The Costs of Implementing the 1999 Canadian Asthma Consensus Guidelines Recommendation of Asthma Education and Spirometry for the Family Physician
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: National and international asthma guidelines recommend that patients with asthma be provided with asthma education and spirometry as a component of enhanced asthma care. The cost of implementing these interventions in family physician practices is not known. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to determine the cost of providing recommended asthma care to adult patients in the family practice setting. METHODS: The present study was conducted using three scenarios of care in family practice. Small, medium and large asthmatic patient populations were used. The incremental costs of implementing enhanced asthma care based on the Canadian Asthma Consensus Guidelines, including the provision of spirometry and asthma education in both group and individual sessions, and the resources required for these interventions were calculated for each scenario. RESULTS: For a physician with 50 asthmatic patients, the cost of providing enhanced asthma care with spirometry and group education sessions was approximately 78 dollars per patient in the first year of implementation. For individual sessions, the cost increased to 100 dollars per patient for the first year. If the physician had 100 asthmatic patients, the per patient cost would decrease; however, the overall cost of the program would be 7,000 dollars. CONCLUSIONS: The costs of providing enhanced asthma care are significant. In most cases, physicians are inadequately reimbursed (or not reimbursed) for these interventions. In light of the evidence of the effectiveness of these interventions, health insurance plans should consider adding these services to fee schedules.
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 | 0.001 | 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".