Hospital Costs and Length of Stay Among Homeless Patients Admitted to Medical, Surgical, and Psychiatric Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Homeless individuals often suffer from serious health conditions and are frequently hospitalized. This study compares hospitalization costs for homeless and housed patients, with and without adjustment for patient and service characteristics. METHODS: Administrative data on 93,426 admissions at an academic teaching hospital in Toronto, Canada, were collected over a 5-year period. These data included an identifier for patients who were homeless. Each admission was allocated a cost in Canadian dollars based on Ontario Case Costing methodology. Associations between homeless status and cost were examined for the entire sample and stratified by medical, surgical, and psychiatric services. RESULTS: Data were analyzed for 90,345 housed patient admissions (mean cost, $12,555) and 3081 homeless patient admissions (mean cost, $13,516). After adjustment for age, gender, and resource intensity weight, homeless patient admissions cost $2559 more than housed patient admissions (95% CI, $2053, $3066). For patients on medical and surgical services, much of this difference was explained by more alternate level of care days spent in the hospital, during which patients did not require the level of services provided in an acute care facility. Homeless patient admissions on the psychiatric service cost $1058 more than housed patient admissions (95% CI, $480, $1635) even after adjustment for length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Homeless patients on medical and surgical services remain hospitalized longer than housed patients, resulting in substantial excess costs. Homeless patients admitted for psychiatric conditions have higher costs not explained by prolonged length of stay. These observations may help guide development of community-based interventions for homeless individuals and reduce their use of inpatient care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".