On today’s podcast, we talk about an innovative specialized primary care model for older veterans called the Geriatric Patient Aligned Care Team (GeriPACT) program. It’s designed with smaller patient panels and enhanced social worker and pharmacist involvement, and its approach is aimed at improving care and outcomes for our aging population.

We unpack the intriguing findings of a recent JAMA Network Open study authored by one of our guests, Susan “Nicki” Hastings, looking at GeriPACT that compares it to a traditional Patient Aligned Care Team (PACT). While GeriPACT successfully delivered more attention to geriatric conditions, it surprisingly didn't translate into expected improvements like more time at home or better self-rated health.

We discuss the potential reasons behind this with our other two guests, one a geriatrics fellow, Kristie Hsu, and the other a recurring guest and host of the podcast, Ken Covinsky. Was it just that it didn’t work, or were there other things going on, from the intensity of "usual care" to the challenges of measuring complex health outcomes and the possibility that 18 months simply wasn't long enough to see the full benefits?

Despite what was ostensibly a negative trial, we highlight some reassuring aspects and future hopes for GeriPACT and how we can all incorporate some of these components into the care of our patients. We'll also pose critical questions for future research, emphasizing why continued development and evaluation of new care models are essential for the health of our older population.

With all the attention focused on Alzheimer's biomarkers and amyloid antibodies, it’s easy to forget that comprehensive dementia care is more than blood draws and infusions. On today’s podcast, we buck this trend and dive into the complexities and challenges of comprehensive dementia care with the authors of two pivotal articles recently published in JAMA.

We’ve invited David Reuben and Greg Sachs to talk about their two respective trials, published in JAMA — D-CARE and IN-PEACE — aimed at improving the evidence for care models supporting individuals diagnosed with dementia. D-CARE tested the comparative effectiveness of health system-based dementia care, a community-based program, and usual care, while IN-PEACE assessed the addition of palliative care to dementia care programs for individuals with moderate to severe dementia.

Despite their pragmatic trial designs and high expectations, both studies' primary outcomes were negative, although there were some intriguing positive secondary outcomes. We discuss how some critical questions about the integration of these findings into practice, and how they fit in with previous research that did show benefits (see this past podcast on using health navigators to improve dementia care).

If you want to learn more about comprehensive dementia care, check out these past podcasts:

• Our previous podcast on comprehensive dementia care with Lee Jennings and Chris Callahan

• Our podcast on the GUIDE Model with Malaz Boustani and Diane Ty

• Our podcast on Transforming the Culture of Dementia Care with Anne Basting, Ab Desai, Susan McFadden, and Judy Long

Lastly, here is the link to Greg Sachs' NEJM article that describes his maternal grandmother decline from Alzheimer's disease.

In today’s podcast we talk with Eric Wong, geriatrician-researcher from Toronto, and Thiago Silva, geriatrician-researcher from Brazil, about the comprehensive geriatrics assessment. We spend the first 30 minutes (at least) discussing what, exactly is the comprehensive geriatric assessment, including:

• What domains of assessment are essential/mandatory components of the comprehensive geriatrics assessment?

• Who performs it? Is a multidisciplinary team required? Can a geriatrician perform it alone? Can non-geriatricians perform it?

• Who is the comprehensive geriatrics assessment for? Who is most likely to benefit? Eric Widera suggests not as much benefit for very sick and very healthy older adults, more benefit in the vast middle.

• Why do the comprehensive geriatrics assessment? What are the interventions that it leads to (we cover this more conceptually, rather than naming all possible interventions)

• How does the comprehensive geriatrics assessment relate to the 4Ms (or 5 Ms)?

• How long does it take to conduct a comprehensive geriatrics assessment?

• What’s the evidence (BMJ meta analysis) for the comprehensive geriatrics assessment?

• What are the outcomes we hope for from the comprehensive geriatrics assessment?

That final point, about outcomes, bring’s us to Eric Wong’s study, published in JAGS, which evaluates the cost effectiveness of the comprehensive geriatrics assessment performed by a geriatrician across settings (e.g. acute care, rehab, community clinics).

As an aside, as the editor at JAGS who managed this manuscript, I will say that we don’t ordinarily publish cost effectiveness studies at JAGS, as the methods are opaque to our clinical audience (e.g. raise your hand if you understand what ‘CGA provided in the combination of acute care and rehab was non-dominated’ means).

We published this article because its bottom line is of great interest to geriatricians. In Eric’s study, geriatricians performing CGA were more cost effective than usual care in Every. Single. Setting.

And of course cost effectiveness is only one small piece of the argument for why we do the comprehensive geriatrics assessment in the first place (no patient in the history of the world has ever asked for a test or treatment because it’s cost effective for the health care system).

I’ll close with a couple of “mic drop” excerpts from Thiago’s accompanying editorial:

Finally, it is instructive to compare the cost-effectiveness of geriatric services and CGAs with other interventions. A recent analysis of lecanemab for early-stage Alzheimer's disease found that gaining one QALY would cost approximately $287,000 (USD). In contrast, Wong et al. estimated that adding community-based CGA would cost about $1203 (CAD) per quality-adjusted life month (QALM) (equating to roughly $10,105 (USD) per QALY, using $1 USD = $0.7 CAD), making geriatrician-led CGA nearly 30 times more cost-effective. Put simply, for each dollar spent to improve quality of life for a year through CGA, one would need to spend almost $30 to achieve the same benefit with lecanemab.

Ultimately, the question is not whether geriatricians represent a worthwhile investment (they are) but how healthcare systems can ensure that every older adult requiring specialized, comprehensive care can access it. Wong et al.'s modeling study provides a valuable contribution by showing that geriatricians placed in acute and rehabilitation settings offer the most cost-effective deployment given current workforce limitations. Despite some caveats, the overarching message remains clear: geriatric expertise not only enhances care quality but can also align with health-economic objectives, especially in high-acuity environments. However, we cannot allow an inadequate geriatric workforce to become a permanent constraint, forcing painful decisions about which older adults and which settings will miss out on optimal geriatric care. Instead, we should continue to strive to increase the number of geriatricians through robust training programs and payment model reform to ensure that cost-effective care can be provided for this large and growing vulnerable population.

-Alex Smith