Health service costs for patients on the waiting list.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To find out if the cost of health services was artificially increased because of a delay in surgery due to a lack of resources. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Three urban hospitals in Calgary, Alta. PATIENTS: The study cohort comprised 4441 patients (1 index procedure for each patient). INTERVENTIONS: Cholecystectomy, discectomy, hysterectomy, total knee and total hip replacements. OUTCOME MEASURES: The costs for physician claims, use of home care and pharmaceutical prescriptions 1 year before and after the selected procedures, using 1997/98 administrative records and waiting times maintained by Alberta Health and Wellness and Calgary Regional Health Authority. RESULTS: The median wait for joint surgery (88 d for knee replacements and 65 d for hip replacements) was longer than for the other selected procedures (29 d for cholecystectomies, 21 d for discectomies and 42 d for hysterectomies). Total per patient physician claim costs decreased after surgery (cholecystectomy--30%, discectomy--24%, hip replacement--6%, hysterectomy--23% and knee replacement--4%). Seeing the procedure specialist more than once preoperatively was associated with a greater decrease in postoperative physician claim costs. Longer waits were not associated with more physician claim costs or Blue Cross prescriptions claim costs for seniors (> or = 65 yr) in the year before or after surgery nor were they associated with more physician claim costs during the actual wait compared with a matched postoperative time period. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence was found to suggest that waiting for 1 of 5 common surgical procedures is correlated with greater health service expenditures pre- or postoperatively. In this study, wait time is not a proxy for health service use nor do health service costs decrease markedly after surgery.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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".