Rural populations in the United States face unique healthcare challenges. These communities tend to be older, have higher mortality rates, and experience higher rates of chronic conditions and physical disabilities compared to urban populations. Despite the increased need for palliative care in rural areas, access remains alarmingly limited. Even in hospital settings, where palliative care programs are more common in urban areas, only 35% of rural hospitals report having such programs, compared to 81% of urban hospitals.

In this week's podcast, we explore the challenges and opportunities of delivering palliative care in rural communities with our esteemed guests Karl Bezak, Jeanie Youngwerth, Adie Goldberg, and Gregg Vandekieft. We begin by discussing what inspired each of them to focus on rural palliative care. From there, we dive into what rural palliative care looks like and examine how it differs from care provided in urban settings. Our guests also share insights into the challenges of delivering this care in resource-limited rural environments and explore innovative strategies to ensure patients and families receive the support they need (like providing remote fellowship training for docs living in rural areas!).

We also tackle the role of telemedicine in rural palliative care, both the good part, connecting patients in remote areas with specialists who might otherwise be unavailable, and the bad part, the huge digital divide seen in rural areas.

Join us for what I thought were some valuable insights our guests brought on how we can better serve rural populations and create a more equitable system for palliative care delivery. And if you want to learn more, check out some of these resources:

• University of Colorado's Community Hospice and Palliative Medicine (CHPM) Fellowship, which allows mid-career providers to obtain training while continuing to live and work in their community supported through online and distance learning technology

• Master of Science in Palliative Care Program: Master of Science Degree

• The Rural Health Information Hub's Rural Hospice and Palliative Care Overview

• Stratis Health's Rural Community-based Palliative Care resource center

• The Washington Rural Palliative Care Initiative website

• CAPC's Safety-Net and Rural Care website

• The paper validating the AI Algorithm used to identify patient in rural ED for the TeleGOC Pause Model at UPMC (SafeNET)

• A Google Site where Karl is hosting their most recent data related to the TeleGOC Pause Model

Today we're delighted to talk with Anne Walling, Neil Wenger, and Rebecca Sudore about a pragmatic implementation trial aimed at increasing advance care planning for primary care patients with serious illness in University of California clinics, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Seriously ill primary care patients were identified using structured data fields (meaning routinely captured without needing to read the chart or use natural language processing).

This study focused on patients without a completed advance directive or POLST form. This was a 3 arm trial that tested a nudge in the patient portal and a mailed advanced directive vs. the nudge plus a link to PrepareForYourCare vs. the nudge plus PrepareForYourCare plus a navigator reminding patients to talk with their doctor and bring any completed advance directives or POLST forms to the PCP visit.

In brief, the study found that at 2 years there were higher rates of advance directive or POLST in the electronic health record (about 20%) in the arm with the nudge plus PrepareForYourCare plus the navigator compared to the other 2 arms (around 13%). Rates of advance care planning discussions with primary care providers were similarly higher in the 3rd arm. Health care utilization, however, did not differ between arms. Please see links to articles describing the intervention in detail and incorporation of stakeholder perspectives.

I'm going to cut to the pushback to this article right up front:

• The study's primary outcomes were advanced directives or completion of POLST forms - haven't we moved beyond thinking completion of forms should be the primary outcome of advance care planning research?

• There was no control condition. Observed increases in advance directive or POLST in the electronic health record may have occurred without any intervention. People with serious illness get sicker with time and the sicker they are the more likely they are to engage in advance care planning, without any intervention. This is particularly true as the study occurred during the hight of the Covid pandemic, when there was a global effort to increase advance care planning. How much did these interventions contribute on top of that rise that might have occurred without intervention?

• Observed documentation - 13-20% - was low. Is it worth the effort of getting buy-in to automate these EHR nudges and spend FTE to hire a navigator? Particularly as health systems, who pushed for focusing on seriously ill patients because they are the most expensive/highest utilizers, did not get what they wanted, i.e. no difference in utilization of acute healthcare services between arms?

Our guests provide a strong defense and additional context, which you can and should listen to on the podcast. And I have to point out, setting aside the advance care planning aspect, the method of identifying upstream primary care patients with serious illness is a major contribution to the field in and of itself. Pioneers in the field, led by Amy Kelley, have been working to identify the seriously ill population for over a decade.

And a fun fact about All You Need is Love - the verses are in 7/4 time!

-Alex Smith

In 2025, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) began requiring hospitals participating in the Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting (IQR) program to report on a new "Age-Friendly Hospital Measure." The hope is that, by attesting to this measure, hospitals will develop evidence-based processes to improve care for older adults in hospital settings.

On this week's podcast, we explore this new measure with Sheri Ling, CMS's Deputy Chief Medical Officer serving in the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality (CCSQ). We've also invited some returning guests from our past Age Friendly Health Systems podcast, Julia Adler-Milstein and Stephanie Rogers, to discuss how they are thinking about this new measure and how we should operationalize it.

We go over everything you will want to know about the new measure, including:

• How does this CMS measure differ from both Age-Friendly Health Systems and the 4Ms movement we've been hearing about for years (and that we did the podcast on in 2020 here)

• Why is CMS finally making "Age-Friendly" a formal, structural requirement for hospitals now?

• What is an attestation measure vs outcome measure, and why is this one an attestation measure?

• A deeper dive into the 5 domains to the measure (Eliciting Patient Goals, Medication Management, Frailty Screening, Social Determinants of Health, and Leadership/Governance.

Lastly, here are some great resources if you want to help get this started at your hospital:

• A report by JAHF, Julia and others on how to think about different dimensions of measure performance

• Health Affairs Scholar paper on related the 4Ms to the 5 domains

• Two CMS resources with detailed information on how to meet and report on the five domains of this measure:

• • Age-Friendly Hospital Specifications (July 2025)

  • Age-Friendly Hospital Measure Attestation Guide