Person:
Nozzolillo, Alixandra

Profile Picture

Email Address

AA Acceptance Date

Birth Date

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Job Title

Last Name

Nozzolillo

First Name

Alixandra

Name

Nozzolillo, Alixandra
Author's Publications: search.filters.isAuthorOfPublication.d6ab94fe-4d41-43f3-810d-efb4c6de1a97

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Potential Savings From Redetermining Disability Among Children Receiving Supplemental Security Income Benefits
    (Elsevier BV, 2012) Pulcini, Christian D.; Kotelchuck, Milton; Kuhlthau, Karen; Nozzolillo, Alixandra; Perrin, James
    Objective: To compare costs of redetermining disability to direct savings in SSI payments associated with different strategies for implementing Continuing Disability Reviews (CDRs) among children potentially enrolled in SSI from 2012–2021. Methods: We reviewed publicly available reports from the Social Security Administration (SSA) and Government Accountability Office (GAO) to estimate costs and savings. We considered CDRs for children ages 1–17 years, excluding mandated Low-Birth Weight and Age 18 Redeterminations that SSA has routinely carried out. Results: If SSA in 2012 performs the same number of CDRs for children as in 2010 (16,677, 1% of eligibles) at a cessation rate of 15%, the agency would experience net savings of approximately $145 million in benefit payments. If CDR numbers increased to the highest level ever (183,211, 22% of eligibles, in 1999) at the same cessation rate, the agency would save approximately $1.6 billion in benefit payments. Discussion: Increasing the numbers of CDRs for children represents a considerable opportunity for savings. Recognizing the dynamic nature of disability, the agency could reassess persistence of disability systematically. Doing so could free up resources from children who are no longer eligible and help the agency better direct its benefits to recipients with ongoing disability and whose families need support to meet the extra costs associated with raising a child with a major disability.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Interventions to Improve Screening and Follow-Up in Primary Care: A Systematic Review of the Evidence
    (Elsevier BV, 2012) Van Cleave, Jeanne; Kuhlthau, Karen; Bloom, Sheila; Newacheck, Paul W.; Nozzolillo, Alixandra; Homer, Charles; Perrin, James
    Background The American Academy of Pediatrics and other organizations recommend several screening tests as part of preventive care. The proportion of children who are appropriately screened and who receive follow-up care is low. Objective: To conduct a systematic review of the evidence for practice-based interventions to increase the proportion of patients receiving recommended screening and follow-up services in pediatric primary care. Data source: Medline database of journal citations. Study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions: We developed a strategy to search Medline to identify relevant articles. We selected search terms to capture categories of conditions (e.g., developmental disabilities, obesity), screening tests, specific interventions (e.g., quality improvement initiatives, electronic records enhancements), and primary care. We searched references of selected articles and reviewed articles suggested by experts. We included all studies with a distinct, primary care-based intervention and post-intervention screening data, and studies that focused on children and young adults (≤21 years of age). We excluded studies of newborn screening. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: Abstracts were screened by 2 reviewers and articles with relevant abstracts received full text review and evaluated for inclusion critieria. A structured tool was used to abstract data from selected articles. Because of heterogeneous interventions and outcomes, we did not attempt a meta-analysis. Results: From 2547 returned titles and abstracts, 23 articles were reviewed. Nine were pre-post comparisons, 5 were randomized trials, 3 were post-intervention comparisons with a control group, 3 were post-intervention cross-sectional analyses only, and 3 reported time series data. Of 14 articles with pre-intervention or control group data and significance testing, 12 reported increases in the proportion of patients appropriately screened. Interventions were heterogeneous and often multifaceted, and several types of interventions, such as provider/staff training, electronic medical record templates/prompts, and learning collaboratives, appeared effective in improving screening quality. Few articles described interventions to track screening results or referral completion for those with abnormal tests. Data were often limited by single-site, non-randomized design. Conclusions: Several feasible, practice- and provider-level interventions appear to increase the quality of screening in pediatric primary care. Evidence for interventions to improve follow-up of screening tests is scant. Future research should focus on which specific interventions are most effective, whether effects are sustained over time, and what interventions improve follow-up of abnormal screening tests.