teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 11 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 1

auto-fix: strip 7 broken wiki links

Browse source 
Pipeline auto-fixer: removed [[ ]] brackets from links
that don't resolve to existing claims in the knowledge base.
This commit is contained in:
Teleo Agents 2026-03-16 11:33:19 +00:00
parent b6193b41d6
commit 7b04edcc72
3 changed files with 7 additions and 7 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

4
domains/health/pace-demonstrates-integrated-care-averts-institutionalization-through-community-based-delivery-not-cost-reduction.md
View file

@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ Some evidence indicates lower mortality rates among PACE enrollees, suggesting q
### Additional Evidence (extend)
*Source: [[2021-02-00-pmc-japan-ltci-past-present-future]] | Added: 2026-03-15 | Extractor: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5*
*Source: 2021-02-00-pmc-japan-ltci-past-present-future | Added: 2026-03-15 | Extractor: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5*
Japan's LTCI provides a national-scale comparison point for PACE's integrated care model. LTCI offers both facility-based and home-based care chosen by beneficiaries, integrating medical care with welfare services across 7 care level tiers. As of 2015, the system served 5+ million beneficiaries (17% of 65+ population) — compared to PACE's 90,000 enrollees in the US. If the US had equivalent coverage, that would represent ~11.4 million people. Japan's experience demonstrates that integrated care delivery can operate at national scale through mandatory insurance, though financial sustainability under extreme aging demographics (28.4% elderly, rising to 40%) remains an ongoing challenge requiring premium and copayment adjustments.
@ -52,4 +52,4 @@ Relevant Notes:
- [[social isolation costs Medicare 7 billion annually and carries mortality risk equivalent to smoking 15 cigarettes per day making loneliness a clinical condition not a personal problem]]
Topics:
- [[health/_map]]
- health/_map

4
domains/health/the healthcare attractor state is a prevention-first system where aligned payment continuous monitoring and AI-augmented care delivery create a flywheel that profits from health rather than sickness.md
View file

@ -287,13 +287,13 @@ PACE provides the most comprehensive real-world test of the prevention-first att
### Additional Evidence (extend)
*Source: [[2024-09-19-commonwealth-fund-mirror-mirror-2024]] | Added: 2026-03-12 | Extractor: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5*
*Source: 2024-09-19-commonwealth-fund-mirror-mirror-2024 | Added: 2026-03-12 | Extractor: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5*
The Commonwealth Fund's 2024 international comparison provides evidence that the prevention-first attractor state is not theoretical — peer nations demonstrate it empirically. The top performers (Australia, Netherlands) achieve better health outcomes with lower spending as percentage of GDP, suggesting their systems have structural features that prevent rather than treat. The US paradox (2nd in care process, last in outcomes, highest spending, lowest efficiency) reveals a system optimized for treating sickness rather than producing health. The efficiency domain rankings (US among worst — highest spending, lowest return) quantify the cost of a sick-care attractor state. The international benchmark shows that systems with better access, equity, and prevention orientation achieve superior outcomes at lower cost, suggesting the prevention-first attractor state is achievable and economically superior to the current US sick-care model.
### Additional Evidence (confirm)
*Source: [[2025-07-24-kff-medicare-advantage-2025-enrollment-update]] | Added: 2026-03-15*
*Source: 2025-07-24-kff-medicare-advantage-2025-enrollment-update | Added: 2026-03-15*
C-SNP growth of 71% in one year shows MA plans are rapidly building chronic disease management infrastructure. With 21% of MA enrollment now in SNPs (up from 14% in 2020), the market is structurally shifting toward continuous care management models that align with prevention-first economics.

6
domains/health/value-based care transitions stall at the payment boundary because 60 percent of payments touch value metrics but only 14 percent bear full risk.md
View file

@ -19,19 +19,19 @@ The Making Care Primary model's termination in June 2025 (after just 12 months,
### Additional Evidence (extend)
*Source: [[2014-00-00-aspe-pace-effect-costs-nursing-home-mortality]] | Added: 2026-03-10 | Extractor: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5*
*Source: 2014-00-00-aspe-pace-effect-costs-nursing-home-mortality | Added: 2026-03-10 | Extractor: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5*
PACE represents the extreme end of value-based care alignment—100% capitation with full financial risk for a nursing-home-eligible population. The ASPE/HHS evaluation shows that even under complete payment alignment, PACE does not reduce total costs but redistributes them (lower Medicare acute costs in early months, higher Medicaid chronic costs overall). This suggests that the 'payment boundary' stall may not be primarily a problem of insufficient risk-bearing. Rather, the economic case for value-based care may rest on quality/preference improvements rather than cost reduction. PACE's 'stall' is not at the payment boundary—it's at the cost-savings promise. The implication: value-based care may require a different success metric (outcome quality, institutionalization avoidance, mortality reduction) than the current cost-reduction narrative assumes.
### Additional Evidence (extend)
*Source: [[2024-08-01-jmcp-glp1-persistence-adherence-commercial-populations]] | Added: 2026-03-15 | Extractor: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5*
*Source: 2024-08-01-jmcp-glp1-persistence-adherence-commercial-populations | Added: 2026-03-15 | Extractor: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5*
GLP-1 persistence data illustrates why value-based care requires risk alignment: with only 32.3% of non-diabetic obesity patients remaining on GLP-1s at one year (15% at two years), the downstream savings that justify the upfront drug cost never materialize for 85% of patients. Under fee-for-service, the pharmacy benefit pays the cost but doesn't capture the avoided hospitalizations. Under partial risk (upside-only), providers have no incentive to invest in adherence support because they don't bear the cost of discontinuation. Only under full risk (capitation) does the entity paying for the drug also capture the downstream savings—but only if adherence is sustained. This makes GLP-1 economics a test case for whether value-based care can solve the "who pays vs. who benefits" misalignment.
### Additional Evidence (confirm)
*Source: [[2025-03-01-medicare-prior-authorization-glp1-near-universal]] | Added: 2026-03-15*
*Source: 2025-03-01-medicare-prior-authorization-glp1-near-universal | Added: 2026-03-15*
Medicare Advantage plans bearing full capitated risk increased GLP-1 prior authorization from <5% to nearly 100% within two years (2023-2025), demonstrating that even full-risk capitation does not automatically align incentives toward prevention when short-term cost pressures dominate. Both BCBS and UnitedHealthcare implemented universal PA despite theoretical alignment under capitation.