Search

The American Geriatrics Society (AGS) has consistently advocated for a healthcare system that meets the needs of older adults, including addressing impacts of ageism in healthcare. The intersection of structural racism and ageism compounds the disadvantage experienced by historically marginalized communities. Structural racism and ageism have long been ingrained in all aspects of US society, including healthcare. This intersection exacerbates disparities in social determinants of health, including poor access to healthcare and poor outcomes. These deeply rooted societal injustices have been brought to the forefront of the collective public consciousness at different points throughout history. The COVID-19 pandemic laid bare and exacerbated existing inequities inflicted on historically marginalized communities. Ageist rhetoric and policies during the COVID-19 pandemic further marginalized older adults. Although the detrimental impact of structural racism on health has been well-documented in the literature, generative research on the intersection of structural racism and ageism is limited. The AGS is working to identify and dismantle the healthcare structures that create and perpetuate these combined injustices and, in so doing, create a more just US healthcare system. This paper is intended to provide an overview of important frameworks and guide future efforts to both identify and eliminate bias within healthcare delivery systems and health professions training with a particular focus on the intersection of structural racism and ageism., (© 2022 The American Geriatrics Society.)

The American Geriatrics Society is committed to taking purposeful steps to address racism in health care, given its impact on older adults, their families, and our communities. In fall 2020, AGS added a statement to our vision for the future, which reflects that our commitment is central to mission: "We all are supported by and able to contribute to communities where ageism, ableism, classism, homophobia, racism, sexism, xenophobia, and other forms of bias and discrimination no longer impact healthcare access, quality, and outcomes for older adults and their caregivers." In 2021, we will be working to flesh out a multi-year, multi-pronged initiative that addresses the intersection of structural racism and ageism in health care. This will include engaging members in identifying strategies and with the goal of increasing member engagement around the idea that it will take all of us working together to achieve our vision for a collective future that is free of discrimination and bias. The Society has set as the first objective that by 2031, 100% of research presented at the AGS Annual Scientific Meeting and published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (JAGS) will reflect the diversity of the population being studied. Other immediate efforts include undertaking a complete update of the Geriatrics Cultural Navigator, development of corresponding public education materials, and a webinar series focused on helping us all understand our own implicit bias, recognize implicit and explicit bias, and consider actions that we each might take to address bias when we observe it., (© 2021 The American Geriatrics Society.)

Supporting gender equity for women working in geriatrics is important to the growth of geriatrics across disciplines and is critical in achieving our vision for a future in which we are all able to contribute to our communities and maintain our health, safety, and independence as we age. Discrimination can have a negative impact on public health, particularly with regard to those who care for the health of older Americans and other vulnerable older people. Women working in the field of geriatrics have experienced implicit and explicit discriminatory practices that mirror available data on the entire workforce. In this position article, we outline strategic objectives and accompanying practical recommendations for how geriatrics, as a field, can work together to achieve a future in which the rights of women are guaranteed and women in geriatrics have the opportunity to achieve their full potential. This article represents the official positions of the American Geriatrics Society. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2447-2454, 2019., (© 2019 The American Geriatrics Society.)

Through the National Institute on Aging's (NIA's) "Grants for Early Medical/Surgical Specialists" Transition to Aging Research (GEMSSTAR) U13 grant, the NIA and the American Geriatrics Society (AGS) developed three transdisciplinary research conferences with a focus on mentoring and leadership skills development. The NIA's GEMSSTAR program evolved from two earlier programs, the AGS' Dennis W. Jahnigen and the Association of Specialty Professors' T. Franklin Williams Career Development Scholars Awards. It supports the continued cultivation of the next generation of medical and surgical specialty researchers with an interest in aging research. The award requires both geriatrics and specialty mentoring and currently provides up to $150,000 a year in direct support to scholars. Additionally, the award requires that scholars have a professional development plan that is complementary to the GEMSSTAR award. The U13 conferences, focused on frailty, models of aging, and cognition, brought together GEMSSTAR scholars, former scholars, innovators, mentors, and leaders in aging research, the specialties, and geriatric medicine. This article describes the themes of each of the GEMSSTAR U13 conferences and highlights the lessons learned on mentoring, team science, aging research networks, and work-life balance. We plan to use these lessons to guide the support we provide to the growing group of emerging leaders who are poised to lead the transdisciplinary research network of the future. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:650-656, 2019., (© 2019 The American Geriatrics Society.)

Background/objectives: To optimize health and well-being for all older people, we must collectively develop leaders to pioneer models of care, educate the healthcare workforce, advance research, and engage the community., Methods: The Emerging Leaders in Aging (ELIA) program was created to train a multiprofessional cadre of leaders focused on the health and well-being of older people. ELIA uses the social change curricular framework and addresses knowledge of self, community, and engagement with change. Program impact measured included scholar satisfaction, confidence related to curricular domains before and after the program, project progress, and scholar productivity., Results: Four cohorts of 65 scholars in seven health professions from 24 states were selected for the year-long 55-hour program. Overall satisfaction from members of the first three cohorts who have completed the program (n = 46) was 4.86 (scale = 1-5), and scholar confidence increased from 5.8 to 8.0 (scale = 1-9) (p < .001). These scholars reported 85 presentations, 63 publications, and 21 awards subsequent to training. All scholars described the importance of a program focused on early and mid-career leaders in health and aging., Discussion: The ELIA program leverages longitudinal, distance mentor communities, and project-based learning strategies. It has improved confidence and skills in emerging leaders who commit their efforts toward the care of older persons. Programs like ELIA are critical to preparing a healthcare workforce to optimize care for all as our health needs and expectations change with age. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:437-442, 2019., (© 2019 The American Geriatrics Society.)

After passage of the 21st Century Cures Act, the National Institutes of Health held a workshop in 2017 to consider expanding its inclusion policy to encompass individuals of all ages. American Geriatrics Society (AGS) leaders and members participated in the workshop and formal feedback period. AGS advocacy clearly impacted the resulting workshop report and Inclusion Across the Lifespan policy that eliminates upper-age limits for research participation unless risk justified and changes the language used to describe older adults and other vulnerable groups. AGS recommendations that were not specifically stated in the updated policy were to encourage active recruitment of older adults, add standard measures of function and/or frailty, and change review criteria to ensure the health status of a study population mirrors typical clinical populations. The updated inclusion policy ultimately offers academic geriatrics programs the opportunities to expand knowledge about health in aging and to continue to provide leadership for research and advocacy efforts on behalf of older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:211-217, 2019., (© 2019 The American Geriatrics Society.)

In July 2018, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released its proposed Medicare Physician Fee Schedule rule for calendar year 2019 (MPFS2019). The proposal sets forth CMS-recommended updates to Medicare payment policies, payment rates, and quality provisions for services provided in the next calendar year. From year to year, the rule also can serve as a vehicle for soliciting input on new payment proposals and changes to existing policies. Among the payment and quality proposals in the MPFS2019 proposal, CMS proposed extensive changes to Current Procedural Terminology codes that are the framework for documentation and payment for office-based evaluation and management (E/M) services. The American Geriatrics Society (AGS) believes the proposed payment methodology changes for E/M services would have had a significant negative impact on care for older Americans. On September 10, 2018, the AGS submitted its comments on this proposal and other aspects of the rule, and the AGS also submitted a comment letter signed by 41 organizations from an AGS-led multispecialty coalition. The coalition also worked collaboratively on outreach to Congress, which included visits to Capitol Hill and a coalition letter stressing our collective support for reducing the burden of documentation for clinicians and our opposition to the proposed changes in payment methodology. In all letters, we noted that the AGS and members of our coalition hoped to work collaboratively with CMS and other stakeholders to develop a refined approach that would achieve the best possible outcomes for patients, particularly frail older Americans with multiple chronic conditions. In releasing their final MPFS2019, CMS postponed the E/M coding collapse for at least two years, a decision that speaks to the hard work of the AGS, its members, and the multi-specialty coalition, and which opens the door for further discussions about the future of payment for E/M services so critical to older people. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:145-150, 2019., (© 2018, Copyright the Authors Journal compilation © 2018, The American Geriatrics Society.)

This article examines the work and leadership of the American Geriatrics Society in making payment for services provided under new, innovative payment codes a reality for geriatrics healthcare professionals. We examine more than a decade of work spanning from a proposal to pay for comprehensive geriatric assessments in 2003 to the multiyear effort that led to Medicare coverage for transitional care management (2013), chronic care management (2015, 2017), and assessment and care planning for cognitive impairment (2017). We review the forces that created an environment for change and the concurrent work of the American Medical Association and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that made this possible. We highlight opportunities seized that led to seats on crucial panels and legislative victories that helped us make our case for improved payment for geriatrics care. Finally, we address lessons learned and address opportunities where we are currently active. J Am Geriatr Soc 66:2059-2064, 2018., (© 2018, Copyright the Authors Journal compilation © 2018, The American Geriatrics Society.)

In the early 1990s, visionary leaders at the American Geriatrics Society and The John A. Hartford Foundation recognized that the marked and growing shortage of geriatrics healthcare professionals would lead to a U.S. healthcare system ill prepared to provide optimal care for the ever-increasing number of older Americans. Led by the late Dennis W. Jahnigen, MD, they set forth a plan to address this shortage by collaborating with surgical and related medical specialists to create a series of programs to foster the highest quality care of older adults. Their unique programmatic vision was that every physician, not just geriatricians, would have basic knowledge and skills in geriatric care, because geriatricians cannot and should not meet the need alone., (© 2017, Copyright the Authors Journal compilation © 2017, The American Geriatrics Society.)

This paper is a statement of the American Geriatrics Society's (AGS) core policy priorities and the Society's positions on federal programs and policies that support older Americans as articulated to the new administration. Among the AGS priorities discussed in this paper are health reform, Medicare, and Medicaid. The AGS is committed to leveraging its expertise to inform regulatory and legislative policy proposals., (© 2017, Copyright the Authors Journal compilation © 2017, The American Geriatrics Society.)

The Beers Criteria are a valuable tool for clinical care and quality improvement but may be misinterpreted and implemented in ways that cause unintended harms. This article describes the intended role of the 2015 American Geriatrics Society (AGS) Beers Criteria and provides guidance on how patients, clinicians, health systems, and payors should use them. A key theme underlying these recommendations is to use common sense and clinical judgment in applying the 2015 AGS Beers Criteria and to remain mindful of nuances in the criteria. The criteria serve as a "warning light" to identify medications that have an unfavorable balance of benefits and harms in many older adults, particularly when compared with pharmacological and nonpharmacological alternatives. However, there are situations in which use of medications included in the criteria can be appropriate. As such, the 2015 AGS Beers Criteria work best not only when they identify potentially inappropriate medications, but also when they educate clinicians and patients about the reasons those medications are included and the situations in which their use may be more or less problematic. The criteria are designed to support, rather than supplant, good clinical judgment., (© 2015, Copyright the Authors Journal compilation © 2015, The American Geriatrics Society.)

In 1994, under the leadership of the late Dennis Jahnigen, the American Geriatrics Society, with support of the John A. Hartford Foundation, began a project to improve the amount and quality of geriatrics education that surgical and related medical specialty residents receive. The targeted disciplines initially were general surgery, emergency medicine, gynecology, orthopedic surgery, and urology and, later, anesthesiology, ophthalmology, otolaryngology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and thoracic surgery. A key element of this project was to develop model programs within surgical and related specialty residency education. The Geriatrics Education for Specialty Residents (GESR) program has supported 29 residencies to pilot methods for integration of geriatrics within residency programs, encouraged and inspired development of curricular content, and helped to develop faculty leaders to support these efforts in the long term and at a national level. This paper describes the GESR program, the status of curriculum development, steps for other programs to use in developing a geriatrics education program, and some of the common barriers likely to be encountered during implementation along with solutions to those barriers.