Medicaid Bed‐Hold Policies and Hospitalization of Long‐Stay Nursing Home Residents
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".