MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2899820694 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igy023.331

EVALUATING CMS PAYMENT REFORM INITIATIVE TO REDUCE AVOIDABLE HOSPITALIZATIONS AMONG NURSING FACILITY RESIDENTS

2018· article· en· W2899820694 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Melvin J. Ingber, Jean M. Gaines

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicaidMedicinePaymentNursingNursing homesQuarter (Canadian coin)Minimum Data SetSkilled Nursing FacilityFamily medicineProspective payment systemTelephone surveyHealth careBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nursing home residents are characterized by frailty, multiple chronic illnesses, and high levels of physical and cognitive impairment. More than one-quarter of long-stay nursing home residents are hospitalized each year. These hospitalizations are costly, and many are considered potentially avoidable. Unnecessary hospitalizations cause disruption to residents, risk of complications, and possibility of reduced functioning on return to the nursing home. Reducing avoidable hospitalizations of nursing home residents is an important quality-improvement initiative that may also reduce cost of care. This symposium will include an overview of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Initiative to Reduce Avoidable Hospitalizations among Nursing Facility Residents—Payment Reform (henceforth, the Initiative), and will describe the evaluation design and early findings. The Initiative, begun in 2016, tests a new Medicare Part B payment model that pays participating nursing facilities and practitioners for providing higher-level care on site to eligible long-stay residents instead of transferring them to hospitals. These payments are for care of residents with six qualifying conditions whose changing symptoms could possibly trigger a hospital transfer. Four presentations will focus on: (1) Description of the Initiative and individual state models, (2) An overview of evaluation methods, describing the approach to comparison group selection and quantitative impact analysis; (3) Early primary data (telephone interview) results from the perspective of participating nursing facilities; and (4) Preliminary primary data results concerning participating practitioners (physicians and physician extenders).

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)0.067
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
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 score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0670.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.356 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in Aging→Same topicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes→French-language works237,207→