↓ Skip to main content

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

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#18 of 739)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Lecturer 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Other 3 15%
Unknown 4 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 20%
Social Sciences 3 15%
Psychology 2 10%
Sports and Recreations 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 4 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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
#400,311
of 12,550,439 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
#18
of 739 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,404
of 263,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,550,439 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 739 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 263,120 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 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