End‐of‐life care for older cancer patients in the Veterans Health Administration versus the private sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment of older cancer patients at the end of life has become increasingly aggressive, despite the absence of evidence for better outcomes. We compared aggressiveness of end-of-life care of older metastatic cancer patients treated in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and those under fee-for-service Medicare arrangements. METHODS: Using propensity score methods, we matched 2913 male veterans who were diagnosed with stage IV lung or colorectal cancer in 2001-2002 and died before 2006 with 2913 similar men enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare living in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result (SEER) areas. We assessed chemotherapy within 14 days of death, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions within 30 days of death, and >1 emergency room visit within 30 days of death. RESULTS: Among matched cohorts, men treated in the VHA were less likely than men in the private sector to receive chemotherapy within 14 days of death (4.6% vs 7.5%, P<.001), be admitted to an ICU within 30 days of death (12.5% vs 19.7%, P<.001), or have >1 emergency room visit within 30 days of death (13.1 vs 14.7, P=.09). CONCLUSIONS: Older men with metastatic lung or colorectal cancer treated in the VHA healthcare system received less aggressive end-of-life care than similar men in fee-for-service Medicare. This may result from the absence of financial incentives for more intensive care in the VHA or because this integrated delivery system is better structured to limit potentially overly aggressive care. Additional studies are needed to assess whether men undergoing less aggressive end-of-life care also experience better outcomes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".