Place of care in the last three years of life for Medicare beneficiaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most older adults prefer aging in place; however, patients with advanced illness often need institutional care. Understanding place of care trajectory patterns may inform patient-centered care planning and health policy decisions. The purpose of this study was to characterize place of care trajectories during the last three years of life. METHODS: Linked administrative, claims, and assessment data were analyzed for a 10% random sample cohort of US Medicare beneficiaries who died in 2018, aged fifty or older, and continuously enrolled in Medicare during their last five years of life. A group-based trajectory modeling approach was used to classify beneficiaries based on the proportion of days of institutional care (hospital inpatient or skilled nursing facility) and skilled home care (home health care and home hospice) used in each quarter of the last three years of life. Associations between group membership and sociodemographic and clinical predictors were evaluated. RESULTS: The analytic cohort included 199,828 Medicare beneficiaries. Nine place of care trajectory groups were identified, which were categorized into three clusters: home, skilled home care, and institutional care. Over half (59%) of the beneficiaries were in the home cluster, spending their last three years mostly at home, with skilled home care and institutional care use concentrated in the final quarter of life. One-quarter (27%) of beneficiaries were in the skilled home care cluster, with heavy use of skilled home health care and home hospice; the remaining 14% were in the institutional cluster, with heavy use of nursing home and inpatient care. Factors associated with both the skilled home care and institutional care clusters were female sex, Black race, a diagnosis of dementia, and Medicaid insurance. Extended use of skilled home care was more prevalent in southern states, and extended institutional care was more prevalent in midwestern states. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified distinct patterns of place of care trajectories that varied in the timing and duration of institutional and skilled home care use during the last three years of life. Clinical, socioregional, and health policy factors influenced where patients received care. Our findings can help to inform personal and societal care planning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".