MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006982272 · doi:10.1001/jama.299.23.2789

The Perfect Storm of Overutilization

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

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStormMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0090.014
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations396
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207