Medicaid Bed‐Hold Policies and Hospitalization of Long‐Stay Nursing Home Residents
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of Medicaid bed-hold policies on hospitalization of long-stay nursing home residents. DATA SOURCES: A nationwide random sample of long-stay nursing home residents with data elements from Medicare claims and enrollment files, the Minimum Data Set, the Online Survey Certification and Reporting System, and Area Resource File. The sample consisted of 22,200,089 person-quarters from 754,592 individuals who became long-stay residents in 17,149 nursing homes over the period beginning January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2005. STUDY DESIGN: Linear regression models using a pre/post design adjusted for resident, nursing home, market, and state characteristics. Nursing home and year-quarter fixed effects were included to control for time-invariant facility influences and temporal trends associated with hospitalization of long-stay residents. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Adoption of a Medicaid bed-hold policy was associated with an absolute increase of 0.493 percentage points (95% CI: 0.039-0.946) in hospitalizations of long-stay nursing home residents, representing a 3.883 percent relative increase over the baseline mean. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid bed-hold policies may increase the likelihood of hospitalization of long-stay nursing home residents and increase costs for the federal Medicare program.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it