Dataset Information

Assessment of Cochlear Implants for Adult Medicare Beneficiaries Aged 65 Years or Older Who Meet Expanded Indications of Open-Set Sentence Recognition: A Multicenter Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Current indications for Medicare beneficiaries to receive a cochlear implant are outdated. Multichannel cochlear implant systems may be effective when provided to Medicare beneficiaries using expanded indications.

Objective

To examine the effectiveness of cochlear implants, as measured by improvement on the AzBio Sentence Test, for newly implanted Medicare beneficiaries who meet the expanded indications of an AzBio Sentence Test score of 41% to 60% in their best-aided condition.

Design, setting, and participants

A multicenter nonrandomized trial examined preoperative and postoperative speech recognition, telephone communication, hearing device benefit, health utility, and quality of life for 34 participants enrolled at 8 different centers who received a cochlear implant between September 17, 2014, and July 10, 2018. All participants were 65 years or older, had bilateral moderate to profound hearing loss, and had a best-aided preoperative AzBio Sentence Test score in quiet of 41% to 60%. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Statistical analysis of final results took place from July 29 to October 1, 2019.

Intervention

Multichannel cochlear implants.

Main outcomes and measures

The study examined the a priori hypothesis that the cochlear implant would improve the AzBio Sentence Test score in the best-aided condition by 25% or more and in the implanted ear-alone condition by 30% or more. The study additionally examined word and telephone recognition and examined device benefit, health utility, and quality of life.

Results

A total of 34 participants received a cochlear implant; 31 (23 men [74%]; median age, 73.6 years [range, 65.7-85.1 years]) completed testing through the 6-month evaluation, and 29 completed testing through the 12-month evaluation. Median preoperative AzBio Sentence Test scores were 53% (range, 26%-60%) for the best-aided condition and 24% (range, 0%-53%) for the cochlear implant-alone condition; median scores 12 months after implantation improved to 89% (range, 36%-100%) for the best-aided condition and 77% (range, 13%-100%) for the cochlear implant-alone condition. This outcome represents a median change of 36% (range, -22% to 75%) for the best-aided condition (lower bound of 1-sided 95% CI, 31%) and a median change of 53% (range, -15% to 93%) for the cochlear implant-alone condition (lower bound of 1-sided 95% CI, 45%).

Conclusions and relevance

Intervention with a cochlear implant was associated with improved sentence, word, and telephone recognition in adult Medicare beneficiaries whose preoperative AzBio Sentence Test scores were between 41% and 60%. These findings support expansion of the Center for Medicare & Medicaid current indications for cochlear implants.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02075229.

SUBMITTER: Zwolan TA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7453340 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Previous research has demonstrated an association of scores on a visual test of nonverbal reasoning, Raven's Progressive Matrices (RPM), with scores on open-set sentence recognition in quiet for adult cochlear implant (CI) users as well as for adults with normal hearing (NH) listening to noise-vocoded sentence materials. Moreover, in that study, CI users demonstrated poorer nonverbal reasoning when compared with NH peers. However, it remains unclear what underlying neurocognitive processes contributed to the association of nonverbal reasoning scores with sentence recognition, and to the poorer scores demonstrated by CI users. OBJECTIVES:Three hypotheses were tested: (1) nonverbal reasoning abilities of adult CI users and normal-hearing (NH) age-matched peers would be predicted by performance on more basic neurocognitive measures of working memory capacity, information-processing speed, inhibitory control, and concentration; (2) nonverbal reasoning would mediate the effects of more basic neurocognitive functions on sentence recognition in both groups; and (3) group differences in more basic neurocognitive functions would explain the group differences previously demonstrated in nonverbal reasoning. METHOD:Eighty-three participants (40 CI and 43 NH) underwent testing of sentence recognition using two sets of sentence materials: sentences produced by a single male talker (Harvard sentences) and high-variability sentences produced by multiple talkers (Perceptually Robust English Sentence Test Open-set, PRESTO). Participants also completed testing of nonverbal reasoning using a visual computerized RPM test, and additional neurocognitive assessments were collected using a visual Digit Span test and a Stroop Color-Word task. Multivariate regression analyses were performed to test our hypotheses while treating age as a covariate. RESULTS:In the CI group, information processing speed on the Stroop task predicted RPM performance, and RPM scores mediated the effects of information processing speed on sentence recognition abilities for both Harvard and PRESTO sentences. In contrast, for the NH group, Stroop inhibitory control predicted RPM performance, and a trend was seen towards RPM scores mediating the effects of inhibitory control on sentence recognition, but only for PRESTO sentences. Poorer RPM performance in CI users than NH controls could be partially attributed to slower information processing speed. CONCLUSIONS:Neurocognitive functions contributed differentially to nonverbal reasoning performance in CI users as compared with NH peers, and nonverbal reasoning appeared to partially mediate the effects of these different neurocognitive functions on sentence recognition in both groups, at least for PRESTO sentences. Slower information processing speed accounted for poorer nonverbal reasoning scores in CI users. Thus, it may be that prolonged auditory deprivation contributes to cognitive decline through slower information processing.

Project description:ImportanceA growing proportion of the population is enrolling in Medicare Advantage (MA), which typically offers additional benefits compared with traditional Medicare (TM).ObjectiveTo determine whether frailty and frailty trajectories differ between MA enrollees and TM enrollees.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (2015-2016). Analyses were conducted from August 2023 to March 2024. Participants were community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older.ExposureEnrollment in MA vs TM.Main outcomes and measuresFrailty was calculated by a frailty index (FI) (range, 0-1, with higher values indicating greater frailty) and the Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP) score (range, 0-5, with higher values indicating greater frailty). Physical performance, including Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score (range, 0-12, with higher values indicating better performance), and gait speed (meters per second) were measured. The primary outcome was the difference in FI and FFP scores from the 2015 baseline assessment to the 2016 follow-up assessment. Secondary outcomes include the 1-year changes in SPPB and gait speed.ResultsThe final cohort consisted of 7063 participants (2775 [23.1%] aged >80 years; 4040 [54.7%] female), representing a sample of the 38.8 million beneficiaries. There were 2583 (35.0%) MA enrollees (13.6 million) and 4480 (65.0%) TM enrollees (25.2 million). At baseline, the FI score was similar between MA and TM enrollees (mean [SD], 0.22 [0.15] vs 0.21 [0.14]), although MA enrollees had worse phenotypic frailty (496 participants [15.2%] vs 811 participants [13.7%] considered frail by FFP score), SPPB scores (mean [SD], 6.91 [3.34] vs 7.21 [3.27]), and gait speed (0.79 [0.24] m/s vs 0.82 [0.23] m/s) than TM enrollees. One year later, there were no differences between MA and TM enrollees in the 1-year change in FI score (mean [SD], 0.016 [0.071] vs 0.014 [0.066]; adjusted mean difference, 0.001 [95% CI, -0.004 to 0.005]), FFP score (mean [SD], 0.017 [1.004] vs 0.007 [0.958]; adjusted mean difference, -0.009 [95% CI, -0.067 to 0.049]), SPPB score (mean [SD], -0.144 [2.064] vs -0.211 [1.968]; adjusted mean difference, 0.068 [95% CI, -0.076 to 0.212]), and gait speed (mean [SD], -0.0160 [0.148] m/s vs -0.007 [0.148] m/s; adjusted mean difference, -0.010 m/s [95% CI, -0.067 to 0.049 m/s]).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries from 2015, MA enrollees experienced similar declines in frailty over 1 year compared with TM enrollees. Future work should examine whether the specific types of services covered by health insurance can impact frailty and health trajectories for older adults.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the consequences of endogeneity bias on the estimated effect of having health insurance on health at age 63 or 64, just before most people qualify for Medicare, and to simulate the implications for total and public insurance (Medicare and Medicaid) spending on newly enrolled beneficiaries in their first years of Medicare coverage.DataThe longitudinal Health and Retirement Survey of people who were 55-61 years old in 1992, followed through biannual surveys to age 63-64 or until 2000 (whichever came first), and those who were 66-70 years olds from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Surveys, 1992-1998.Study designInstrumental variable (IV) estimation of a simultaneous equation model of insurance choice and health at age 63-64 as a function of baseline health and sociodemographic characteristics in 1992 and endogenous insurance coverage over the observation period.FindingsContinuous insurance coverage is associated with significantly fewer deaths prior to age 65 and, among those who survive, a significant upward shift in the distribution of health states from fair and poor health with disabilities to good to excellent health. Treating insurance coverage as endogenous increases the magnitude of the estimated effect of having insurance on improved health prior to age 65. The medical spending simulations suggest that if the near-elderly had continuous insurance coverage, average annual medical spending per capita for new Medicare beneficiaries in their first few years of coverage would be slightly lower because of the improvement in health status. In addition, total Medicare and Medicaid spending for new beneficiaries over their first few years of coverage would be about the same or slightly lower, even though more people survive to age 65.ConclusionsExtending insurance coverage to all Americans between the ages of 55 and 64 would improve health (increase survival and shift people from good-fair-poor health to excellent-very good health) at age 65, and possibly reduce total short-term spending by Medicare and Medicaid for newly eligible Medicare beneficiaries, even though more people would enter the program because of increased survival.

Project description:BackgroundThe amount of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures performed in the United States has been increasing steadily and is projected to reach 3 million procedures annually by 2030 in patients aged ≥65 years. A rise in TKA procedures will increase spending on osteoarthritis treatments, which is currently the second highest category of spending for Medicare patients. Because TKA procedures account for a substantial amount of total osteoarthritis spending, payers and providers are examining methods to reduce spending on the procedure while improving clinical outcomes. Customized individually made implants have been shown to improve clinical outcomes, such as physical function and limb alignment, compared with off-the-shelf implants; however, the economic impact of customized implants has yet to be established.ObjectiveTo analyze TKA episode expenditures among Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) members who received a customized or an off-the-shelf implant.MethodsMembers undergoing a TKA procedure using the customized implant technology were identified in the Medicare FFS database and were propensity matched (1:5) to a cohort of members who received off-the-shelf implants. Reimbursement for the initial procedure (ie, customized and off-the-shelf procedure), a preoperative computed tomography scan, and 12-month postoperative healthcare utilization were analyzed. The overall episode expenditures were used to construct a budget impact model to calculate the per-member per-month (PMPM) spending for Medicare FFS beneficiaries.ResultsThe average total episode spending was significantly lower among the customized implant cohort ($18,585) compared with the off-the-shelf implant cohort ($20,280; a $1695 difference; P <.0001). This savings resulted in $0.08 PMPM savings for the Medicare FFS program when a portion (10%) of eligible members received the customized implant technology. A sensitivity analysis, which varied with the customized implant market penetration and the percent of customized implant-eligible procedures, indicated that the savings could be as great as $0.28 PMPM.ConclusionThe results of this analysis demonstrate that the use of customized implants in TKA procedures can achieve substantial savings versus off-the-shelf procedures for the Medicare FFS program, and this savings is primarily driven by a lower average initial procedure cost and lower postoperative spendings for inpatient services and skilled-nursing facility costs.

Project description:Importance:Medicare beneficiaries who are also enrolled in Medicaid (dually enrolled beneficiaries) have drawn the attention of policy makers because they comprise the poorest subset of the Medicare population; however, it is unclear how their outcomes have changed over time compared with those only enrolled in Medicare (nondually enrolled beneficiaries). Objective:To evaluate annual changes in all-cause mortality, hospitalization rates, and hospitalization-related mortality among dually enrolled beneficiaries and nondually enrolled beneficiaries. Design, Setting, and Participants:Serial cross-sectional study of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older between January 2004 and December 2017. The final date of follow-up was September 30, 2018. Exposures:Dual vs nondual enrollment status. Main Outcomes and Measures:Annual all-cause mortality rates; all-cause hospitalization rates; and in-hospital, 30-day, 1-year hospitalization-related mortality rates. Results:There were 71?017?608 unique Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older (mean age, 75.6 [SD, 9.2] years; 54.9% female) enrolled in Medicare for at least 1 month from 2004 through 2017. Of these beneficiaries, 11?697?900 (16.5%) were dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid for at least 1 month. After adjusting for age, sex, and race, annual all-cause mortality rates declined from 8.5% (95% CI, 8.45%-8.56%) in 2004 to 8.1% (95% CI, 8.05%-8.13%) in 2017 among dually enrolled beneficiaries and from 4.1% (95% CI, 4.08%-4.13%) in 2004 to 3.8% (95% CI, 3.76%-3.79%) in 2017 among nondually enrolled beneficiaries. The difference in annual all-cause mortality between dually and nondually enrolled beneficiaries increased between 2004 (adjusted odds ratio, 2.09 [95% CI, 2.08-2.10]) and 2017 (adjusted odds ratio, 2.22 [95% CI, 2.21-2.23]) (P?<?.001 for interaction between dual enrollment status and time). All-cause hospitalizations per 100?000 beneficiary-years declined from 49?888 in 2004 to 41?121 in 2017 among dually enrolled beneficiaries (P?<?.001) and from 29?000 in 2004 to 22?601 in 2017 among nondually enrolled beneficiaries (P?<?.001); however, the difference between these groups widened between 2004 (adjusted risk ratio, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.71-1.73]) and 2017 (adjusted risk ratio, 1.83 [95% CI, 1.82-1.83]) (P?<?.001 for interaction). Among hospitalized beneficiaries, the risk-adjusted 30-day mortality rates declined from 10.3% (95% CI, 10.22%-10.33%) in 2004 to 10.1% (95% CI, 10.02%-10.20%) in 2017 among dually enrolled beneficiaries and from 8.5% (95% CI, 8.50%-8.56%) in 2004 to 8.1% (95% CI, 8.06%-8.13%) in 2017 among nondually enrolled beneficiaries. In contrast, 1-year mortality increased among hospitalized beneficiaries from 23.1% (95% CI, 23.05%-23.20%) in 2004 to 26.7% (95% CI, 26.58%-26.84%) in 2017 among dually enrolled beneficiaries and from 18.1% (95% CI, 18.11%-18.17%) in 2004 to 20.3% (95% CI, 20.21%-20.31%) in 2017 among nondually enrolled beneficiaries. The difference in hospitalization-related outcomes between dually and nondually enrolled beneficiaries persisted during the study period. Conclusions and Relevance:Among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older, dually enrolled beneficiaries had higher annual all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalizations, and hospitalization-related mortality compared with nondually enrolled beneficiaries. Between 2004 and 2017, these differences did not decrease.

Project description:Background/objectivesNo data exist regarding the validity of International Classification of Disease (ICD)-10 dementia diagnoses against a clinician-adjudicated reference standard within Medicare claims data. We examined the accuracy of claims-based diagnoses with respect to expert clinician adjudication using a novel database with individual-level linkages between electronic health record (EHR) and claims.DesignIn this retrospective observational study, two neurologists and two psychiatrists performed a standardized review of patients' medical records from January 2016 to December 2018 and adjudicated dementia status. We measured the accuracy of three claims-based definitions of dementia against the reference standard.SettingMass-General-Brigham Healthcare (MGB), Massachusetts, USA.ParticipantsFrom an eligible population of 40,690 fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries, aged 65 years and older, within the MGB Accountable Care Organization (ACO), we generated a random sample of 1002 patients, stratified by the pretest likelihood of dementia using administrative surrogates.InterventionNone.MeasurementsWe evaluated the accuracy (area under receiver operating curve [AUROC]) and calibration (calibration-in-the-large [CITL] and calibration slope) of three ICD-10 claims-based definitions of dementia against clinician-adjudicated standards. We applied inverse probability weighting to reconstruct the eligible population and reported the mean and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for all performance characteristics, using 10-fold cross-validation (CV).ResultsBeneficiaries had an average age of 75.3 years and were predominately female (59%) and non-Hispanic whites (93%). The adjudicated prevalence of dementia in the eligible population was 7%. The best-performing definition demonstrated excellent accuracy (CV-AUC 0.94; 95% CI 0.92-0.96) and was well-calibrated to the reference standard of clinician-adjudicated dementia (CV-CITL <0.001, CV-slope 0.97).ConclusionThis study is the first to validate ICD-10 diagnostic codes against a robust and replicable approach to dementia ascertainment, using a real-world clinical reference standard. The best performing definition includes diagnostic codes with strong face validity and outperforms an updated version of a previously validated ICD-9 definition of dementia.

Project description:BackgroundEach year, thousands of older adults develop delirium, a serious, preventable condition. At present, there is no well-validated method to identify patients with delirium when using Medicare claims data or other large datasets. We developed and assessed the performance of classification algorithms based on longitudinal Medicare administrative data that included International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition diagnostic codes.MethodsUsing a linked electronic health record (EHR)-Medicare claims dataset, 2 neurologists and 2 psychiatrists performed a standardized review of EHR records between 2016 and 2018 for a stratified random sample of 1002 patients among 40,690 eligible subjects. Reviewers adjudicated delirium status (reference standard) during this 3-year window using a structured protocol. We calculated the probability that each patient had delirium as a function of classification algorithms based on longitudinal Medicare claims data. We compared the performance of various algorithms against the reference standard, computing calibration-in-the-large, calibration slope, and the area-under-receiver-operating-curve using 10-fold cross-validation (CV).ResultsBeneficiaries had a mean age of 75 years, were predominately female (59%), and non-Hispanic Whites (93%); a review of the EHR indicated that 6% of patients had delirium during the 3 years. Although several classification algorithms performed well, a relatively simple model containing counts of delirium-related diagnoses combined with patient age, dementia status, and receipt of antipsychotic medications had the best overall performance [CV- calibration-in-the-large <0.001, CV-slope 0.94, and CV-area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.88 95% confidence interval: 0.84-0.91)].ConclusionsA delirium classification model using Medicare administrative data and International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition diagnosis codes can identify beneficiaries with delirium in large datasets.