MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2006982272 · doi:10.1001/jama.299.23.2789

The Perfect Storm of Overutilization

2008· article· en· W2006982272 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ezekiel J. Emanuel

Notice bibliographique

RevueJAMA · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
ThématiqueHealthcare Policy and Management
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineStormMeteorology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The United States spends substantially more per person on health care than any other country, and yet US health outcomes are the same as or worse than those in other coutries. In 2005, the last year for which comparative statistics are available, the United States spent $6401 per person, whereas the next highest spending was in Norway and Switzerland, $4364 and $4177, respectively (TABLE). Overall, US health care expenditures are 2.4 times the average of those of all developed countries ($2759 per person), yet health outcomes for US patients, whether measured by life expectancy, disease-specific mortality rates, or other variables, are unimpressive (Table). There are many explanations for the higher costs of US health care. Because health insurance must be underwritten and sold to individual employers and self-insured individuals, administrative costs exceed $145 billion. This does not include employers’ costs for purchasing and managing employees’ health insurance. One estimate suggests that the private employer insurance market wastes more than $50 billion in administrative costs. A second factor is higher prices in the United States for important inputs to health care, such as physicians’ services, prescription drugs, and diagnostic testing. US physicians earn double the income of their peers in other industrialized countries (Table). Similarly, prices to the public for drugs in the United States are 10% to 30% higher than in other developed countries. Disparities in prices of inputs to health care account for at least $100 billion annually of higher spending in the United States. A third contributor to US costs is the abundance of amenities. Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy, comfort, and auxiliary services than do hospital rooms in most other countries. US physicians’ offices are typically more conveniently located and have parking nearby and more attractive waiting rooms. Overutilization of Health Care The most important contributor to the high cost of US health care, however, is overutilization. Overutilization can take 2 forms: higher volumes, such as more office visits, hospitalizations, tests, procedures, and prescriptions than are appropriate or more costly specialists, tests, procedures, and prescriptions than are appropriate. It ismorecostly care, rather thanhighvolume, that accounts for higher expenditures in the United States. The volume of services is not extreme. A hospitalization rate of 121 per 1000 US patients is higher than that of Japan (106) but considerably lower than the rate in Switzerland (157), Norway (173), and France (268) and lower than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average (163) (Table). TheUShospitalizationrate is21stof30OECDcountries. Similarly, US patients have 3.8 physician visits annually per capita, fewer than the OECD average of 6.8. In contrast with volume, in which the United States is not the leader, there are almost 3 times as many magnetic resonance imaging scanners in the United States as the OECD average, higher only in Japan. US patients receive considerably more cardiac revascularization procedures (579 per 100 000 population)—coronary artery bypass grafts, angioplasties, and stents—45% more than patients in Norway, the country with the next highest number (Table). The United States has the fourth highest per capita consumption of pharmaceuticals. US patients utilize many more “new drugs”— those on the market 5 years or fewer—than patients in other countries. For instance, ezetimibe, which decreases lowdensity lipoprotein cholesterol level and was approved in October 2002, is not recommended by major guidelines as first-line therapy. Nevertheless, the use of ezetimibe in the United States is about 5 times higher than it is in Canada, constituting more than 15% of prescriptions for lipidlowering agents. Greater use of new, more expensive pharmaceuticals, as well as higher prices both for older and newer drugs, helps explain why the United States spent $752 per capita (2005) on drugs, whereas France, with the next highest expenditure, spent $559 and Japan just $425.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,010
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,025
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,082

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0100,025
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,009
Communication savante0,0090,014
Science ouverte0,0010,007
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0250,004

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,062
Tête enseignante GPT0,258
Écart entre enseignants0,196 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations396
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJAMAMême sujetHealthcare Policy and ManagementTravaux en français237 207