MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030630289 · doi:10.1097/ncm.0000000000000081

Surgical Rehospitalization of the Medicare Fee-For-Service Patient

2015· article· en· W2030630289 on OpenAlexaff
Mary Schmeida, Ronald A. Savrin

Bibliographic record

VenueProfessional Case Management · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsHatch (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFee-for-serviceService (business)MEDLINEMedicineBusinessHealth carePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF STUDY: Surgical readmissions are a concern to the integrity of the Medicare Trust Fund and gaining attention from policymakers concerned about solvency. This study explores factors associated with variation in surgical readmission rates across the states and provides implications for Medicare Case Management. PRIMARY PRACTICE SETTING(S): Acute inpatient hospital settings. METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLE: Fifty state-level data and multivariate regression analysis are used. The dependent variable Surgical Discharge 30-day Readmission Rate is based on the Medicare Fee-For-Service beneficiary population with Medicare Part A and B insurance coverage and age 65 years or older, rehospitalized subsequent to an inpatient surgical procedure, occurring within 30 days of their last discharge. RESULTS: Our 2 key explanatory variables-emergency room visit rate and total days of care-are each positively associated with 30-day surgical readmission rate. Age group 65-69 years, native language, physician density, and health care expenditures per capita also influence surgical readmission rate across the states. IMPLICATIONS FOR CASE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE: Surgical readmission has an association with many different categories of variables-demographic, clinical process, hospital capacity, and patient need. This strongly suggests that Medicare case managers consider the wide range of elements contributing to surgical readmission and take a multifactorial approach to reducing the rehospitalization rate.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProfessional Case ManagementSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207