Health Care Costs in People With Diabetes and Their Association With Glycemic Control and Kidney Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between laboratory-derived measures of glycemic control (HbA1c) and the presence of renal complications (measured by proteinuria and estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]) with the 5-year costs of caring for people with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We estimated the cumulative 5-year cost of caring for people with diabetes using a province-wide cohort of adults with diabetes as of 1 May 2004. Costs included physician visits, hospitalizations, ambulatory care (emergency room visits, day surgery, and day medicine), and drug costs for people >65 years of age. Using linked laboratory and administrative clinical and costing data, we determined the association between baseline glycemic control (HbA1c), proteinuria, and kidney function (eGFR) and 5-year costs, controlling for age, socioeconomic status, duration of diabetes, and comorbid illness. RESULTS: We identified 138,662 adults with diabetes. The mean 5-year cost of diabetes in the overall cohort was $26,978 per patient, excluding drug costs. The mean 5-year cost for the subset of people >65 years of age, including drug costs, was $44,511 (Canadian dollars). Cost increased with worsening kidney function, presence of proteinuria, and suboptimal glycemic control (HbA1c >7.9%). Increasing age, Aboriginal status, socioeconomic status, duration of diabetes, and comorbid illness were also associated with increasing cost. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of caring for people with diabetes is substantial and is associated with suboptimal glycemic control, abnormal kidney function, and proteinuria. Future studies should assess if improvements in the management of diabetes, assessed with laboratory-derived measurements, result in cost reductions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".