Using Data Mining to Detect Health Care Fraud and Abuse: A Review of Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inappropriate payments by insurance organizations or third party payers occur because of errors, abuse and fraud. The scale of this problem is large enough to make it a priority issue for health systems. Traditional methods of detecting health care fraud and abuse are time-consuming and inefficient. Combining automated methods and statistical knowledge lead to the emergence of a new interdisciplinary branch of science that is named Knowledge Discovery from Databases (KDD). Data mining is a core of the KDD process. Data mining can help third-party payers such as health insurance organizations to extract useful information from thousands of claims and identify a smaller subset of the claims or claimants for further assessment. We reviewed studies that performed data mining techniques for detecting health care fraud and abuse, using supervised and unsupervised data mining approaches. Most available studies have focused on algorithmic data mining without an emphasis on or application to fraud detection efforts in the context of health service provision or health insurance policy. More studies are needed to connect sound and evidence-based diagnosis and treatment approaches toward fraudulent or abusive behaviors. Ultimately, based on available studies, we recommend seven general steps to data mining of health care claims.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".