Annual cost of care for Crohn's disease: a payor perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the annual cost of care of patients with Crohn's disease according to treatment setting. METHODS: Using a 1994 integrated claims database, patients with a Crohn's-related medical claim (ICD-9 code 555) from 10/01/94 to 09/30/95 were included in this analysis. These patients were stratified into three mutually exclusive disease severity groups: group 1, required hospitalization for Crohn's; group 2, required chronic glucocorticoid or immunosuppressive drug therapy for >6 months; group 3, all remaining patients. Direct charges (based on reimbursement) and utilization of resources were reported for each group. RESULTS: Six-hundred-seven patients were analyzed: 117(19%) in group 1, 31(5%) in group 2, and 459(76%) in group 3. Average age of all patients was 48 years and 43% of these patients were men. Average annual charges for all patients totaled $12,417. Group I patients experienced the highest mean charges ($37,135), whereas patients in groups 2 and 3 incurred $10,033 and $6,277. Approximately 25% of patients accounted for 80% of the total charges. CONCLUSIONS: Crohn's disease is associated with high cost. Although a minority of Crohn's patients required hospitalization, they tended to have higher utilization and were responsible for a majority of total expenditures. New therapies have the potential to reduce overall cost of care, if they prevent Crohn's-related hospitalizations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".