Differences in Services Provided by Hospices Based on Home Health Agency Certification Status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Similar patient populations and favorable regulations have led many home health agencies to become Medicare and/or Medicaid certified as hospice agencies (mixed), but home health and hospice programs differ in focus and scope. Little research has been performed examining the differences between mixed hospices and those agencies only certified as hospices (nonmixed). OBJECTIVES: To describe the differences in agency characteristics between mixed and nonmixed agencies; and to compare frequencies of service provision by mixed and nonmixed agencies. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using data from the 2000 National Home and Hospice Care Survey. SUBJECTS: A total of 760 Medicare and/or Medicaid certified hospice agencies providing services during the survey, including 393 mixed agencies (52% of sample) and 367 nonmixed hospices. MEASURES: Survey responses by administrators about services provided by agency. RESULTS: Nonmixed agencies were significantly more likely than mixed agencies to provide many types of services, including: volunteers [96.1% vs. 77.4%, respectively; odds ratio (OR): 7.27; 95% confidence interval (CI): 5.26-10.05], social services (96.1% vs. 93.5%; OR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.20-2.40), spiritual care (95.1% vs. 77.8%; OR: 5.53; 95% CI: 4.13-7.41), bereavement care (93.5% vs. 79.8%; OR: 3.63; 95% CI: 2.80-4.72), counseling (89.5% vs. 70.2%; OR: 3.62; 95% CI: 2.92-4.48), and physician services (87.2% vs. 52.0%; OR: 6.30; 95% CI: 5.18-7.66). In logistic regression models, these differences remained significant after adjustment for census region, operation by a hospital, number of patients and number of hospice patients, and Medicare and Medicaid hospice certification status. CONCLUSIONS: Mixed agencies provide a narrower range of services to hospice patients than nonmixed agencies, including fewer services considered cornerstones of hospice treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".