Cited by 155Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesMental Health Treatment and Access

Longitudinal analysis of dementia diagnosis and specialty care among racially diverse Medicare beneficiaries

Open access
Drabo, Emmanuel Fulgence, Barthold, Douglas, Joyce, Geoffrey, Ferido, Patricia, Chang Chui, Helena, Zissimopoulos, Julie·2019·Alzheimer's & Dementia

Abstract

Introduction: There is insufficient understanding of diagnosis of etiologic dementia subtypes and contact with specialized dementia care among older Americans. Methods: We quantified dementia diagnoses and subsequent health care over five years by etiologic subtype and physician specialty among Medicare beneficiaries with incident dementia diagnosis in 2008/09 (226,604 persons/714,015 person‐years). Results: Eighty‐five percent of people were diagnosed by a nondementia specialist physician. Use of dementia specialists within one year (22%) and five years (36%) of diagnosis was low. “Unspecified” dementia diagnosis was common, higher among those diagnosed by nondementia specialists (33.2%) than dementia specialists (21.6%). Half of diagnoses were Alzheimer's disease. Discussion: Ascertainment of etiologic dementia subtype may inform hereditary risk and facilitate financial and care planning. Use of dementia specialty care was low, particularly for Hispanics and Asians, and associated with more detection of etiological subtype. Dementia‐related professional development for nonspecialists is urgent given their central role in dementia diagnosis and care.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jalz.2019.07.005

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Of those diagnosed by a specialist, 44% were diagnosed by a neurologist, 34% by a psychiatrist and 22% by a geriatrician.

    “Of those diagnosed by a specialist, 44% were diagnosed by a neurologist, 34% by a psychiatrist and 22% by a geriatrician.”

    From 2023 Alzheimer's disease facts and figures (2023) · cites this paper as [628]

    The Results section (“Distribution of Physician Specialty”) supports the 44% figure for neurologists. It reports 47.4% for psychiatrists and related specialties and 8.6% for geriatricians, not 34% and 22%. (LLM, conf=0.93)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • One study of Medicare beneficiaries found that 85% of those diagnosed with dementia were initially diagnosed by a clinician other than a dementia specialist, and 15% by a specialist.

    “One study of Medicare beneficiaries found that 85% of those diagnosed with dementia were initially diagnosed by a clinician other than a dementia specialist (e.g., a PCP, emergency medicine physician or nurse practitioner), and the remaining 15% by a specialist.628”

    From 2023 Alzheimer's disease facts and figures (2023) · cites this paper as [628]

    The Results (Distribution of Physician Specialty) report that 84.6% of diagnosed Medicare beneficiaries were initially diagnosed by a non-dementia specialist physician, supporting the rounded 85% and the remaining approximately 15%. The same section identifies internal medicine and family practice physicians among non-specialists, but our copy does not identify emergency medicine physicians or nurse practitioners as examples of initial diagnosing clinicians. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A study of Medicare beneficiaries found that 85% of people living with dementia were diagnosed by providers who do not specialize in dementia.

    “A study of Medicare beneficiaries found that 85% of people living with dementia were diagnosed by providers who do not specialize in dementia (e.g., PCP, emergency medicine physician, nurse practitioner, clinical psychologist).”

    From 2024 Alzheimer's disease facts and figures (2024) · cites this paper as [706]

    The Results (Distribution of Physician Specialty) report that 84.6% of diagnosed Medicare beneficiaries were initially diagnosed by a non-dementia specialist physician, supporting the rounded 85% figure. The paper identifies internal medicine and family practice physicians among these non-specialists, but the cited passages do not establish the sentence’s other examples—emergency medicine physicians, nurse practitioners, or clinical psychologists—as diagnosing providers in that group. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Among the remaining 15% diagnosed by a provider who specializes in dementia, 47% were diagnosed by a psychiatrist, 44% by a neurologist and 9% by a geriatrician.

    “Among the remaining 15% diagnosed by a provider who specializes in dementia, 47% were diagnosed by a psychiatrist, including geriatric psychiatrists and neuropsychiatrists, 44% by a neurologist and 9% by a geriatrician.”

    From 2024 Alzheimer's disease facts and figures (2024) · cites this paper as [706]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [19]Rabins PV, Blass DM. In the Clinic. Dementia. Ann Intern Med. 2014; 161(3): ITC1; quiz ITC16. 25089871
  2. [38]National Provider Identifier (NPI) May 23, 2008, Implementation [press release] Baltimore, MD: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 5 23, 2008 2008.
  3. [45]Anitha Rao, Marguerite Manteau-Rao, Aggarwal NT. Dementia neurology deserts: What are they and where are they located in the US? Abstract 17947. Paper presented at: Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC); 7 16-20, 2017; London, England.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Drabo, E. F., Barthold, D., Joyce, G., Ferido, P., Chang Chui, H., & Zissimopoulos, J.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California Los Angeles CA USA
Corresponding author
Zissimopoulos, Julie
Venue
Alzheimer's & Dementia
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-09-04
Volume
15
Issue
11
Pages
1402-1411
ISSN
  • 1552-5260 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5279
OpenAlex
W2972048113
Cited by
155
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2018: 1
FWCI
6.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Alzheimer s & Dementia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (R01AG055401, P30AG043073, R01HL126804)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL130462)
  • University of Southern California (1R34AG049652)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Geriatric Care and Nursing Homes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
dementia diagnosis
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Dementia, Ethnicity, Female, Medicare, Humans, Physicians, Family, Psychiatry, Specialization, United States

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review