MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 208: Association of Hospital Prices for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery with Hospital Quality and Reimbursement

2015· article· en· W2287600820 on OpenAlexaff
Bria Giacomino, Peter Cram, Mary Vaughan‐Sarrazin, Saket Girotra

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReimbursementEmergency medicineCoronary artery bypass surgeryHealth careArteryCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Although prices for medical services are known to vary markedly between hospitals especially for patients without medical insurance, it remains unknown whether this large variation in price is explained by differences in hospital quality or reimbursement from major insurers. Methods: We obtained an “out-of-pocket” hospital and physician price estimate for a coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery for a hypothetical patient without medical insurance via telephone call from a random sample of U.S. hospitals during January 2014. We examined whether the price provided by a hospital was associated with its 1) structural characteristics obtained from the American Hospital Association data, 2010 2) risk-standardized CABG mortality obtained from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons data, 2013 and 3) “fair price” estimate for CABG base don reimbursement data from major insurers in the zip code of the hospital location (Healthcare Bluebook, www.healthcarebluebook.com). Results: We contacted a total of 111 U.S. hospitals, of which 56 (50.5%) were able to provide a price estimate for CABG. The mean price for CABG obtained from the hospitals was $151,784.64, and ranged from $44,824 - $448,039. Except geographic location (p=0.03), which was weakly associated, hospital prices for a CABG surgery were not associated with teaching status, for-profit/not-for-profit/government classification, urban/rural location, or CABG volume (p >0.10 for all). Likewise, we found no association between a hospital’s quoted price for CABG and its risk-standardized CABG mortality (r= -0.03 p=0.89), or its average reimbursement for CABG surgery from major insurers within the same zip code (r= 0.07, p=0.6). Conclusion: We found a 10-fold variation in the prices obtained from U.S. hospitals for CABG surgery for an uninsured patient. Although there was slight variation in CABG surgery prices based on geographic region, we found no evidence to suggest that hospitals with higher prices have lower mortality or receive higher reimbursement from insured patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.732

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and OutcomesSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207