Literature DB >> 27765676

Disability stage and receipt of recommended care among elderly medicare beneficiaries.

Ling Na1, Sean Hennessy2, Hillary R Bogner3, Jibby E Kurichi1, Margaret Stineman1, Joel E Streim4, Pui L Kwong1, Dawei Xie1, Liliana E Pezzin5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Receipt of recommended care among older adults is generally low. Findings regarding service use among persons with disabilities supports the notion of disparities but provides inconsistent evidence of underuse of recommended care.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the extent to which receipt of recommended care among older Medicare beneficiaries varies by disability status, using a newly developed staging method to classify individuals according to disability.
METHODS: In a cohort study, we included community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older who participated in the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey between 2001 and 2008. Logistic regression modeling assessed the association of receiving recommended care on 38 indicators across different activity limitation stages.
RESULTS: Nearly one out of every three elderly Medicare beneficiaries did not receive overall recommended care. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) revealed a decrease in use of recommended care with increasing activity limitation stage. For instance, ORs (95% CIs) across mild, moderate, severe and complete limitation stages (stages I-IV) compared to no limitation (stage 0) in ADLs were 0.99 (0.94-1.05), 0.89 (0.83-0.95), 0.81 (0.75-0.89) and 0.56 (0.46-0.68). Disparities in receipt of recommended care by disability stage were most marked for care related to post-hospitalization follow-up and, to a lesser degree, care of chronic conditions and preventive care.
CONCLUSIONS: Elderly beneficiaries at higher activity limitation stages experienced substantial disparities in receipt of recommended care. Tailored interventions may be needed to reduce disparities in receipt of recommended medical care in this population. Copyright Â
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Activity limitation stages; Disability; Health care quality; Medicare; Receipt of recommended care

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27765676      PMCID: PMC5314984          DOI: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2016.09.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Disabil Health J        ISSN: 1876-7583            Impact factor:   2.554


  22 in total

Review 1.  Untangling the concepts of disability, frailty, and comorbidity: implications for improved targeting and care.

Authors:  Linda P Fried; Luigi Ferrucci; Jonathan Darer; Jeff D Williamson; Gerard Anderson
Journal:  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 6.053

2.  Racial/ethnic disparities in self-rated health status among adults with and without disabilities--United States, 2004-2006.

Authors: 
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  2008-10-03       Impact factor: 17.586

3.  Activity Limitation Stages empirically derived for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Instrumental ADL in the U.S. Adult community-dwelling Medicare population.

Authors:  Margaret G Stineman; Joel E Streim; Qiang Pan; Jibby E Kurichi; Sophia Miryam Schüssler-Fiorenza Rose; Dawei Xie
Journal:  PM R       Date:  2014-05-02       Impact factor: 2.298

4.  The complex web of health: relationships among chronic conditions, disability, and health services.

Authors:  Stephen P Gulley; Elizabeth K Rasch; Leighton Chan
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2011 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.792

5.  Do Medicare patients with disabilities receive preventive services? A population-based study.

Authors:  L Chan; J N Doctor; R F MacLehose; H Lawson; R A Rosenblatt; L M Baldwin; A Jha
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 3.966

6.  Environmental barriers to health care among persons with disabilities--Los Angeles County, California, 2002-2003.

Authors: 
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  2006-12-08       Impact factor: 17.586

7.  Prognosis for functional deterioration and functional improvement in late life among community-dwelling persons.

Authors:  Margaret G Stineman; Guangyu Zhang; Jibby E Kurichi; Zi Zhang; Joel E Streim; Qiang Pan; Dawei Xie
Journal:  PM R       Date:  2013-02-27       Impact factor: 2.298

8.  Change in the quality of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries, 1998-1999 to 2000-2001.

Authors:  Stephen F Jencks; Edwin D Huff; Timothy Cuerdon
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-01-15       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Long-term declines in ADLs, IADLs, and mobility among older Medicare beneficiaries.

Authors:  Fredric D Wolinsky; Suzanne E Bentler; Jason Hockenberry; Michael P Jones; Maksym Obrizan; Paula A M Weigel; Brian Kaskie; Robert B Wallace
Journal:  BMC Geriatr       Date:  2011-08-16       Impact factor: 3.921

10.  Impact of nonresponse on Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey estimates.

Authors:  John Kautter; Galina Khatutsky; Gregory C Pope; James R Chromy; Gerald S Adler
Journal:  Health Care Financ Rev       Date:  2006
View more
  4 in total

1.  Premorbid Activity Limitation Stages Are Associated With Posthospitalization Discharge Disposition.

Authors:  Ling Na; Sean Hennessy; Dawei Xie; Debra Saliba; Qiang Pan; Pui L Kwong; Jibby E Kurichi; Hillary R Bogner; Joel E Streim
Journal:  Am J Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 2.159

2.  Functional Impairments Associated With Patient Activation Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults.

Authors:  Ling Na; Pui L Kwong; Dawei Xie; Liliana E Pezzin; Jibby E Kurichi; Joel E Streim
Journal:  Am J Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 2.159

3.  Psychosocial Well-Being Associated With Activity of Daily Living Stages Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults.

Authors:  Ling Na; Joel E Streim
Journal:  Gerontol Geriatr Med       Date:  2017-03-23

4.  Characteristics of community-dwelling older individuals who delayed care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Ling Na
Journal:  Arch Gerontol Geriatr       Date:  2022-04-27       Impact factor: 4.163

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.