Performance of Claims-based Frailty Indices in Medicare Advantage and Fee-for-Service Populations
Clicks: 4
ID: 329225
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
0.6
/100
4 views
2 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #159 of 161 articles by views in the journals of gerontology series a, biological sciences and medical sciences
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 161 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite growing enrollment in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, the performance of claims-based frailty algorithms, which were developed for Medicare fee-for-service (FFS), remains unclear in MA. METHODS: We calculated the Kim claims-based frailty index (CFI), Veterans Affairs-Frailty Index (VA-FI), and Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) using the National Health and Aging Trends Study linked to Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) and MA data. We evaluated their performance against the comprehensive geriatric assessment-based frailty index (CGA-FI) and the frailty phenotype (FP) in Round 11 and Round 9. RESULTS: Among 1,527 FFS and 1,457 MA beneficiaries in Round 11, frailty prevalence was 34.2% and 35.5%, respectively, by CGA-FI ≥0.25, and 13.3% and 16.2%, respectively, by FP. Across FFS and MA populations, the CFI, which prioritizes specificity and positive predictive value, classified 10-12% of the overall population and 30-36% of those with prior hospitalization as frail, whereas the VA-FI and HFRS, which emphasize sensitivity, classified 53-71% of the overall population and 56-87% of those with prior hospitalization as frail. Although claims-based frailty measures performed similarly across FFS and MA populations, their discriminatory ability was higher for CGA-FI ≥0.25 (C-statistics: CFI, 0.79-0.82; VA-FI, 0.77-0.82; HFRS, 0.63-0.77) than for FP (CFI, 0.71-0.77; VA-FI, 0.67-0.75; HFRS, 0.60-0.74). Performance was consistent by race and survey rounds, with modestly better discrimination in women than men. CONCLUSIONS: Claims-based frailty measures are scalable tools for contemporary FFS and MA populations. However applying published thresholds led to differences in frailty prevalence and model performances. Thresholds should therefore be tailored to the intended.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7213673159
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Lan Luo, Kevin Pritchard, Chan Mi Park, Xiecheng Chen, Eunji G Kim, Ellen P. McCarthy, Dae Hyun Kim, Sandra M Shi |
| Journal | the journals of gerontology series a, biological sciences and medical sciences |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/gerona/glag229
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.