↓ Skip to main content

The Proactive Patient: Long-Term Care Insurance Discrimination Risks of Alzheimer's Disease Biomarkers

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, January 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
13 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Proactive Patient: Long-Term Care Insurance Discrimination Risks of Alzheimer's Disease Biomarkers
Published in
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, January 2021
DOI 10.1177/1073110518782955
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jalayne J. Arias, Ana M. Tyler, Benjamin J. Oster, Jason Karlawish

Abstract

Previously diagnosed by symptoms alone, Alzheimer's disease is now also defined by measures of amyloid and tau, referred to as "biomarkers." Biomarkers are detectible up to twenty years before symptoms present and open the door to predicting the risk of Alzheimer's disease. While these biomarkers provide information that can help individuals and families plan for long-term care services and supports, insurers could also use this information to discriminate against those who are more likely to need such services. In this article, we evaluate whether state laws prohibit long-term care insurers from making discriminatory or unfair underwriting and coverage decisions based Alzheimer's disease biomarkers status. We report data demonstrating that current state laws do not provide meaningful protections from discrimination by long-term care insurers based on biomarker information.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 25%
Other 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 25%
Psychology 1 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 7 44%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 August 2020.
All research outputs
#890,410
of 16,699,900 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
#57
of 977 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,620
of 280,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,699,900 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 977 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,340 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them