Five-year survival in a Program of All-inclusive Care for Elderly compared with alternative institutional and home- and community-based care.

Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbia, SC, USA.
The Journals of Gerontology Series A Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences (Impact Factor: 4.31). 03/2010; 65(7):721-6. DOI: 10.1093/gerona/glq040
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Community-based services are preferred to institutional care for people requiring long-term care (LTC). States are increasing their Medicaid waiver programs, although Program of All-Inclusive Care For Elderly (PACE)-prepaid, community-based comprehensive care-is available in 31 states. Despite emerging alternatives, little is known about their comparative effectiveness.
For a two-county region of South Carolina, we contrast long-term survival among entrants (n = 2040) to an aged and disabled waiver program, PACE, and nursing homes (NHs), stratifying for risk. Participants were followed for 5 years or until death; those lost to follow-up or surviving less than 5 years as on August 8, 2005 were censored. Analyses included admission descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier curves. To address cohort risk imbalance, we employed an established mortality risk index, which showed external validity in waiver, PACE, and NH cohorts (log-rank tests = 105.42, 28.72, and 52.23, respectively, all p < .001; c-statistics = .67, .58, .65, p < .001).
Compared with waiver (n = 1,018) and NH (n = 468) admissions, PACE participants (n = 554) were older, more cognitively impaired, and had intermediate activities of daily living dependency. PACE mortality risk (72.6% high-to-intermediate) was greater than in waiver (58.8%), and similar to NH (71.6%). Median NH survival was 2.3 years. Median PACE survival was 4.2 years versus 3.5 in waiver (unstratified, log rank = .394; p = .53), but accounting for risk, PACE's advantage is significant (log rank = 5.941 (1); p = .015). Compared with waiver, higher risk admissions to PACE were most likely to benefit (moderate: PACE median survival = 4.7 years vs waiver 3.4; high risk: 3.0 vs 2.0).
Long-term outcomes of LTC alternatives warrant greater research and policy attention.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although most staff in long-term care services and support (LTSS) are nursing care personnel, a method for measuring the provision of nursing care has not yet been developed. We sought to understand the challenges of measuring nursing care across different types of LTSS using a qualitative approach that included the triangulation of data from three unique sources. Six primary challenges to measuring nursing care across LTSS emerged. These included (a) level of detail about time of day, amount of time, or type of tasks varied by type of nursing and organization; (b) time and tasks were documented across clinical records and administrative databases; (c) data existed in both paper and electronic formats; (d) several sources of information were needed to create the fullest picture of nursing care; (e) data were inconsistently available for contracted providers; and (f) documentation of informal caregiving was unavailable. Differences were observed between assisted living facilities and home- and community-based services compared with nursing homes. Differences were also observed across organizations within a setting. A commonality across settings and organizations was the availability of an electronically stored care plan specifying individual needs, but not necessarily how these would be met. Findings demonstrate the variability of data availability and specificity across three distinct LTSS settings. This study is an initial step toward establishing a process for measuring the provision of nursing care across LTSS in order to explore the range of nursing care needs of LTSS recipients and how these needs are currently fulfilled.
    The journal of nursing research: JNR 09/2012; 20(3):159-68. · 0.84 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To measure the rates of hospitalization, readmission, and potentially avoidable hospitalization (PAH) in the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE). Retrospective study. PACE enrollees. Hospitalization and PAH rates were measured per 1,000 person-years. Readmission was defined as any return to the hospital within 30 days of prior hospital discharge. PAHs were defined as hospitalizations for conditions that previously established criteria have identified as possibly preventable or manageable without hospitalization. Rate of hospitalization was 539/1,000, vs 962/1,000 for dually eligible aged or disabled waiver (ADW) enrollees. Thirty-day readmission was 19.3%, compared with 22.9% for the national population of dually eligible older enrollees. PAH rate was 100/1,000, compared with 250/1,000 for dually eligible ADW enrollees. Considerable variation was observed between sites. PACE enrollees experienced lower rates of hospitalization, readmission, and PAH than similar populations. Variations in hospitalization rates between PACE sites suggest opportunities for quality improvement.
    Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 01/2014; · 4.22 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: With advances in monitoring and telemedicine, the complexity of care administered in the home to properly selected patients can approach that delivered in the hospital. The challenges include making sure that qualified personnel regularly visit the patient at home, both individually and in teams; information is accurately communicated among the caregiver teams across venues and over time; and patients understand the information communicated to them by providers. Despite these challenges, the benefits of treating chronically or terminally ill patients at home are significant. Among the most important are improved patient satisfaction and reduced cost. Numerous studies have shown that most patients prefer to spend their convalescence or their last days at home. The financial benefits of enabling patients to recover or to die at home are significant.
    Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 02/2013; 80 Electronic Suppl 1:eS7-eS14. · 3.40 Impact Factor


Available from
Jun 4, 2014