Economic Impact of the Clinical Benefits of Bariatric Surgery in Diabetes Patients With BMI ≥35 kg/m<sup>2</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The medical costs for a type 2 diabetes patient are two to four times greater than the costs for a patient without diabetes. Bariatric surgery is the most effective weight-loss therapy and has marked therapeutic effects on diabetes. We estimate the economic effect of the clinical benefits of bariatric surgery for diabetes patients with BMI ≥ 35 kg/m². Using an administrative claims database of privately insured patients covering 8.5 million lives 1999-2007, we identify obese patients with diabetes, aged 18-65 years, who were treated with bariatric surgery identified using Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes. These patients were matched with nonsurgery control patients on demographic factors, comorbidities, and health-care costs. The overall return on investment (RoI) associated with bariatric surgery was calculated using multivariate analysis. Surgery and control patients were compared postindex with respect to diagnostic claims for diabetes, diabetes medication claims, and adjusted diabetes medication and supply costs. Surgery costs were fully recovered after 26 months for laparoscopic surgery. At month 6, 28% of surgery patients had a diabetes diagnosis, compared to 74% of control patients (P < 0.001). Among preindex insulin users, insulin use dropped to 43% by month 3 for surgery patients, vs. 84% for controls (P < 0.001). By month 1, medication and supply costs were significantly lower for surgery patients (P < 0.001). The therapeutic benefits of bariatric surgery on diabetes translate into considerable economic benefits. These data suggest that surgical therapy is clinically more effective and ultimately less expensive than standard therapy for diabetes patients with BMI ≥ 35 kg/m².
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".