↓ Skip to main content

Whither the “Improvement Standard”? Coverage for Severe Brain Injury after Jimmo v. Sebelius

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Whither the “Improvement Standard”? Coverage for Severe Brain Injury after Jimmo v. Sebelius
Published in
The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, January 2021
DOI 10.1177/1073110516644209
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joseph J. Fins, Megan S. Wright, Claudia Kraft, Alix Rogers, Marina B. Romani, Samantha Godwin, Michael R. Ulrich

Abstract

As improvements in neuroscience have enabled a better understanding of disorders of consciousness as well as methods to treat them, a hurdle that has become all too prevalent is the denial of coverage for treatment and rehabilitation services. In 2011, a settlement emerged from a Vermont District Court case, Jimmo v. Sebelius, which was brought to stop the use of an "improvement standard" that required tangible progress over an identifiable period of time for Medicare coverage of services. While the use of this standard can have deleterious effects on those with many chronic conditions, it is especially burdensome for those in the minimally conscious state (MCS), where improvements are unpredictable and often not manifested through repeatable overt behaviors. Though the focus of this paper is on the challenges of brain injury and the minimally conscious state, which an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 individuals suffer from in the United States, the post-Jimmo arguments presented can and should have a broad impact as envisioned by the plaintiffs who brought the case on behalf of multiple advocacy groups representing patients with a range of chronic care conditions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Lecturer 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 6 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 16%
Psychology 3 12%
Social Sciences 3 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 6 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 29 January 2017.
All research outputs
#824,825
of 20,581,464 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
#55
of 1,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,631
of 277,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,581,464 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,106 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 277,349 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 93% 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