Racial and Ethnic Differences in End‐of‐Life Care in Fee‐for‐Service Medicare Beneficiaries with Advanced Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine racial and ethnic variation in use of hospice and high-intensity care in patients with terminal illness. DESIGN: Retrospective, secondary data analysis. SETTING: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare Database from 1992 to 1999 with follow-up data until December 31, 2001. PARTICIPANTS: Forty thousand nine hundred sixty non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Asian, and Hispanic fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older with advanced-stage lung, colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer. MEASURMENTS: Hospice use and indicators of high-intensity care at the end of life. RESULTS: Whereas 42.0% of elderly white patients with advanced cancer enrolled in hospice, enrollment was lower for black (36.9%), Asian (32.2%), and Hispanic (37.7%) patients. Differences between white and Hispanic patients disappeared after adjustment for clinical and sociodemographic factors. Higher proportions of black and Asian patients than of white patients were hospitalized two or more times (11.7%, 15.0%, 13.7%, respectively), spent more than 14 days hospitalized (11.4%, 17.4%, 15.6%, respectively), and were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) (12.0%, 17.0%, 16.2%, respectively) in the last month of life and died in the hospital (26.5%, 31.3%, 33.7%, respectively). Unadjusted differences in receipt of high-intensity care according to race or ethnicity remained after adjustment. CONCLUSION: Black and Asian patients with advanced cancer were more likely than whites to be hospitalized frequently and for prolonged periods, be admitted to the ICU, die in the hospital, and be enrolled in hospice at lower rates. Further research is needed to examine the degree to which patient preferences or other factors explain these differences.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".