The potential use of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) in healthcare and medical research.

Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are cryptographic assets recorded on the blockchain that can certify authenticity and ownership, and they can be used to monetize health data, optimize the process of receiving a hematopoietic stem cell transplant, and improve the distribution of solid organs for transplantation. Blockchain technology, including NFTs, provides equitable access to wealth, increases transparency, eliminates personal or institutional biases of intermediaries, reduces inefficiencies, and ensures accountability. Blockchain architecture is ideal for ensuring security and privacy while granting individuals jurisdiction over their own information, making it a unique solution to the current limitations of existing health information systems. NFTs can be used to give patients the option to monetize their health data and provide valuable data to researchers. Wearable technology companies can also give their customers the option to monetize their data while providing data necessary to improve their products. Additionally, the process of receiving a hematopoietic stem cell transplant and the distribution of solid organs for transplantation could benefit from the integration of NFTs into the allocation process. However, there are limitations to the technology, including high energy consumption and the need for regulatory guidance. Further research is necessary to fully understand the potential of NFTs in healthcare and how it can be integrated with existing health information technology. Overall, NFTs have the potential to revolutionize the healthcare sector, providing benefits such as improved access to health information and increased efficiency in the distribution of organs for transplantation.

Functional limitations and health care resource utilization for individuals with cognitive impairment without dementia: Findings from a United States population-based survey.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about functional limitations and health care resource utilization of people with cognitive impairment with no dementia (CIND). METHODS: Respondents with stable or progressive cognitive impairment (CI) after the first (index) indication of CIND in 2000-2010 were identified from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS). Respondents never exhibiting CI were identified as potential controls. Propensity score-based optimal matching was used to adjust for differences in demographics and history of stroke. Differences between cohorts were assessed accounting for HRS survey design. RESULTS: After matching, CIND respondents had more functional limitations (difficulty with ≥1 activities of daily living: 24% vs. 15%; ≥1 instrumental activities of daily living: 20% vs. 11%) and hospital stays (37% vs. 27%) than respondents with no CI (all P < .001). Seventy five percent of CIND respondents developed dementia in the observable follow-up (median time: ∼6 years). DISCUSSION: Even before dementia onset, CI is associated with increased likelihood of functional limitations and greater health care resource use.

Assessing the economic burden of Alzheimer's disease patients first diagnosed by specialists.

BACKGROUND: It is not known if there is a differential impact on Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnosis and outcomes if/when patients are diagnosed with cognitive decline by specialists versus non-specialists. This study examined the cost trajectories of Medicare beneficiaries initially diagnosed by specialists compared to similar patients who received their diagnosis in primary care settings. METHODS: Patients with ≥2 claims for AD were selected from de-identified administrative claims data for US Medicare beneficiaries (5 % random sample). The earliest observed diagnosis of cognitive decline served as the index date. Patients were required to have continuous Medicare coverage for ≥12 months pre-index (baseline) and ≥12 months following the first AD diagnosis, allowing for up to 3 years from index to AD diagnosis. Time from index date to AD diagnosis was compared between those diagnosed by specialists (i.e., neurologist, psychiatrist, or geriatrician) versus non-specialists using Kaplan-Meier analyses with log-rank tests. Patient demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) during baseline, and annual all-cause medical costs (reimbursed by Medicare) in baseline and follow-up periods were compared across propensity-score matched cohorts. RESULTS: Patients first diagnosed with cognitive decline by specialists (n = 2593) were younger (78.8 versus 80.8 years old), more likely to be male (40 % versus 34 %), and had higher CCI scores and higher medical costs at baseline than those diagnosed by non-specialists (n = 13,961). However, patients diagnosed by specialists had a significantly shorter time to AD diagnosis, both before and after matching (mean [after matching]: 3.5 versus 4.6 months, p < 0.0001). In addition, patients diagnosed by specialists had significantly lower average total all-cause medical costs in the first 12 months after their index date, a finding that persisted after matching ($19,824 versus $25,863, p < 0.0001). Total per-patient annual medical costs were similar for the two groups starting in the second year post-index. CONCLUSIONS: Before and after matching, patients diagnosed by a specialist had a shorter time to AD diagnosis and incurred lower costs in the year following the initial cognitive decline diagnosis. Differences in costs converged during subsequent years. This suggests that seeking care from specialists may yield more timely diagnosis, appropriate care and reduced costs among those with cognitive decline.

Economic outcomes among Medicare patients receiving bioengineered cellular technologies for treatment of diabetic foot ulcers.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the real-world medical services utilization and associated costs of Medicare patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) treated with Apligraf (bioengineered living cellular construct (BLCC)) or Dermagraft (human fibroblast-derived dermal substitute (HFDS)) compared with those receiving conventional care (CC). METHODS: DFU patients were selected from Medicare de-identified administrative claims using ICD-9-CM codes. The analysis followed an 'intent-to-treat' design, with cohorts assigned based on use of (1) BLCC, (2) HFDS, or (3) CC (i.e., ≥1 claim for a DFU-related treatment procedure or podiatrist visit and no evidence of skin substitute use) for treatment of DFU in 2006-2012. Propensity score models were used to separately match BLCC and HFDS patients to CC patients with similar baseline demographics, wound severity, and physician experience measures. Medical resource use, lower-limb amputation rates, and total healthcare costs (2012 USD; from payer perspective) during the 18 months following treatment initiation were compared among the resulting matched samples. RESULTS: Data for 502 matched BLCC-CC patient pairs and 222 matched HFDS-CC patient pairs were analyzed. Increased costs associated with outpatient service utilization relative to matched CC patients were offset by lower amputation rates (-27.6% BLCC, -22.2% HFDS), fewer days hospitalized (-33.3% BLCC, -42.4% HFDS), and fewer emergency department visits (-32.3% BLCC, -25.7% HFDS) among BLCC/HFDS patients. Consequently, BLCC and HFDS patients had per-patient average healthcare costs during the 18-month follow-up period that were lower than their respective matched CC counterparts (-$5253 BLCC, -$6991 HFDS). LIMITATIONS: Findings relied on accuracy of diagnosis and procedure codes contained in the claims data, and did not account for outcomes and costs beyond 18 months after treatment initiation. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that use of BLCC and HFDS for treatment of DFU may lower overall medical costs through reduced utilization of costly healthcare services.