回复:“关于:按服务收费的医疗保险受益人初始痴呆诊断设置差异的评论”

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Elizabeth White, Thomas Bayer, Momotazur Rahman
{"title":"回复:“关于:按服务收费的医疗保险受益人初始痴呆诊断设置差异的评论”","authors":"Elizabeth White,&nbsp;Thomas Bayer,&nbsp;Momotazur Rahman","doi":"10.1111/jgs.19341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We appreciate the comments offered by Wu et al. [<span>1</span>] on our paper “Differences in Setting of Initial Dementia Diagnosis among Fee-For-Service Medicare Beneficiaries” [<span>2</span>]. We agree that claims data do not allow for measurement of dementia stage at time of diagnosis. This is one of the reasons why we chose to examine differences in survival, adjusting for patient clinical characteristics, based on setting of diagnosis in this descriptive paper. While hospitalization and nursing home admission are independent risk factors for mortality, our finding of shorter survival among individuals diagnosed with dementia in these settings, versus in the community, also likely reflects individuals being diagnosed at later dementia stages.</p><p>We note the comments regarding the utility of biomarkers, neuroimaging, and structured cognitive testing in diagnosing dementia sub-types. We agree—however, the purpose of our study was to understand how individuals in the general population are being diagnosed under real-world conditions since most individuals are not diagnosed in research or specialty settings where these modalities are more often used. The Alzheimer's Association has recently revised its criteria for the diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer's disease to define Alzheimer's disease biologically rather than based on symptom presentation, and encourage the use of biomarkers to identify neuropathological change among asymptomatic individuals [<span>3</span>]. Our findings, in combination with the past literature showing that fewer than one-third of Medicare beneficiaries receive structured cognitive assessment as part of their annual wellness care [<span>4</span>], suggest that our existing health care systems are far behind where they need to be to accommodate this shift in diagnostic approach.</p><p>Finally, Wu et al. [<span>1</span>] note the important contribution of socioeconomic factors to dementia diagnosis. Again, we agree—and demonstrate this relationship empirically in our paper [<span>2</span>] (Table 3) with our finding that individuals living in communities with higher social deprivation are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with dementia in a hospital, and less likely to be diagnosed in the community.</p><p>Preparation of the manuscript and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: all authors.</p><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p>","PeriodicalId":17240,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","volume":"73 5","pages":"1629-1630"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jgs.19341","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reply to: “Comment on: Differences in Setting of Initial Dementia Diagnosis Among Fee-for-Service Medicare Beneficiaries”\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth White,&nbsp;Thomas Bayer,&nbsp;Momotazur Rahman\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jgs.19341\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>We appreciate the comments offered by Wu et al. [<span>1</span>] on our paper “Differences in Setting of Initial Dementia Diagnosis among Fee-For-Service Medicare Beneficiaries” [<span>2</span>]. We agree that claims data do not allow for measurement of dementia stage at time of diagnosis. This is one of the reasons why we chose to examine differences in survival, adjusting for patient clinical characteristics, based on setting of diagnosis in this descriptive paper. While hospitalization and nursing home admission are independent risk factors for mortality, our finding of shorter survival among individuals diagnosed with dementia in these settings, versus in the community, also likely reflects individuals being diagnosed at later dementia stages.</p><p>We note the comments regarding the utility of biomarkers, neuroimaging, and structured cognitive testing in diagnosing dementia sub-types. We agree—however, the purpose of our study was to understand how individuals in the general population are being diagnosed under real-world conditions since most individuals are not diagnosed in research or specialty settings where these modalities are more often used. The Alzheimer's Association has recently revised its criteria for the diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer's disease to define Alzheimer's disease biologically rather than based on symptom presentation, and encourage the use of biomarkers to identify neuropathological change among asymptomatic individuals [<span>3</span>]. Our findings, in combination with the past literature showing that fewer than one-third of Medicare beneficiaries receive structured cognitive assessment as part of their annual wellness care [<span>4</span>], suggest that our existing health care systems are far behind where they need to be to accommodate this shift in diagnostic approach.</p><p>Finally, Wu et al. [<span>1</span>] note the important contribution of socioeconomic factors to dementia diagnosis. Again, we agree—and demonstrate this relationship empirically in our paper [<span>2</span>] (Table 3) with our finding that individuals living in communities with higher social deprivation are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with dementia in a hospital, and less likely to be diagnosed in the community.</p><p>Preparation of the manuscript and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: all authors.</p><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17240,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society\",\"volume\":\"73 5\",\"pages\":\"1629-1630\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jgs.19341\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jgs.19341\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jgs.19341","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们感谢Wu等人对我们的论文“按服务收费的医疗保险受益人初始痴呆诊断设置的差异”提出的评论。我们同意索赔数据不允许在诊断时测量痴呆阶段。这就是为什么我们选择检查生存差异的原因之一,根据患者的临床特征进行调整,在这篇描述性的论文中,基于诊断的设置。虽然住院和住进养老院是死亡率的独立危险因素,但我们发现,在这些环境中被诊断为痴呆症的个体与在社区中相比,生存时间较短,这也可能反映了被诊断为痴呆症晚期的个体。我们注意到关于生物标志物、神经成像和结构化认知测试在诊断痴呆亚型中的应用的评论。我们同意——然而,我们研究的目的是了解普通人群中的个体是如何在现实条件下被诊断出来的,因为大多数个体不是在研究或专业环境中被诊断出来的,而这些模式更常被使用。阿尔茨海默病协会最近修订了其阿尔茨海默病的诊断和分期标准,以生物学而不是基于症状表现来定义阿尔茨海默病,并鼓励使用生物标志物来识别无症状个体的神经病理改变[10]。我们的发现,结合过去的文献表明,不到三分之一的医疗保险受益人接受结构化认知评估作为他们年度健康保健bbb的一部分,表明我们现有的医疗保健系统远远落后于他们需要适应这种诊断方法的转变。最后,Wu等人注意到社会经济因素对痴呆诊断的重要贡献。再一次,我们同意并在我们的论文[2](表3)中实证地证明了这种关系,我们发现生活在社会剥夺程度较高的社区中的个人更有可能在医院被诊断为痴呆症,而在社区中被诊断为痴呆症的可能性更小。为重要的知识内容准备稿件并对稿件进行批判性修改:所有作者。作者声明无利益冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reply to: “Comment on: Differences in Setting of Initial Dementia Diagnosis Among Fee-for-Service Medicare Beneficiaries”

We appreciate the comments offered by Wu et al. [1] on our paper “Differences in Setting of Initial Dementia Diagnosis among Fee-For-Service Medicare Beneficiaries” [2]. We agree that claims data do not allow for measurement of dementia stage at time of diagnosis. This is one of the reasons why we chose to examine differences in survival, adjusting for patient clinical characteristics, based on setting of diagnosis in this descriptive paper. While hospitalization and nursing home admission are independent risk factors for mortality, our finding of shorter survival among individuals diagnosed with dementia in these settings, versus in the community, also likely reflects individuals being diagnosed at later dementia stages.

We note the comments regarding the utility of biomarkers, neuroimaging, and structured cognitive testing in diagnosing dementia sub-types. We agree—however, the purpose of our study was to understand how individuals in the general population are being diagnosed under real-world conditions since most individuals are not diagnosed in research or specialty settings where these modalities are more often used. The Alzheimer's Association has recently revised its criteria for the diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer's disease to define Alzheimer's disease biologically rather than based on symptom presentation, and encourage the use of biomarkers to identify neuropathological change among asymptomatic individuals [3]. Our findings, in combination with the past literature showing that fewer than one-third of Medicare beneficiaries receive structured cognitive assessment as part of their annual wellness care [4], suggest that our existing health care systems are far behind where they need to be to accommodate this shift in diagnostic approach.

Finally, Wu et al. [1] note the important contribution of socioeconomic factors to dementia diagnosis. Again, we agree—and demonstrate this relationship empirically in our paper [2] (Table 3) with our finding that individuals living in communities with higher social deprivation are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with dementia in a hospital, and less likely to be diagnosed in the community.

Preparation of the manuscript and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: all authors.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
6.30%
发文量
504
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (JAGS) is the go-to journal for clinical aging research. We provide a diverse, interprofessional community of healthcare professionals with the latest insights on geriatrics education, clinical practice, and public policy—all supporting the high-quality, person-centered care essential to our well-being as we age. Since the publication of our first edition in 1953, JAGS has remained one of the oldest and most impactful journals dedicated exclusively to gerontology and geriatrics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信