MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077323069 · doi:10.1097/jom.0b013e3181954e3e

Trends in Components of Medical Spending Within Workers Compensation: Results From 37 States Combined

2009· article· en· W2077323069 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Harry Shuford, Tanya Restrepo, Nathan Beaven, J. Paul Leigh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
KeywordsWorkers' compensationCompensation (psychology)Medical costsQuarter (Canadian coin)Medical insuranceMedical servicesActuarial scienceMedicineMedical diagnosisBusinessHealth insuranceDemographic economicsEnvironmental healthHealth careEconomicsPsychologyGeographyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study provides estimates of the factors that are contributing to the escalation of medical costs. DESIGN: Measures of price and utilization trends were developed to estimate their contributions to increases in workers compensation medical severity overall and across a range of services and diagnoses. PATIENTS: Analysis utilized medical transactions data covering approximately 327,000 closed claims for injuries occurring in 37 states in 1996, 1997, 2001, and 2002 provided to the National Council on Compensation Insurance by several large workers' compensation insurance companies. MAIN RESULTS: Increases in billed medical treatments per claim contributed more than half, a shift to more costly injuries accounted for a fifth, and the increase in the average cost-per-treatment generated about a quarter of the increase in medical severity between 1996-1997 and 2001-2002. CONCLUSIONS: Increases in billed medical treatments is the major cost driver in workers compensation medical 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations17
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Environmental MedicineSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207