Patients With High Mental Health Costs Incur Over 30 Percent More Costs Than Other High-Cost Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A small proportion of health care users, called high-cost patients, account for a disproportionately large share of health care costs. Most literature on these patients has focused on the entire population. However, high-cost patients whose use of mental health care services is substantial are likely to differ from other members of the population. We defined a mental health high-cost patient as someone for whom mental health-related services accounted for at least 50 percent of total health care costs. We examined these patients' health care utilization and costs in Ontario, Canada. We found that their average cost for health care, in 2012 Canadian dollars, was $31,611. In contrast, the cost was $23,681 for other high-cost patients. Mental health high-cost patients were younger, lived in poorer neighborhoods, and had different health care utilization patterns, compared to other high-cost patients. These findings should be considered when implementing policies or interventions to address quality of care for mental health patients so as to ensure that mental health high-cost patients receive appropriate care in a cost-effective manner. Furthermore, efforts to manage mental health patients' health care use should address their complex profile through integrated multidisciplinary health care delivery.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.006 | 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".