MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014747215 · doi:10.1177/0886368703254644

Restraining Trend in Plan Payments: Disease Management of Six Conditions May be the Key

2003· article· en· W2014747215 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bruce C. Kelley

Bibliographic record

VenueCompensation & Benefits Review · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaymentPlan (archaeology)Disease managementQuarter (Canadian coin)BusinessOperations managementMedical expensesControl (management)DiseaseChronic diseaseActuarial scienceMedicineFinanceMedical emergencyFamily medicineEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Employers can control costs through effective disease management programs aimed at chronic conditions. Large employers can significantly reduce overall medical plan expenses by carefully selecting and implementing effective disease management programs. This article details how six chronic conditions, such as asthma and diabetes, drive nearly half of large employers' plan payments, but less than 5% of plan participants have significant expenses for those six conditions. In addition, these 5% of employees account for more than one quarter of total plan expenses. It appears that disease management could affect more than one quarter of total plan expenses. By identifying the conditions that are driving the greatest costs, employers can offer disease management programs to affected employees, which will not only drive down costs but might also improve patient care outcomes.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.153
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCompensation & Benefits ReviewSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207