Cost of medical care for HIV‐infected patients within a regional population from 1997 to 2006
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To report on the cost of medical care for HIV-infected patients stratified by CD4 cell count for a regional population over a 9-year period, and to examine the effect of reporting costs of HIV care only or only in antiretroviral therapy (ART)-experienced patients. METHODS: Retrospective costing analysis on all HIV-infected patients within the Southern Alberta Cohort from April 1997 to April 2006. Costs for all drugs (ART/non-ART), in-patient (HIV/non-HIV) and out-patient care were obtained from primary sources. Costs were aggregated by patient's CD4 cell count and ART exposure and presented as mean cost per patient per month (PPPM) in 2006 Canadian dollars. RESULTS: The number of patients and annual costs increased by 74% and 69%, respectively. Overall mean PPPM costs increased slightly from $1082 in 1997/1998 to $1159 in 2005/2006. PPPM costs for patients with CD4 counts < or =75 cells/microL increased from $1595 to $2687 while costs for CD4 counts >500, 201-500 and 76-200 cells/microL remained relatively stable at $979, $1057 and $1294, respectively. In-patient hospitalization costs account for most of the cost increases. Reporting costs using only ART-experienced patients would overestimate total costs by 2-9%. Costs for only HIV care were 10-24% lower than total care costs. CONCLUSIONS: Care costs have remained relatively stable for most HIV patients except those with CD4 counts < or =75 cells/microL. Expensive new antiretroviral drugs have had, at present, a minimal cost impact. Enhanced testing to achieve earlier diagnosis and initiation of highly active antiretroviral therapy could potentially reduce costs of late presentation and in-patient care.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".