• Out of sight, out of mind. Fear and misperceptions ultimately fuel a lack of attention to older adult health, but keeping aging "off the radar" does little to remedy impediments to health as we grow older.In light of this, we are qualifying the AMA recommendation for referring to a person's age. Specifically, JAGS will require that authors use the term "older adult" when describing individuals aged 65 and older. Authors will also

This policy brief sets forth the American Geriatrics Society's (AGS's) recommendations to guide federal, state, and local governments when making decisions about care for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) in nursing homes (NHs) and other long‐term care facilities (LTCFs). The AGS continues to review guidance set forth in peer‐reviewed articles and editorials, as well as ongoing and updated guidance from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other key agencies. This brief is based on the situation and any federal guidance/actions as of April 4, 2020. It is focused on NHs and other LTCFs, given their essential role in addressing the COVID‐19 pandemic. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:908–911, 2020

After passage of the 21st Century Cures Act, the National Institutes of Health held a workshop in 2017 to consider expanding its inclusion policy to encompass individuals of all ages. American Geriatrics Society (AGS) leaders and members participated in the workshop and formal feedback period. AGS advocacy clearly impacted the resulting workshop report and Inclusion Across the Lifespan policy that eliminates upper‐age limits for research participation unless risk justified and changes the language used to describe older adults and other vulnerable groups. AGS recommendations that were not specifically stated in the updated policy were to encourage active recruitment of older adults, add standard measures of function and/or frailty, and change review criteria to ensure the health status of a study population mirrors typical clinical populations. The updated inclusion policy ultimately offers academic geriatrics programs the opportunities to expand knowledge about health in aging and to continue to provide leadership for research and advocacy efforts on behalf of older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:211–217, 2019.

No abstract

In July 2018, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released its proposed Medicare Physician Fee Schedule rule for calendar year 2019 (MPFS2019). The proposal sets forth CMS‐recommended updates to Medicare payment policies, payment rates, and quality provisions for services provided in the next calendar year. From year to year, the rule also can serve as a vehicle for soliciting input on new payment proposals and changes to existing policies. Among the payment and quality proposals in the MPFS2019 proposal, CMS proposed extensive changes to Current Procedural Terminology codes that are the framework for documentation and payment for office‐based evaluation and management (E/M) services. The American Geriatrics Society (AGS) believes the proposed payment methodology changes for E/M services would have had a significant negative impact on care for older Americans. On September 10, 2018, the AGS submitted its comments on this proposal and other aspects of the rule, and the AGS also submitted a comment letter signed by 41 organizations from an AGS‐led multispecialty coalition. The coalition also worked collaboratively on outreach to Congress, which included visits to Capitol Hill and a coalition letter stressing our collective support for reducing the burden of documentation for clinicians and our opposition to the proposed changes in payment methodology. In all letters, we noted that the AGS and members of our coalition hoped to work collaboratively with CMS and other stakeholders to develop a refined approach that would achieve the best possible outcomes for patients, particularly frail older Americans with multiple chronic conditions. In releasing their final MPFS2019, CMS postponed the E/M coding collapse for at least two years, a decision that speaks to the hard work of the AGS, its members, and the multi‐specialty coalition, and which opens the door for further discussions about the future of payment for E/M services so critical to older people. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:145–150, 2019.

This editorial comments on the article by https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15853 in this issue.

No abstract

Our editorial began a multiyear effort to reframe how policy-makers and the general public view older people. 2 Our goal is to reduce our reliance on terms that might impede others from hearing what geriatrics experts have to say because of the language we use. 2,3 We are delighted to report that the Editors-in-Chief of our other AGS journals followed our lead, and we hope other journals will too. [4][5][6] We want to be clear that the AGS and its journals will not stop talking about age-related disability, frailty, functional limitations, multimorbidity, decline, and death. Supporting frail older adults is the substance of what our members do and is the focus of our own policy and educational work. In this context, we see the LAO-FWI recommendations as an opportunity to become better communicators and potentially to reach a wider audience when sharing our work and the passion of our members. One clear message from the FWI reports is that the aging community needs to do a better job of meeting our audiences halfway by using language that resonates with average Americans and policy-makers and that invites them into the conversation as partners for meaningful change.2,3 That means remaining realistic about what aging entails, but it also means educating the general public using new techniques that can open doors to a new understanding of what "aging" really means. 2,3As we have worked with the LAO-FWI recommendations, we have learned that we may not be able to use all of the new frames available to us, and we have identified some adaptations that will serve us in good stead as we move into the next phase of this work.A couple examples of incremental adjustments we have made when contextualizing (or framing) aging to help our external audiences (policy-makers and the public) better hear what we have to say are in order.2,7 First, earlier this year (as summarized in JAGS), we sent a series of letters to President Trump and leaders in the Senate and House of Representatives conveying our interest in collaborating on federal programs and policies that are important to older adults. 7 In the letters, we adapted the "social justice frame" that FWI proposed. 3,8 That frame helped us convey a simple message: Supporting social justice for us all as we age is our best chance for ensuring that all older Americans can remain in their homes and communities. 7 We then examined our advocacy on behalf of the geriatrics workforce through the lens of the LAO-FWI collaboration. After reviewing FWI recommendations, we identified that our framing of workforce issues could be improved. 3 We found value in the "building momentum" metaphor that FWI proposed. This metaphor emphasizes that we can "gather momentum through the build-up of experience and insights" over time, which makes a compelling case for the important roles geriatrics healthcare professionals play in keeping health care attuned to concepts like frailty, which will play an increasingly significant role in quality care as more of us age. 9,10The AGS is committed to evolving...