Comparison of Health Care Spending and Utilization Among Children With Medicaid Insurance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Opportunities to improve health care quality and contain spending may differ between high and low resource users. This study's objectives were to assess health care and spending among children with Medicaid insurance by their resource use. METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 2012 Medicaid health administrative data from 10 states of children ages 11 months to 18 years. Subjects were categorized into 4 spending groups, each representing ∼25% of total spending: the least expensive 80% of children (n = 2,868,267), the next 15% expensive (n = 537,800), the next 4% expensive (n = 143,413), and the top 1% (n = 35,853). We compared per-member-per-month (PMPM) spending across the groups using the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: PMPM spending was $68 (least expensive 80%), $349 (next 15%), $1200 (next 4%), and $6738 (top 1%). Between the least and most expensive groups, percentages of total spending were higher for inpatient (<1% vs 46%) and mental health (7% vs 24%) but lower for emergency (15% vs 1%) and primary (23% vs 1%) care (all Ps < .001). From the least to most expensive groups, increases in PMPM spending were smallest for primary care (from $15 to $33) and much larger for inpatient ($0.28 to $3129), mental health ($4 to $1609), specialty care ($8 to $768), and pharmacy ($4 to $699). CONCLUSIONS: As resource use increases in children with Medicaid, spending rises unevenly across health services: Spending on primary care rises modestly compared with other health services. Future studies should assess whether more spending on primary care leads to better quality and cost containment for high resource users.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".