high risk: 3.0 vs 2.0). CONCLUSION: Long-term outcomes of LTC alternatives warrant greater research and policy attention.
BACKGROUND: Community-based services are preferred to institutional care for people requiring long-term care (LTC). States are increasing their Medicaid waiver programs, although Program of All-Inclusive Care For Elderly (PACE)-prepaid, community-based comprehensive care-is available in 31 states. Despite emerging alternatives, little is known about their comparative effectiveness. METHODS: For a two-county region of South Carolina, we contrast long-term survival among entrants (n = 2040) to an aged and disabled waiver program, PACE, and nursing homes (NHs), stratifying for risk. Participants were followed for 5 years or until death; those lost to follow-up or surviving less than 5 years as on August 8, 2005 were censored. Analyses included admission descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier curves. To address cohort risk imbalance, we employed an established mortality risk index, which showed external validity in waiver, PACE, and NH cohorts (log-rank tests = 105.42, 28.72, and 52.23, respectively, all p < .001; c-statistics = .67, .58, .65, p < .001). RESULTS: Compared with waiver (n = 1,018) and NH (n = 468) admissions, PACEparticipants (n = 554) were older, more cognitively impaired, and had intermediate activities of daily living dependency. PACE mortality risk (72.6% high-to-intermediate) was greater than in waiver (58.8%), and similar to NH (71.6%). Median NH survival was 2.3 years. Median PACE survival was 4.2 years versus 3.5 in waiver (unstratified, log rank = .394; p = .53), but accounting for risk, PACE's advantage is significant (log rank = 5.941 (1); p = .015). Compared with waiver, higher risk admissions to PACE were most likely to benefit (moderate: PACE median survival = 4.7 years vs waiver 3.4; high risk: 3.0 vs 2.0). CONCLUSION: Long-term outcomes of LTC alternatives warrant greater research and policy attention.
Authors: Catherine Y Lim; Andrew B L Berry; Tad Hirsch; Andrea L Hartzler; Edward H Wagner; Evette J Ludman; James D Ralston Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-08-28 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Ronald J Uittenbroek; Antoinette D I van Asselt; Sophie L W Spoorenberg; Hubertus P H Kremer; Klaske Wynia; Sijmen A Reijneveld Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2018-03-24 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Esther M Friedman; Regina A Shih; Sangeeta C Ahluwalia; Virginia I Kotzias; Jessica L Phillips; Daniel Siconolfi; Debra Saliba Journal: J Appl Gerontol Date: 2020-06-05
Authors: Girish Valluru; Jean Yudin; Christine L Patterson; Joanna Kubisiak; Peter Boling; George Taler; Karl Eric De Jonge; Steve Touzell; Ann Danish; Katherine Ornstein; Bruce Kinosian Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2019-05-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Janet Prvu Bettger; Julie A Sochalski; Janice B Foust; Cynthia D Zubritsky; Karen B Hirschman; Katherine M Abbott; Mary D Naylor Journal: J Nurs Res Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 1.682