The U.S. criminal justice population is aging at a significantly more rapid rate than the overall U.S. population, with the population of older adults in prison having more than tripled since 1990. This increase is at the root of a prison healthcare crisis that is spilling into communities and public healthcare systems because nearly 95% of prisoners are eventually released. The graying prison population is also straining state and local budgets. In prison, older prisoners cost approximately three times as much as younger prisoners to incarcerate, largely because of healthcare costs. In the community, older former prisoners present the least risk of recidivism yet are vulnerable to serious and costly social and medical challenges such as housing instability, poor employability, multiple chronic health conditions, and health-related mortality; however older current and former prisoners are largely ignored in the current geriatrics evidence base. Knowledge about the health, functional, and cognitive status of older prisoners is limited, with even less known about risk factors for long-term poor health outcomes during and after incarceration. This article provides an overview of aging in the criminal justice system. It then describes how geriatric models of care could be adapted to address the mounting older prisoner healthcare crisis and identifies areas where additional research is needed to explore prison-specific models of care for older adults.

Importance:Despite providing an overlapping level of care, it is unknown why hospitalized older adults are transferred to long-term acute care hospitals (LTACs) vs less costly skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) for postacute care. Objective:To examine factors associated with variation in LTAC vs SNF transfer among hospitalized older adults. Design, Setting, and Participants:We conducted this retrospective observational cohort study of hospitalized older adults (≥65 years) transferred to an LTAC vs SNF during fiscal year 2012 using national 5% Medicare data. Main Outcomes and Measures:Predictors of LTAC transfer were assessed using a multilevel mixed-effects model adjusting for patient-, hospital-, and region-level factors. We estimated variation partition coefficients and adjusted hospital- and region-specific LTAC transfer rates using sequential models. Results:Among 65 525 hospitalized older adults (42 461 [64.8%] women; 39 908 [60.9%] ≥85 years) transferred to an LTAC or SNF, 3093 (4.7%) were transferred to an LTAC. We identified 29 patient-, 3 hospital-, and 5 region-level independent predictors. The strongest predictors of LTAC transfer were receiving a tracheostomy (adjusted odds ration [aOR], 23.8; 95% CI, 15.8-35.9) and being hospitalized in close proximity to an LTAC (0-2 vs >42 miles; aOR, 8.4, 95% CI, 6.1-11.5). After adjusting for case-mix, differences between patients explained 52.1% (95% CI, 47.7%-56.5%) of the variation in LTAC use. The remainder was attributable to hospital (15.0%; 95% CI, 12.3%-17.6%), and regional differences (32.9%; 95% CI, 27.6%-38.3%). Case-mix adjusted LTAC use was very high in the South (17%-37%) compared with the Pacific Northwest, North, and Northeast (<2.2%). From the full multilevel model, the median adjusted hospital LTAC transfer rate was 2.1% (10th-90th percentile, 0.24%-10.8%). Even within a region, adjusted hospital LTAC transfer rates varied substantially (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.26; 95% CI, 0.23-0.30). Conclusions and Relevance:Although many patient-level factors were associated with LTAC use, half of the variation in LTAC vs SNF transfer is independent of patients' illness severity or clinical complexity, and is explained by where the patient was hospitalized and in what region, with far greater use in the South. Even among hospitals in regions with similar LTAC access, there was considerable variation in LTAC use. Given the higher expense associated with LTACs vs SNFs, greater attention is needed to define the optimal role of LTACs in the postacute care of older adults.

The U.S. criminal justice population is aging at a significantly more rapid rate than the overall U.S. population, with the population of older adults in prison having more than tripled since 1990. This increase is at the root of a prison healthcare crisis that is spilling into communities and public healthcare systems because nearly 95% of prisoners are eventually released. The graying prison population is also straining state and local budgets. In prison, older prisoners cost approximately three times as much as younger prisoners to incarcerate, largely because of healthcare costs. In the community, older former prisoners present the least risk of recidivism yet are vulnerable to serious and costly social and medical challenges such as housing instability, poor employability, multiple chronic health conditions, and health-related mortality; however older current and former prisoners are largely ignored in the current geriatrics evidence base. Knowledge about the health, functional, and cognitive status of older prisoners is limited, with even less known about risk factors for long-term poor health outcomes during and after incarceration. This article provides an overview of aging in the criminal justice system. It then describes how geriatric models of care could be adapted to address the mounting older prisoner healthcare crisis and identifies areas where additional research is needed to explore prison-specific models of care for older adults.

The national cost of cancer care is projected to reach $173 billion by 2020, increasing from $125 billion in 2010. This steep upward cost trajectory has placed enormous an financial burden on patients, their families, and society as a whole and raised major concern about the ability of the health care system to provide and sustain high-quality cancer care. To better understand the cost drivers of cancer care and explore approaches that will mitigate the problem, the National Cancer Policy Forum of the Institute of Medicine held a workshop entitled "Delivering Affordable Cancer Care in the 21st Century" in October 2012. Workshop participants included bioethicists, health economists, primary care physicians, and medical, surgical, and radiation oncologists, from both academic and community settings. All speakers expressed a sense of urgency about the affordability of cancer care resulting from the future demographic trend as well as the high cost of emerging cancer therapies and rapid diffusion of new technologies in the absence to evidence indicating improved outcomes for patients. This article is our summary of presentations at the workshop that highlighted the overuse and underuse of screening, treatments, and technologies throughout the cancer care continuum in oncology practice in the United States.

The national cost of cancer care is projected to reach $173 billion by 2020, increasing from $125 billion in 2010. This steep upward cost trajectory has placed enormous an financial burden on patients, their families, and society as a whole and raised major concern about the ability of the health care system to provide and sustain high-quality cancer care. To better understand the cost drivers of cancer care and explore approaches that will mitigate the problem, the National Cancer Policy Forum of the Institute of Medicine held a workshop entitled Delivering Affordable Cancer Care in the 21st Century in October 2012. Workshop participants included bioethicists, health economists, primary care physicians, and medical, surgical, and radiation oncologists, from both academic and community settings. All speakers expressed a sense of urgency about the affordability of cancer care resulting from the future demographic trend as well as the high cost of emerging cancer therapies and rapid diffusion of new technologies in the absence to evidence indicating improved outcomes for patients. This article is our summary of presentations at the workshop that highlighted the overuse and underuse of screening, treatments, and technologies throughout the cancer care continuum in oncology practice in the United States.

Background

Sleep-disordered breathing is a common condition associated with adverse health outcomes including hypertension and cardiovascular disease. The overall objective of this study was to determine whether sleep-disordered breathing and its sequelae of intermittent hypoxemia and recurrent arousals are associated with mortality in a community sample of adults aged 40 years or older.

Methods and findings

We prospectively examined whether sleep-disordered breathing was associated with an increased risk of death from any cause in 6,441 men and women participating in the Sleep Heart Health Study. Sleep-disordered breathing was assessed with the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) based on an in-home polysomnogram. Survival analysis and proportional hazards regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios for mortality after adjusting for age, sex, race, smoking status, body mass index, and prevalent medical conditions. The average follow-up period for the cohort was 8.2 y during which 1,047 participants (587 men and 460 women) died. Compared to those without sleep-disordered breathing (AHI: <5 events/h), the fully adjusted hazard ratios for all-cause mortality in those with mild (AHI: 5.0-14.9 events/h), moderate (AHI: 15.0-29.9 events/h), and severe (AHI: >or=30.0 events/h) sleep-disordered breathing were 0.93 (95% CI: 0.80-1.08), 1.17 (95% CI: 0.97-1.42), and 1.46 (95% CI: 1.14-1.86), respectively. Stratified analyses by sex and age showed that the increased risk of death associated with severe sleep-disordered breathing was statistically significant in men aged 40-70 y (hazard ratio: 2.09; 95% CI: 1.31-3.33). Measures of sleep-related intermittent hypoxemia, but not sleep fragmentation, were independently associated with all-cause mortality. Coronary artery disease-related mortality associated with sleep-disordered breathing showed a pattern of association similar to all-cause mortality.

Conclusions

Sleep-disordered breathing is associated with all-cause mortality and specifically that due to coronary artery disease, particularly in men aged 40-70 y with severe sleep-disordered breathing. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education, and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline (MPPG) represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiation requires specific training, skills, and techniques as described in each document. As the review of the previous version of AAPM Professional Policy (PP)-17 (Scope of Practice) progressed, the writing group focused on one of the main goals: to have this document accepted by regulatory and accrediting bodies. After much discussion, it was decided that this goal would be better served through a MPPG. To further advance this goal, the text was updated to reflect the rationale and processes by which the activities in the scope of practice were identified and categorized. Lastly, the AAPM Professional Council believes that this document has benefitted from public comment which is part of the MPPG process but not the AAPM Professional Policy approval process. The following terms are used in the AAPM's MPPGs: Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

The past decade has seen the increasing integration of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging into radiation therapy (RT). This growth can be contributed to multiple factors, including hardware and software advances that have allowed the acquisition of high-resolution volumetric data of RT patients in their treatment position (also known as MR simulation) and the development of methods to image and quantify tissue function and response to therapy. More recently, the advent of MR-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) - achieved through the integration of MR imaging systems and linear accelerators - has further accelerated this trend. As MR imaging in RT techniques and technologies, such as MRgRT, gain regulatory approval worldwide, these systems will begin to propagate beyond tertiary care academic medical centers and into more community-based health systems and hospitals, creating new opportunities to provide advanced treatment options to a broader patient population. Accompanying these opportunities are unique challenges related to their adaptation, adoption, and use including modification of hardware and software to meet the unique and distinct demands of MR imaging in RT, the need for standardization of imaging techniques and protocols, education of the broader RT community (particularly in regards to MR safety) as well as the need to continue and support research, and development in this space. In response to this, an ad hoc committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) was formed to identify the unmet needs, roadblocks, and opportunities within this space. The purpose of this document is to report on the major findings and recommendations identified. Importantly, the provided recommendations represent the consensus opinions of the committee's membership, which were submitted in the committee's report to the AAPM Board of Directors. In addition, AAPM ad hoc committee reports differ from AAPM task group reports in that ad hoc committee reports are neither reviewed nor ultimately approved by the committee's parent groups, including at the council and executive committee level. Thus, the recommendations given in this summary should not be construed as being endorsed by or official recommendations from the AAPM.

Rationale: Anxiety is a common comorbidity of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that is associated with higher morbidity and mortality. We evaluated three anxiety screening questionnaires: the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale (GAD-7), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Anxiety subscale (HADS-A), and the Anxiety Inventory for Respiratory Disease (AIR).Objectives: To evaluate and compare the test performance characteristics of three anxiety screening questionnaires, using the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), version 7.0, as the "gold standard."Methods: Individuals with COPD were recruited at 16 centers. The MINI and questionnaires were administered by trained research coordinators at an in-person visit and readministered by telephone 2-4 weeks later. A composite score for the presence of any Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-V) anxiety disorder was computed, based on the MINI as the gold standard, compared with a participant screening positive on self-report measures for these analyses.Results: Two hundred and twenty eligible individuals with COPD were enrolled; 219 completed the study. Eleven percent were identified as having a DSM-V anxiety disorder, based on the MINI. Elevated anxiety symptoms based on questionnaires were 38% for the AIR, 30% for the GAD-7, and 20% for the HADS-A. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was highest for the GAD-7 (0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.87), followed by the HADS-A (0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.84) and the AIR (0.66; 95% CI, 0.56-0.76). The AUC for the GAD-7 was significantly greater than for the AIR (P = 0.014). Sensitivity was not statistically different among the questionnaires: 77% for the GAD-7, 63% for the HADS-A, and 66% for the AIR. The HADS-A had the highest specificity, 85%, which was significantly higher than that of the GAD-7 (77%; P < 0.001) and the AIR (65%; P < 0.001); GAD-7 specificity was higher than AIR specificity (P < 0.001).Conclusions: Symptoms of anxiety among patients with COPD as identified by screening questionnaires were common and significantly higher than the prevalence of anxiety disorder meeting DSM-V criteria. The GAD-7, the HADS-A and the AIR questionnaires had fair to moderate psychometric properties as screening tools for anxiety in individuals with COPD, indicating the need for improved measures for this patient population.