Cost evaluation of out-of-country care for patients with eating disorders in Ontario: a population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Background:</h3> Eating disorders, specifically anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa and eating disorder not otherwise specified, represent a substantial burden to the health care system. Our goal was to estimate the economic burden of patients who received specialized inpatient care for an eating disorder out of country. <h3>Method:</h3> We conducted a cost-of-illness study evaluating health care costs among patients in Ontario who received specialized inpatient care for an eating disorder out of country from 2003 to 2011, from the public third-party payer perspective. Using linked administrative databases, we estimated net costs of eating disorders for 2 patient groups: those who received specialized inpatient care both out of country and in province (<i>n</i> = 160), and those who received specialized inpatient care out of country only (<i>n</i> = 126). <h3>Results:</h3> Patients approved for specialized out-of-country inpatient care were mostly girls and young women from high-income, urban neighbourhoods. Total net costs varied annually and were higher for patients treated both out of country and in province (about $11 million before 2007, $6.5 million after) than for those treated out of country alone (about $5 million and $2 million, respectively). The main cost drivers were out-of-country care and physician services. <h3>Interpretation:</h3> Costs associated with eating disorder care represent a substantial economic burden to the Ontario health care system. Given the high costs of out-of-country care, there may be opportunity to redirect these funds to increase capacity and expertise for eating disorder treatment within Ontario.
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".