Электронный научный журнал

Population aging is a major challenge of the 21st century, requiring an adequate statistical framework for geriatric care planning. The CIS countries, having inherited a unified Soviet accounting system, have developed diverging statistical approaches since 1991, which complicates cross-country comparisons and evidence-based resource allocation. Objective. To identify common features and key discrepancies in age-group accounting and geriatric care assessment in Russia, Belarus, Moldova, and Armenia; to evaluate their impact on resource planning; and to propose pathways for harmonizing statistical approaches. Materials and Methods. A comparative analysis of medical reporting forms, regulatory documents, and statistical classifiers from four CIS countries was conducted using a systemic approach. Results. Formal similarity of reporting forms was found, but specialized geriatric sections are absent. Age grouping is limited to five‑year intervals and the threshold of «above working age», which does not align with WHO recommendations (60–74, 75–89, 90+) and masks within‑group dynamics. Pension age thresholds, the scope of screening programs, and digitalization levels vary, reducing data comparability. Electronic registries are unevenly developed and not integrated into national systems. Conclusion. To enhance the managerial value of statistics, it is necessary to mandate the publication of data according to WHO age cohorts, unify data‑exchange protocols, establish an interstate working group, and supplement indicators with patients' functional status. Without these measures, reforms in geriatric care will rely on distorted information and yield low effectiveness.