Techniques for estimating health care costs with censored data: an overview for the health services researcher
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to review statistical techniques for estimating the mean population cost using health care cost data that, because of the inability to achieve complete follow-up until death, are right censored. The target audience is health service researchers without an advanced statistical background. METHODS: Data were sourced from longitudinal heart failure costs from Ontario, Canada, and administrative databases were used for estimating costs. The dataset consisted of 43,888 patients, with follow-up periods ranging from 1 to 1538 days (mean 576 days). The study was designed so that mean health care costs over 1080 days of follow-up were calculated using naïve estimators such as full-sample and uncensored case estimators. Reweighted estimators - specifically, the inverse probability weighted estimator - were calculated, as was phase-based costing. Costs were adjusted to 2008 Canadian dollars using the Bank of Canada consumer price index (http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/cpi.html). RESULTS: Over the restricted follow-up of 1080 days, 32% of patients were censored. The full-sample estimator was found to underestimate mean cost ($30,420) compared with the reweighted estimators ($36,490). The phase-based costing estimate of $37,237 was similar to that of the simple reweighted estimator. CONCLUSION: The authors recommend against the use of full-sample or uncensored case estimators when censored data are present. In the presence of heavy censoring, phase-based costing is an attractive alternative approach.
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 | 0.083 | 0.218 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".