Explaining Prescription Drug Use and Expenditures Using the Adjusted Clinical Groups Case-Mix System in the Population of British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given that prescription drugs have become a major financial component of health care, there is an increased need to explain variations in the use of and expenditure on medicines. Case-mix systems built from existing administrative datasets may prove very useful for such prediction. OBJECTIVE: We estimated the concurrent and prospective predictive validity of the adjusted clinical groups (ACG) system in pharmaceutical research and compared the ACG system with the Charlson index of comorbidity. RESEARCH DESIGN: We ran a generalized linear models to examine the predictive validity of the ACG system and the Charlson index and report the correlation between the predicted and observed expenditures. We reported mean predictive ratios across medical condition and cost-defined groups. When predicting use of medicines, we used C-statistics to summarize the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. SUBJECTS: The 3,908,533 British Columbia residents who were registered for the universal health care plan for 275+ days in the calendar years 2004 and 2005. MEASURES: Outcomes were total pharmaceutical expenditures, use of any medicines, and use of medicines from 4+ different therapeutic categories. RESULTS: The ACG case mix system predicted drug expenditures better than the Charlson index. The mean predictive ratios for the ACG system models were all within 4% of the actual costs when examining medical condition group and the C-stats for the 2 dichotomous outcomes were between 0.82 and 0.89. CONCLUSION: ACG case-mix adjusters are a valuable predictor of pharmaceutical use and expenditures with much higher predictive power than age, sex, and the Charlson index of comorbidity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".