MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133732074 · doi:10.5600/mmrr.001.04.a01

Indirect Medical Education and Disproportionate Share Adjustments to Medicare Inpatient Payment Rates

2011· article· en· W2133732074 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nguyen Nguyen, Steven H. Sheingold

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicare & Medicaid Research Review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)PaymentDemographic economicsProspective payment systemActuarial scienceEmpirical researchBusinessMedicineEconomicsFinanceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The indirect medical education (IME) and disproportionate share hospital (DSH) adjustments to Medicare's prospective payment rates for inpatient services are generally intended to compensate hospitals for patient care costs related to teaching activities and care of low income populations. These adjustments were originally established based on the statistical relationships between IME and DSH and hospital costs. Due to a variety of policy considerations, the legislated levels of these adjustments may have deviated over time from these "empirically justified levels," or simply, "empirical levels." In this paper, we estimate the empirical levels of IME and DSH using 2006 hospital data and 2009 Medicare final payment rules. Our analyses suggest that the empirical level for IME would be much smaller than under current law-about one-third to one-half. Our analyses also support the DSH adjustment prescribed by the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA)--about one-quarter of the pre-ACA level. For IME, the estimates imply an increase in costs of 1.88% for each 10% increase in teaching intensity. For DSH, the estimates imply that costs would rise by 0.52% for each 10% increase in the low-income patient share for large urban hospitals.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.218
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations23
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicare & Medicaid Research ReviewSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207