Search

Background: The increase in provision of assistive technology devices (ATDs) has spurred controversy over Medicare policy aimed at reducing cost-policy that forces social isolation and conflicts with legislation, facilitating participation for individuals with disabilities. In contrast, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) policy does not limit provision of AT to "in home" use only but rather, states "all enrolled and some non-enrolled veterans are eligible for all needed prosthetics.", Objectives: Examine ATD provision policy by comparing 2 systems, Medicare and VA. Empirically analyze differences in ATDs provided, cost, and duplication in provision., Research Design: Retrospective study of VA databases, including VA Medicare data., Subjects: A population based study of 12,0461 veterans post-stroke., Measures: Frequency of provision of ATDs by Health Care Common Procedural Code, purchase price, and capped rental payments., Results: Of the poststroke veteran cohort, 39% received no AT, 56% received AT from the VA only, 1% received AT from Medicare only, and 3% received AT from both the VA and Medicare. Most ATDs were for activities of daily living, followed by walkers/canes/crutches. In specific ATD comparisons, VA costs were substantially lower than Medicare for purchased items and slightly lower than Medicare for capped rental payments., Conclusion: VA provides a broader variety of ATDs at a lesser cost than Medicare. Analyses of policy differences between VA and Medicare suggest VA policy is driven by veteran need whereas Medicare policy is driven at least in part, by containing costs that have skyrocketed as a result of fraudulent claims.

Objectives: To examine variation in provision of assistive technology (AT) devices and the extent to which such variation may be explained by patient characteristics or Veterans Health Administration (VHA) administrative region., Design: Retrospective population-based study., Setting: VHA., Participants: Veterans poststroke in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 (N=12,046)., Interventions: Not applicable., Main Outcome Measure: Provision of 8 categories of AT devices., Results: There was considerable regional variation in provision of AT. For example, differences across administrative regions in the VHA ranged from 5.1 to 28.1 standard manual wheelchairs per 100 veterans poststroke. Using logistic regression, with only demographic variables as predictors of standard manual wheelchair provision, the c statistic was .62, and the pseudo R(2) was 2.5%. Adding disease severity increased the c statistic to .67 and the pseudo R(2) to 6.2%, and adding Veteran Integrated Network System further increased the c statistic to .72 and pseudo R(2) to 9.8%., Conclusions: Our research showed significant variation in the provision of AT devices to veterans poststroke, and it showed that patient characteristics accounted for only 6.2% of the variation. VHA administrative region and disability severity accounted for equivalent amounts of the variation. Our findings suggest the need for improvements in the process for providing AT and/or provider education concerning device provision., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS) report decreased satisfaction with their mobility devices compared with individuals with spinal cord injuries (SCIs). This study (1) investigated the demographic differences between veterans with MS (V-MS) and veterans with SCI (V-SCI) who were issued a wheelchair by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and (2) described differences in mobility device prescription. We merged two VHA databases to obtain demographic and wheelchair information for all V-MS and V-SCI in 2000 and 2001. Descriptive information for issued wheelchairs was available for 2,154 V-MS and V-SCI. We found that V-MS were significantly less likely to receive higher quality wheelchairs (manual or power) compared with V-SCI (p < 0.001). The disparity in VHA wheelchair prescription between these two groups indicates a need for further research regarding the assistive device prescription process in these populations.

During fiscal years 2000 and 2001, the Veterans Health Administration provided veterans with more than 131,000 wheelchairs and scooters at a cost of $109 million. This national study is the first to investigate Veterans Health Administration costs in providing wheelchairs and scooters and to compare regional prescription patterns. With a retrospective design, we used descriptive methods to analyze fiscal years 2000 and 2001 National Prosthetics Patient Database data (cleaned data set of 113,724 records). Wheelchairs were categorized by function, weight, and adjustability options for meeting individual needs (e.g., axle position, camber, position of wheels, tilt, and recline options). Results displayed a cost distribution that was negatively skewed by low-cost accessories coded as wheelchairs. Of the standard manual wheelchairs, 3.5% could be considered beyond the customary cost. Regionally, 71% to 86% of all wheelchairs provided were manual wheelchairs, 5% to 11% were power wheelchairs, and 5% to 20% were scooters. The considerable variation found in the types of wheelchairs and scooters provided across Veterans Integrated Service Networks may indicate a need for evidence-based prescription guidelines and clinician training in wheeled-mobility technologies.

Little is known about the reasoning process clinicians use when prescribing wheeled mobility equipment (WME) or about the outcomes of this process, i.e., how many devices are prescribed, to whom, how often, and at what cost. This study characterized veterans who received WME from the Veterans Health Administration. We analyzed variance in wheelchair provision based on sex, race/ethnicity, diagnosis, and age. Three years of data from the National Prosthetics Patient Database and the National Patient Care Database were merged, yielding more than 77,000 observations per fiscal year. Logistic regression analysis revealed associations between WME provision and age, sex, and race/ethnicity, when analysis was controlled for diagnosis and number of comorbidities. Hispanics (odds ratio [OR] = 1.864), African Americans (OR = 1.360), and American Indians/Asians (OR = 1.585) were more likely than Caucasians to receive standard wheelchairs. Hispanics (OR = 0.4), African Americans (OR = 0.7), and American Indians/Asians (OR = 0.4) were less likely than Caucasians to receive scooters.

The appropriateness of a consumer's seating and mobility system varies considerably depending on the competence, proficiency, and experience of the professionals assisting the user. At present, there is a scarcity of skilled and knowledgeable therapists to evaluate and recommend seating and mobility devices. There is also a lack of measurement tests available to evaluate the impact of educational experiences or clinical practice on the ability to make specialized clinical decisions about seating and mobility needs. The Seating and Mobility Script Concordance Test (SMSCT) is a new assessment tool, grounded in the hypothetico-deductive and schema theories of clinical reasoning. The test is designed to assess therapists by examining the organization of their knowledge, associations between items of their knowledge, and the adequacy of their clinical decisions as compared to expert consensus. This article describes the interview, test development, and content/item review processes used for the collection of content validity evidence. The iterative process employed and the appraisal of the content validity evidence that resulted in the final version of the SMSCT are presented. The SMSCT appears to be a promising assessment tool representing content within the domain of seating and mobility for individuals with spinal cord injuries. The process utilized to develop the SMSCT in spinal cord injury can be replicated for other diagnoses and domains.