In-Hospital Cost of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in Canada and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Global health care costs in Canada and the United States have been examined on a macroeconomic level. However, to our knowledge, comparative costs of specific procedures in the 2 countries have not been closely studied. METHODS: To perform a microeconomic comparison of costs of open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair, we examined the costs of treating 1057 consecutive patients from 4 Canadian (n = 552) and 6 US (n = 505) hospitals. Participating hospitals used the same cost accounting system that provided demographic, clinical, and cost data (excluding physician's fees) for each patient. Canadian dollar costs were converted to US dollar costs using purchasing power parities. RESULTS: Compared with patients who underwent AAA repair in the United States, Canadian patients were significantly younger (mean +/- SD, 70.2 +/- 10.5 vs 73.3 +/- 8.5 years; P<.001) and were less likely to undergo elective repair (48.5% vs 73.3%; P<.001). The median length of hospital stay was longer in Canada (9.0 vs 7.0 days; P<.001), and mortality rates were similar (12.0% [Canada] vs 9.9% [United States]; P =.29). The mean +/- SEM cost of AAA repair was dollars 15 852 +/- dollars 790 in Canada compared with US dollars 23299 +/- US dollars 1410 in the United States. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of AAA repair is substantially higher in the United States compared with Canada, despite shorter lengths of stay and similar clinical outcomes. The difference in total treatment costs between Canadian and American hospitals was partially attributable to differences in direct costs, but was largely due to differences in overhead costs.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".