A research workspace, every source attached, spanning healthcare-system context, palliative and hospice evidence, health equity, policy models, spiritual care, and evidence coverage. These are evidence domains within Values in Care—not the definition of the product itself.
Evidence snapshot last updated: August 30, 2026. Source dates, populations, and methods vary by item.
Visualizations are for education, research context, and review. Population statistics and program rules do not provide individualized clinical guidance, and a resolving citation does not by itself prove claim-to-source fidelity.
Values in Care can support you by:
Published global estimates describe serious health-related suffering, palliative-care need, and access. Interpret them within the population, year, and methodology of each source.
56.8M
Need palliative care
25.7M
In last year of life
61M
Serious health suffering
14%
Currently receive care
74% increase from 1990 to 2021
1990 is derived from the cited 74% increase and the 2021 figure; the source states the change and the endpoint, not a year-by-year series.
The figures below describe Medicare hospice use in the cited 2022 cohort; they are not current-plan eligibility guidance or estimates for every population.
49.1% of Medicare decedents in the cited 2022 cohort received at least one day of hospice care. The complement (50.9%) is 100 minus the cited 49.1%.
1.72M
Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in hospice care in the cited 2022 data.
Medicare, Medicaid, and other payment or delivery models can shape how participating organizations are paid and measured. They do not determine what treatment an individual person should choose, guarantee a particular service, or establish that a Values in Care prompt is reimbursable.
The cards below are rendered from the same source registry used elsewhere in the Data Hub. Program status, dates, and claims are kept separate from Values in Care's own directional interpretation.
CMS
Hospice Outcomes & Patient Evaluation
HOPE replaced the Hospice Item Set for Medicare-certified hospices beginning October 1, 2025, with required admission and HOPE Update Visit (HUV) assessments.
CMMI
Guiding an Improved Dementia Experience Model
GUIDE began July 1, 2024 and runs for eight years through June 2032, providing comprehensive dementia care including a per-beneficiary-per-month payment, 24/7 support, and a respite benefit.
CMS
Medicare Shared Savings Program
The Medicare Shared Savings Program launched in 2012 and remains Medicare’s permanent accountable-care program for participating ACOs; CMS publishes annual performance and savings results.
CMMI
ACO Realizing Equity, Access, and Community Health
ACO REACH performance years are 2023 through 2026; the model advances accountable care with health-equity requirements and capitation options, and 2026 is its final performance year before transition.
CMMI
Kidney Care Choices
Kidney Care Choices launched in 2022; the CKCC options were extended through 2027, while the KCF option ended after 2025. The model tests value-based payment for advanced CKD and ESRD care.
CMMI
Transforming Episode Accountability Model
TEAM is an active mandatory episode-based payment model running January 1, 2026 through December 31, 2030 for selected surgical episodes in chosen CBSAs.
SAMHSA / CMS
Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics
The federal CCBHC demonstration began in 2017. CCBHCs deliver a defined scope of coordinated mental-health and substance-use services, including crisis services, under federal certification criteria and Medicaid prospective-payment arrangements.
CMS
Expanded Home Health Value-Based Purchasing Model
The Expanded HHVBP Model adjusts Medicare fee-for-service payments to home health agencies based on quality performance, applied nationally starting CY 2023 with the first payment year in CY 2025.
CMMI
Making Care Primary
Making Care Primary launched July 1, 2024 but CMS ended the model early on June 30, 2025. Its original design used three progressive primary-care tracks across eight states.
They describe program design, participating organizations, reporting requirements, payment structures, and policy timelines. They can help explain the system around a decision.
They do not establish a person's values, prove that one care option is preferable, or replace plan-specific coverage information and individualized clinical advice.
Population-level inequities can reveal barriers in systems and access. They should not be converted into assumptions about an individual person or community.
78%
of people estimated to need palliative care live in low- and middle-income countries, according to the cited global source
74%
increase in the cited estimate of global serious health-related suffering from 1990 to 2021
This section deliberately publishes fewer claims than earlier versions. We retain source-bounded findings and expose the remaining review queue rather than turning heterogeneous studies into unsupported group scores or local generalizations.
A Rutgers policy review summarizes documented palliative- and end-of-life-care inequities affecting historically underserved populations, including racial and ethnic minority groups, LGBTQ+ people, people with learning disabilities, people experiencing homelessness or poverty, people in remote or rural areas, and people in prison. This is a synthesis signal—not a single comparable effect size across those populations.
A 2020 literature review identified five published local advance-care-planning initiatives in Black faith communities. Its implementation themes included faith leadership, trust, cultural competence, use of existing ministries, and attention to health disparities. The review supports those implementation lessons; it does not establish that every church-based program produces the same clinical outcome.
Read the reviewThe Center for Health Care Strategies describes a Louisville serious-illness initiative that engaged faith leaders in needs assessment, planning, and community partnerships. We treat it as an implementation example, not an effectiveness trial or proof of a measured outcome.
Read the program descriptionEvidence queue
A reviewer can contribute one source, correct one interpretation, or recommend a better denominator. Review of a bounded item does not imply endorsement of everything else.
Review this evidence →For provider-level decisions, use regulator and Medicare tools rather than community generalizations. Values in Care does not rank or endorse local hospice providers.
Palliative-care frameworks recognize spiritual care as a quality domain. Training, availability, relevance, and desired involvement vary by person and setting.
What this research workspace covers, where current depth is concentrated, and how readers can inspect the source trail.
Values in Care currently includes sourced material across 14 faith traditions and worldviews. Much of this evidence base was developed first for serious-illness and end-of-life decisions; it is now treated as one optional contextual layer within the broader product.
Explore traditions & worldviewsQuantitative figures should resolve to a cited source or a disclosed derivation from cited values. Derived quantities are labeled as such. Unsupported quantities, artificial scores, and unresolved estimates should be omitted or clearly marked for review rather than presented as fact.
View full bibliographySource-linked records are available throughout the page. The broader bibliography currently contains 248 citation records across the product.
World Health Organization
Global palliative-care facts and estimates
The Lancet Commission
Serious health-related suffering and access
NHPCO / National Alliance
U.S. hospice facts and figures 2024
National Consensus Project
Clinical practice guidelines, 4th edition
European Association for Palliative Care
Spiritual-care education material
NJ State Policy Lab / Rutgers
Palliative-care inequities context
Download the citation dataset: JSON · CSV · BibTeX · RIS · methodology
Data integrity statement
Visualizations on this page use cited public sources or disclosed derivations from cited values. Source resolution, automated validation, and citation presence are useful controls, but they do not substitute for human claim-to-source fidelity review. Where evidence is incomplete or interpretation is required, the safer state is to narrow, label, or omit the claim.
Evidence snapshot last updated: August 30, 2026. Time-sensitive items require shorter review intervals than evergreen background evidence.
Values in Care is an independent educational resource. It is not medical advice. For an individual healthcare decision, use appropriate qualified clinicians and other professionals relevant to that decision.