The Experiences of Persons Living with Dementia Planning for a Dementia Research Meeting. Lessons Learned From the National Research Summit on Care, Services, and Supports for Persons With Dementia and Their Caregivers.

OBJECTIVE: A stakeholder group for persons living with dementia (PLWD) was convened to support the work of a major US dementia research meeting. The objectives of this examination are to present the steps used to implement the Group and guidance for both PLWD and researchers for partnering on research conference planning and participation. METHODS: PLWD met monthly to provide input into the agenda for the 2017 Research Summit on Dementia Care and some Group members also presented at the Summit. Following the Summit, the Group reviewed their contributions and completed an evaluation of the Group process, identifying best practices to support future efforts. RESULTS: Group members were initially unsure about participating due to concerns about ability to contribute and concerns about disease progression. Members reported that participation was a positive experience, however, identifying Group-led governance and attention to Group work process as important contributors. In addition to giving input to the Summit and having the opportunity to interact with researchers, sharing personal experiences with each other was part of the value of the Group to members. Careful Group selection and attention to governance were among the Best Practices members. CONCLUSION: Despite initial uncertainty among members about participating as a Stakeholder Group to inform a national research meeting, members developed a successful process for governance, convening, and providing input to a major national research meeting. Group's self-evaluation yielded specific strategies likely to be useful in formation and implementation of future partnerships between researchers and persons living with dementia.

Contributions of Persons Living With Dementia to Scientific Research Meetings. Results From the National Research Summit on Care, Services, and Supports for Persons With Dementia and Their Caregivers.

OBJECTIVE: Inclusion of patients in research activities has increased in the United States but no guidelines for inclusion of individuals with cognitive impairment exist. The experiences from the Persons Living with Dementia (PLWD) Stakeholder Group that formed to support the first National Research Summit on Care, Services, and Supports for Persons with Dementia and Their Caregivers provided a test of feasibility of this type of participation for a major research meeting and an opportunity to understand specific contributions of the Group. METHODS: The PLWD Stakeholder Group was formed by Summit co-chairs as one of six stakeholder groups charged with providing input into the Summit agenda and meeting recommendations. Members were recruited through clinician/researchers with personal knowledge of potential members. Following the Summit, Group members convened to review Group contributions to the Summit agenda, list of speakers, and Summit research recommendations. RESULTS: The PLWD Group influenced the content of the Summit agenda and some Group members were invited to contribute through Summit presentations. The Group influenced Summit outcomes: of the 58 research recommendations that emerged, 30 express ideas contributed by the PLWD. CONCLUSIONS: The Stakeholder Group for PLWD proved feasible to implement and impacted the agenda and output of a major national research meeting on dementia.

Informing Patient-Centered Care Through Stakeholder Engagement and Highly Stratified Quantitative Benefit-Harm Assessments.

OBJECTIVES: In a previous project aimed at informing patient-centered care for people with multiple chronic conditions, we performed highly stratified quantitative benefit-harm assessments for 2 top priority questions. In this current work, our goal was to describe the process and approaches we developed and to qualitatively glean important elements from it that address patient-centered care. METHODS: We engaged patients, caregivers, clinicians, and guideline developers as stakeholder representatives throughout the process of the quantitative benefit-harm assessment and investigated whether the benefit-harm balance differed based on patient preferences and characteristics (stratification). We refined strategies to select the most applicable, valid, and precise evidence. RESULTS: Two processes were important when assessing the balance of benefits and harms of interventions: (1) engaging stakeholders and (2) stratification by patient preferences and characteristics. Engaging patients and caregivers through focus groups, preference surveys, and as co-investigators provided value in prioritizing research questions, identifying relevant clinical outcomes, and clarifying the relative importance of these outcomes. Our strategies to select evidence for stratified benefit-harm assessments considered consistency across outcomes and subgroups. By quantitatively estimating the range in the benefit-harm balance resulting from true variation in preferences, we clarified whether the benefit-harm balance is preference sensitive. CONCLUSIONS: Our approaches for engaging patients and caregivers at all phases of the stratified quantitative benefit-harm assessments were feasible and revealed how sensitive the benefit-harm balance is to patient characteristics and individual preferences. Accordingly, this sensitivity can suggest to guideline developers when to tailor recommendations for specific patient subgroups or when to explicitly leave decision making to individual patients and their providers.

Outcome preferences of older people with multiple chronic conditions and hypertension: a cross-sectional survey using best-worst scaling.

BACKGROUND: Older people with hypertension and multiple chronic conditions (MCC) receive complex treatments and face challenging trade-offs. Patients' preferences for different health outcomes can impact multiple treatment decisions. Since evidence about outcome preferences is especially scarce among people with MCC our aim was to elicit preferences of people with MCC for outcomes related to hypertension, and to determine how these outcomes should be weighed when benefits and harms are assessed for patient-centered clinical practice guidelines and health economic assessments. METHODS: We sent a best-worst scaling preference survey to a random sample identified from a primary care network of Kaiser Permanente (Colorado, USA). The sample included individuals age 60 or greater with hypertension and at least two other chronic conditions. We assessed average ranking of patient-important outcomes using conditional logit regression (stroke, heart attack, heart failure, dialysis, cognitive impairment, chronic kidney disease, acute kidney injury, fainting, injurious falls, low blood pressure with dizziness, treatment burden) and studied variation across individuals. RESULTS: Of 450 invited participants, 217 (48%) completed the survey, and we excluded 10 respondents who had more than two missing choices, resulting in a final sample of 207 respondents. Participants ranked stroke as the most worrisome outcome and treatment burden as the least worrisome outcome (conditional logit parameters: 3.19 (standard error 0.09) for stroke, 0 for treatment burden). None of the outcomes were always chosen as the most or least worrisome by more than 25% of respondents, indicating that all outcomes were somewhat worrisome to respondents. Predefined subgroup analyses according to age, self-reported life-expectancy, degree of comorbidity, number of medications and antihypertensive treatment did not reveal meaningful differences. CONCLUSIONS: Although some outcomes were more worrisome to patients than others, our results indicate that none of the outcomes should be disregarded for clinical practice guidelines and health economic assessments.

Engaging Stakeholders to Inform Clinical Practice Guidelines That Address Multiple Chronic Conditions.

BACKGROUND: Having more than one chronic condition is common and is associated with greater health care utilization, higher medication burden and complexity of treatment. However, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) do not routinely address the balance between harms and benefits of treatments for people with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). OBJECTIVE: To partner with the Kaiser Permanente Integrated Cardiovascular Health (ICVH) program to engage multiple stakeholders in a mixed-methods approach in order to: 1) identify two high-priority clinical questions related to MCCs, and 2) understand patients' and family caregivers' perceptions of meaningful outcomes to inform benefit/harm assessments for these two high-priority questions. These clinical questions and outcomes will be used to inform CPG recommendations for people with MCCs. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: The ICVH program provided 130 topics rank-ordered by the potential for finding evidence that would change clinical recommendations regarding the topic. We used a modified Delphi method to identify and reword topics into questions relevant to people with MCCs. We used two sets of focus groups (n = 27) to elicit patient and caregiver perspectives on two important research questions and relevant patient-important outcomes on benefit/harm balance for people with MCCs. KEY RESULTS: Co-investigators, patients and caregivers identified "optimal blood pressure goals" and "diabetes medication management" as important clinical topics for CPGs related to people with MCCs. Stakeholders identified a list of relevant outcomes to be addressed in future CPG development including 1) physical function and energy, 2) emotional health and well-being, 3) avoidance of treatment burden, side effects and risks, 4) interaction with providers and health care system, and 5) prevention of adverse long-term health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Through the application of a mixed-methods process, we identified the questions regarding optimal blood pressure goals and diabetes medication management, along with related patient-centered outcomes, to inform novel evidence syntheses for those with MCCs. This study provides the lessons learned and a generalizable process for CPG developers to engage patient and caregivers in priority-setting for the translation of evidence into future CPGs. Ultimately, engaging patient and stakeholders around MCCs could improve the relevance of CPGs for the care of people with MCCs.

Development of a Lived Experience Panel to inform the design of embedded pragmatic trials of dementia care interventions.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute on Aging (NIA) Imbedded Pragmatic Alzheimer's Disease and Alzheimer's Related Dementia Clinical Trials (IMPACT) Collaboratory convened a Lived Experience Panel (LEP) to inform the development of research priorities and provide input on conducting embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) of dementia care interventions. Given the importance of people with lived experience to dementia research, and the unique considerations of engaging people with dementia, we report on our process for the recruitment, selection, and initial convening of the IMPACT LEP. METHODS: The IMPACT Engaging Partners Team, in partnership with the Alzheimer's Association, sought nominations of individuals with mild cognitive impairment or early-stage dementia, care partners of other people living with dementia (PLWD), and proxy representatives for individuals with mid-to-late stage dementia. The 11-member LEP was composed of individuals with diverse personal experiences in part due to their age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, geography, disability, or type of dementia. In its first year, the LEP met with IMPACT's Patient and Caregiver Relevant Outcomes Core and Ethics and Regulation Core. RESULTS: LEP members provided valuable insights and nuanced discussion of issues relevant to ePCTs in dementia care from a broad range of personal experience. Panelists identified key research priorities and provided insight on outcomes often studied by researchers. The LEP also informed investigators' approaches to waivers and modifications of written informed consent and evaluation of minimal risk. Summary reports of the LEP meetings with each Core are available on the IMPACT website. At the end of the first year, changes were made to the composition of the LEP, and opportunities were identified for expanding panelist engagement with IMPACT investigators, as were priorities and scope for future input. CONCLUSIONS: The IMPACT LEP provides a model for engaging PLWD and care partners in the research process as collaborators.

Advancing Alzheimer's disease diagnosis, treatment, and care: recommendations from the Ware Invitational Summit.

To address the pending public health crisis due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related neurodegenerative disorders, the Marian S. Ware Alzheimer Program at the University of Pennsylvania held a meeting entitled "State of the Science Conference on the Advancement of Alzheimer's Diagnosis, Treatment and Care," on June 21-22, 2012. The meeting comprised four workgroups focusing on Biomarkers; Clinical Care and Health Services Research; Drug Development; and Health Economics, Policy, and Ethics. The workgroups shared, discussed, and compiled an integrated set of priorities, recommendations, and action plans, which are presented in this article.

Engaging Stakeholders in the Design and Conduct of Embedded Pragmatic Clinical Trials for Alzheimer's Disease and Alzheimer's Disease-Related Dementias.

Embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) of nondrug interventions for Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease-related dementias (AD/ADRD) are conducted in real-world clinical settings and designed to generate an evidence base to inform clinical and policy decisions about care for this vulnerable population. The ePCTs exist within a complex ecosystem of relationships between researchers, payors, policymakers, healthcare systems, direct care staff, advocacy groups, families, caregivers, and people living with dementia (PLWD). Because the rapid increase of the number of Americans with AD/ADRD outpaces curative treatments, there is an urgent need to mobilize the power of these relationships to improve dementia care and address a mounting public health crisis. Stakeholder engagement in ePCTs is essential to generate research questions, establish the relevancy of trials to the intended end users, and understand the factors that influence dissemination and implementation in real-world clinical settings. The process of including stakeholders in ePCTs for dementia is similar to stakeholder engagement in ePCTs for other diseases and conditions; however, the unique nature of embedded research, prevalence of caregiver and provider burden, and the progressive worsening of cognitive impairment in PLWD must be approached with additional strategies. This article presents key considerations of stakeholder engagement for ePCTs in AD/ADRD and main activities of the stakeholder engagement team in the National Institute on Aging IMPACT Collaboratory to move the field forward. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:S62-S67, 2020.

A benefit-harm analysis of adding basal insulin vs. sulfonylurea to metformin to manage type II diabetes mellitus in people with multiple chronic conditions.

OBJECTIVES: The benefits and harms of diabetes treatments need to be carefully weighed in people with type II diabetes mellitus (DM) and multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). Our objective was to quantitatively assess the benefits and harms of the addition of basal insulin (insulin) vs. sulfonylurea (SU) to metformin in people with DM and MCCs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Data inputs into the benefit-harms analysis included (1) baseline risks of patient-centered outcomes (death, myocardial infarction, stroke, severe hypoglycemia, diarrhea, nausea) from cohorts and trials; (2) treatment effects for the addition of insulin vs. SU from a network meta-analysis; and (3) patient preference survey for outcome weights. Statistical analysis calculated the probability that adding insulin has greater benefits than harms, when compared with an SU, overall and by prespecified subgroups. RESULTS: Including the six outcomes, the probability of net benefit for insulin compared with SU was similar, across subgroups by age and diabetes duration (probability range, using conditional logit weights: 0.44-0.56). Adding patient preferences for treatment burden associated with insulin injections shifted the probability to favor SU over insulin (probability range, using conditional logit weights: 0.01-0.12). CONCLUSION: In people with DM and MCCs, we demonstrated incomplete evidence to conclude if basal insulin or SU should be added in people with DM and MCCs on metformin alone. The benefit-harm balance was sensitive to treatment preferences, that is., perceived treatment burden, indicating the importance of shared-decision making in caring for people with MCCs who are at high risk for experiencing harms associated with diabetes management.

Balance of benefits and harms of different blood pressure targets in people with multiple chronic conditions: a quantitative benefit-harm assessment.

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies suggest that a systolic blood pressure (SBP) target of 120 mm Hg is appropriate for people with hypertension, but this is debated particularly in people with multiple chronic conditions (MCC). We aimed to quantitatively determine whether benefits of a lower SBP target justify increased risks of harm in people with MCC, considering patient-valued outcomes and their relative importance. DESIGN: Highly stratified quantitative benefit-harm assessment based on various input data identified as the most valid and applicable from a systematic review of evidence and based on weights from a patient preference survey. SETTING: Outpatient care. PARTICIPANTS: Hypertensive patients, grouped by age, gender, prior history of stroke, chronic heart failure, chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus. INTERVENTIONS: SBP target of 120 versus 140 mm Hg for patients without history of stroke. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Probability that the benefits of a SBP target of 120 mm Hg outweigh the harms compared with 140 mm Hg over 5 years (primary) with thresholds >0.6 (120 mm Hg better), <0.4 (140 mm Hg better) and 0.4 to 0.6 (unclear), number of prevented clinical events (secondary), calculated with the Gail/National Cancer Institute approach. RESULTS: Considering individual patient preferences had a substantial impact on the benefit-harm balance. With average preferences, 120 mm Hg was the better target compared with 140 mm Hg for many subgroups of patients without prior stroke, especially in patients over 75. For women below 65 with chronic kidney disease and without diabetes and prior stroke, 140 mm Hg was better. The analyses did not include mild adverse effects, and apply only to patients who tolerate antihypertensive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: For most patients, a lower SBP target was beneficial, but this depended also on individual preferences, implying individual decision-making is important. Our modelling allows for individualised treatment targets based on patient preferences, age, gender and co-morbidities.

Recognition of dementia in hospitalized older adults.

Many hospital patients with dementia have no documented dementia diagnosis. In some cases, this is because they have never been diagnosed. Recognition of Dementia in Hospitalized Older Adults proposes several approaches that hospital nurses can use to increase recognition of dementia. This article describes the Try This approaches, how to implement them, and how to incorporate them into a hospital's current admission procedures. For a free online video demonstrating the use of these approaches, go to http://links.lww.com/A216.

Nonphysician Care Providers Can Help to Increase Detection of Cognitive Impairment and Encourage Diagnostic Evaluation for Dementia in Community and Residential Care Settings.

In the United States, at least half of older adults living with dementia do not have a diagnosis. Their cognitive impairment may not have been detected, and some older adults whose physician recommends that they obtain a diagnostic evaluation do not follow through on the recommendation. Initiatives to increase detection of cognitive impairment and diagnosis of dementia have focused primarily on physician practices and public information programs to raise awareness about the importance of detection and diagnosis. Nonphysician care providers who work with older adults in community and residential care settings, such as aging network agencies, public health agencies, senior housing, assisted living, and nursing homes, interact frequently with older adults who have cognitive impairment but have not had a diagnostic evaluation. These care providers may be aware of signs of cognitive impairment and older adults' concerns about their cognition that have not been expressed to their physician. Within their scope of practice and training, nonphysician care providers can help to increase detection of cognitive impairment and encourage older adults with cognitive impairment to obtain a diagnostic evaluation to determine the cause of the condition. This article provides seven practice recommendations intended to increase involvement of nonphysician care providers in detecting cognitive impairment and encouraging older adults to obtain a diagnostic evaluation. The Kickstart-Assess-Evaluate-Refer (KAER) framework for physician practice in detection and diagnosis of dementia is used to identify ways to coordinate physician and nonphysician efforts and thereby increase the proportion of older adults living with dementia who have a diagnosis.

Population Health Solutions for Assessing Cognitive Impairment in Geriatric Patients.

In December 2017, the National Academy of Neuropsychology convened an interorganizational Summit on Population Health Solutions for Assessing Cognitive Impairment in Geriatric Patients in Denver, Colorado. The Summit brought together representatives of a broad range of stakeholders invested in the care of older adults to focus on the topic of cognitive health and aging. Summit participants specifically examined questions of who should be screened for cognitive impairment and how they should be screened in medical settings. This is important in the context of an acute illness given that the presence of cognitive impairment can have significant implications for care and for the management of concomitant diseases as well as pose a major risk factor for dementia. Participants arrived at general principles to guide future screening approaches in medical populations and identified knowledge gaps to direct future research. Key learning points of the summit included: recognizing the importance of educating patients and healthcare providers about the value of assessing current and baseline cognition;emphasizing that any screening tool must be appropriately normalized and validated in the population in which it is used to obtain accurate information, including considerations of language, cultural factors, and education; andrecognizing the great potential, with appropriate caveats, of electronic health records to augment cognitive screening and tracking of changes in cognitive health over time.

Population Health Solutions for Assessing Cognitive Impairment in Geriatric Patients.

In December 2017, the National Academy of Neuropsychology convened an interorganizational Summit on Population Health Solutions for Assessing Cognitive Impairment in Geriatric Patients in Denver, Colorado. The Summit brought together representatives of a broad range of stakeholders invested in the care of older adults to focus on the topic of cognitive health and aging. Summit participants specifically examined questions of who should be screened for cognitive impairment and how they should be screened in medical settings. This is important in the context of an acute illness given that the presence of cognitive impairment can have significant implications for care and for the management of concomitant diseases as well as pose a major risk factor for dementia. Participants arrived at general principles to guide future screening approaches in medical populations and identified knowledge gaps to direct future research. Key learning points of the summit included: recognizing the importance of educating patients and healthcare providers about the value of assessing current and baseline cognition; emphasizing that any screening tool must be appropriately normalized and validated in the population in which it is used to obtain accurate information, including considerations of language, cultural factors, and education; and recognizing the great potential, with appropriate caveats, of electronic health records to augment cognitive screening and tracking of changes in cognitive health over time.

Engagement of Veterans With Dementia in Partners in Dementia Care: An Evidence-Based Care Coordination Program.

This study describes engagement of veterans with dementia in an evidence-based care coordination intervention called Partners in Dementia Care (PDC). PDC uses a person-centered approach that encourages participation by individuals with dementia (IWDs), despite their cognitive impairment. PDC also targets primary family or friend caregivers, who often are the main user of the program. Of the total 316 IWDs, 202 passed a mental status screening and were considered to have engagement potential. The study of actual engagement was based on data from IWDs' PDC records, combined with data from structured research interviews. Approximately 80% of IWDs with engagement potential had a minimum level of actual engagement in PDC. A smaller subsample was more actively engaged, as indicated by assigned and/or accomplished action steps. Younger IWDs and those self-reporting more memory difficulties had higher levels of engagement. Results describe one example of the extent and limits of IWD engagement in psychosocial interventions.

Usefulness of a single item in a mail survey to identify persons with possible dementia: a new strategy for finding high-risk elders.

The objective of this study was to examine the characteristics of elderly persons who responded positively to a question about "severe memory problems" on a mailed health questionnaire yet were missed by the existing health risk algorithm to identify vulnerable elderly persons. A total of 324,471 respondents aged 65 and older completed a primary care health status questionnaire that gathered clinical information to quickly identify members with functional impairment, multiple chronic diseases, and higher medical care needs. The respondents were part of a large, integrated, not-for-profit managed care organization that implemented a model of care for elders using a uniform risk identification method across eight regions. Respondents with severe memory problems were compared to general respondents by morbidity, geriatric syndromes, functional impairments, service utilization, sensory impairments, sociodemographic characteristics, and activities of daily living. Of the respondents, 13,902 persons (4.3%) reported severe memory problems; the existing health risk algorithm missed 47.1% of these. When severe memory problems were included in the risk algorithm, identification increased from 11% to 13%, and risk prevalence by age groups ranged from 4.4% to 40.5%; one third had severe memory problems, a finding that was fairly consistent within age groups (28.4% to 36.5%). A question about severe memory problems should be incorporated into population risk-identification techniques. While false-negative rates are unknown, the false-positive rate of a self-report mail survey appears to be minimal. Persons reporting severe memory problems clearly have multiple comorbidities, higher prevalence of geriatric syndromes, and greater functional and sensory impairments.

Impact of the care coordination program "Partners in Dementia Care" on veterans' hospital admissions and emergency department visits.

INTRODUCTION: "Partners in Dementia Care" (PDC) tested a care-coordination program based on partnerships between Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers and Alzheimer's Association chapters. The hypothesis posited PDC would reduce the likelihood and number of veterans' hospital admissions and emergency department (ED) visits, particularly for those with more cognitive impairment or behavioral symptoms. METHODS: The sample included 328 veterans with dementia and their primary family or friend caregivers from five matched sites (two randomly selected treatment sites). Data came from VA records; supplemented by caregiver research interviews. Regression analyses using the likelihood and number of hospital and ED visits as outcomes tested for overall treatment-comparison group differences and statistical interactions with cognitive impairment and behavioral symptoms. RESULTS: Consistent with the hypothesis, three significant interactions showed treatment-group veterans, with more cognitive impairment and behavioral symptoms, had fewer hospital admissions and ED visits than comparison-group veterans. There were no differences in the likelihood of hospital or ED use. DISCUSSION: PDC, a low-cost program for veterans and caregivers, was effective in reducing the number, but not the likelihood, of hospital admissions and ED visits. Reductions in service use were greater when caregivers reported more difficulties with veterans' symptoms, which in the absence of PDC would place veterans at risk of being high-volume, high-cost service users.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00291161.

Optimizing coding and reimbursement to improve management of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.

The objectives of this study were to review the diagnostic, International Classification of Disease, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM), diagnosis related groups (DRGs), and common procedural terminology (CPT) coding and reimbursement issues (including Medicare Part B reimbursement for physicians) encountered in caring for patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD); to review the implications of these policies for the long-term clinical management of the patient with ADRD; and to provide recommendations for promoting appropriate recognition and reimbursement for clinical services provided to ADRD patients. Relevant English-language articles identified from MEDLINE about ADRD prevalence estimates; disease morbidity and mortality; diagnostic coding practices for ADRD; and Medicare, Medicaid, and managed care organization data on diagnostic coding and reimbursement were reviewed. Alzheimer's disease (AD) is grossly undercoded. Few AD cases are recognized at an early stage. Only 13% of a group of patients receiving the AD therapy donepezil had AD as the primary diagnosis, and AD is rarely included as a primary or secondary DRG diagnosis when the condition precipitating admission to the hospital is caused by AD. In addition, AD is often not mentioned on death certificates, although it may be the proximate cause of death. There is only one ICD-9-CM code for AD-331.0-and no clinical modification codes, despite numerous complications that can be directly attributed to AD. Medicare carriers consider ICD-9 codes for senile dementia (290 series) to be mental health codes and pay them at a lower rate than medical codes. DRG coding is biased against recognition of ADRD as an acute, admitting diagnosis. The CPT code system is an impediment to quality of care for ADRD patients because the complex, time-intensive services ADRD patients require are not adequately, if at all, reimbursed. Also, physicians treating significant numbers of AD patients are at greater risk of audit if they submit a high frequency of complex codes. AD is grossly undercoded in acute hospital and outpatient care settings because of failure to diagnose, limitations of the coding system, and reimbursement issues. Such undercoding leads to a lack of recognition of the effect of AD and its complications on clinical care and impedes the development of better care management. We recommend continuing physician education on the importance of early diagnosis and care management of AD and its documentation through appropriate coding, expansion of the current ICD-9-CM codes for AD, more appropriate use of DRG coding for ADRD, recognition of the need for time-intensive services by ADRD patients that result in a higher frequency of use of complex CPT codes, and reimbursement for CPT codes that cover ADRD care management services.