Behavioral Health's Integration Within a Care Network and Health Care Utilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Examine how behavioral health (BH) integration affects health care costs, emergency department (ED) visits, and inpatient admissions. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Truven Health MarketScan Research Databases. STUDY DESIGN: Social network analysis identified "care communities" (providers sharing a high number of patients) and measured BH integration in terms of how connected, or central, BH providers were to other providers in their community. Multivariable generalized linear models adjusting for age, sex, number of prescriptions, and Charlson comorbidity score were used to estimate the relationship between the centrality of BH providers and health care utilization of BH patients. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Used outpatient, inpatient, and pharmacy claims data from six Medicaid plans from 2011 to 2013 to identify study outcomes, comorbidities, providers, and health care encounters. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Behavioral health centrality ranged from 0 (no BH providers) to 0.49. Relative to communities at the median BH centrality (0.06), in 2012, BH patients in communities at the 75th percentile of BH centrality (0.31) had 0.2 fewer admissions, 2.1 fewer all-cause ED visits, and accrued $1,947 fewer costs, on average. CONCLUSIONS: Increased behavioral centrality was significantly associated with a reduced number of ED visits, less frequent inpatient admissions, and lower overall health care costs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".