MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2106322597

Coexisting illness and heart disease among elderly Medicare managed care enrollees.

2004· article· en· W2106322597 on OpenAlexaff
Arlene S. Bierman

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineComorbidityDisease managementHeart failureDiseaseHealth careCohortDiabetes mellitusFamily medicineEmergency medicineGerontologyInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High rates of comorbidity present a challenge in providing care to elderly Medicare managed care enrollees. Comorbidity or the presence of coexisting illness strongly influences utilization, costs, and outcomes of health care. Ischemic heart disease (IHD) and congestive heart failure (CHF) are leading causes of morbidity and mortality among Medicare beneficiaries. Both have been the targets of successful quality improvement initiatives by CMS (Jencks, Huff, and Cuerdon, 2003). Medicare HEDIS® has targeted improved management of hypertension and diabetes, as well as smoking cessation, all important risk factors for IHD and CHF. The impact of disease management programs on outcomes for these conditions is being evaluated in CMS demonstration projects (Haffer et al., 2003). Additional improvements in quality and outcomes of care for beneficiaries with these conditions may be achieved by improving management of common coexisting illnesses. The large sample size of the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (HOS) affords an unprecedented opportunity to look at the prevalence and patterns of coexisting illness among enrollees with IHD and CHF. The HOS instrument contains items for assessing physical and mental health status, chronic conditions, clinical symptoms, and demographic information (National Committee for Quality Assurance, 2000). The following figures are based on the responses of 167,854 community-dwelling individuals age 65 or over enrolled in Medicare managed care who participated in the HOS Cohort I Baseline Survey. The sample is 58 percent female and includes 31,315 respondents who report having IHD, and 11,239 respondents who report having CHF. Enrollees with IHD or CHF have lower incomes and lower levels of educational attainment than the overall M+C enrollee population, placing them at increased risk of encountering both financial and non-financial barriers to care. They also report higher levels of comorbidity, and a higher prevalence of common chronic conditions. Nine out of ten enrollees with these conditions report having three or more chronic conditions, and they report having a mean of five chronic conditions. In addition to hypertension and diabetes, risk factors for heart disease, there is a high prevalence of chronic non-fatal disabling conditions that can affect outcomes and compliance with treatments including arthritis, severe low-back pain, urinary incontinence, and sensory impairments. The high prevalence of depressed mood underscores the need to also address mental health issues in these beneficiaries. In addition, the burden of coexisting illness varies by sex, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Females, African-American, Latino, and socioeco-nomically disadvantaged enrollees report a higher burden of coexisting illness. Future efforts should focus on implementing and evaluating models of care for beneficiaries with heart disease that address the coexisting illnesses present in these patients. Opportunities also exist for prevention. Insights from the HOS survey can inform the development of comprehensive models of care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.160
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.184 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→