MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2288208328 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149179

Who Are the High-Cost Users? A Method for Person-Centred Attribution of Health Care Spending

2016· article· en· W2288208328 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sara J. T. Guilcher, Susan E. Bronskill, Jun Guan, Walter P. Wodchis

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
FundersUniversity of TorontoOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGovernment of OntarioInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
KeywordsMedicineHealth careAcute careCohortPopulationRetrospective cohort studyCommunity healthFamily medicineCohort studyEmergency medicineEnvironmental healthMedical emergencyPublic healthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To develop person-centered episodes of care (PCE) for community-dwelling individuals in the top fifth percentile of Ontario health care expenditures in order to: (1) describe the main clinical groupings for spending; and (2) identify patterns of spending by health sector (e.g. acute care, home care, physician billings) within and across PCE. DATA SOURCES: Data were drawn from population-based administrative databases for all publicly funded health care in Ontario, Canada in 2010/11. STUDY DESIGN: This study is a retrospective cohort study. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: A total of 587,982 community-dwelling individuals were identified among those accounting for the top 5% of provincial health care expenditures between April 1, 2010 and March 31, 2011. PCE were defined as starting with an acute care admission and persisting through subsequent care settings and providers until individuals were without health system contact for 30 days. PCE were classified according to the clinical grouping for the initial admission. PCE and non-PCE costs were calculated and compared to provide a comprehensive measurement of total health system costs for the year. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Among this community cohort, 697,059 PCE accounted for nearly 70% ($11,815.3 million (CAD)) of total annual publicly-funded expenditures on high-cost community-dwelling individuals. The most common clinical groupings to start a PCE were Acute Planned Surgical (35.2%), Acute Unplanned Medical (21.0%) and Post-Admission Events (10.8%). Median PCE costs ranged from $3,865 (IQR = $1,712-$10,919) for Acute Planned Surgical to $20,687 ($12,207-$39,579) for Post-Admission Events. Inpatient acute ($8,194.5 million) and inpatient rehabilitation ($434.6 million) health sectors accounted for the largest proportions of allocated PCE spending over the year. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides a novel methodological approach to categorize high-cost health system users into meaningful person-centered episodes. This approach helps to explain how costs are attributable within individuals across sectors and has applications in episode-based payment formulas and quality monitoring.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.085
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.085
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0110.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.209
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations62
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207