Measuring the Relationship between Hospital Costs and Quality of Care: An Example of Acute Myocardial Infraction in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p><em>This study explores the relationship between hospital costs and quality of care for Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) in the Edmonton area hospitals. The importance of this relationship is realized when policy makers face decisions about cost minimization and quality maximization during times of health care budget constraints. This study uses regression modelling with increasing specifications as well as various robustness checks to ensure the accuracy of the results. The Model specifications include demographics, AMI risk adjustments, Hospital fixed effects, and year fixed effects. Semi-parametric regression removes the assumption of linearity to determine the true relationship between hospital cost and AMI quality. Higher AMI quality is associated with a 39% increase in hospital costs after adjustments and controls. The semi-parametric regression shows a fairly linear relationship between cost and AMI quality. This study suggests that Canadian policy and decision makers should take caution during budget cuts and implementing cost containment programs. The results suggest that reducing AMI budgets may have a negative effect on the quality of AMI care patients receive in Edmonton, Alberta. The linear relationship suggests that the return on the quality of AMI is consistent for each dollar invested with no economies of scale.</em></p>
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 | 0.083 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".