Trends in Medical Care Expenditures of US Adults with Arthritis and Other Rheumatic Conditions 1997 to 2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in annual medical expenditures from 1997 to 2005 among adults with arthritis and other rheumatic conditions (denoted Arthritis group). METHODS: We analyzed annual medical expenditures (2005 US dollars) among adults with Arthritis using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), a nationally representative survey of the US civilian, noninstitutionalized population. Expenditures were stratified by Arthritis and comorbidity status. RESULTS: The Arthritis population increased by 22% (36.8 to 44.9 million) during this period, attributable entirely to the subpopulation with at least one comorbid condition (31.8 to 40.3 million). The overall, inflation-adjusted annual mean medical expenditures for adults with Arthritis increased from $6,848 in 1997 to $7,854 in 2005. In 1997, inpatient care was the most expensive component of overall expenditures (mean $2,702), but beginning in 2001, mean inpatient and ambulatory expenditures were almost identical. Mean prescription expenditures increased nearly every year, almost doubling from $970 in 1997 to $1,811 in 2005. Aggregate total expenditures for the Arthritis population increased markedly during this period, from $252.0 to $353.0 billion (+40%). Most of this increase was attributable to the population increase in the Arthritis and comorbid condition subgroup. CONCLUSION: Mean annual ambulatory and prescription expenditures for adults with Arthritis increased far above the rate of medical inflation, offsetting a relative decline in inpatient expenditures. Increases in overall mean and aggregate total expenditures are attributable to the increasing number of adults with Arthritis and at least one comorbid chronic condition. Projected increases in this population suggest that these expenditures will continue to rise.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".