MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904333712 · doi:10.1097/jpo.0000000000000238

Economic Value of Orthotic and Prosthetic Services Among Medicare Beneficiaries: A Claims-Based Retrospective Cohort Study, 2011–2014

2018· article· en· W2904333712 on OpenAlexaff
Allen Dobson, Kennan Murray, Nikolay Manolov, Joan DaVanzo

Bibliographic record

VenueJPO Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Particle Physics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePropensity score matchingCohortRetrospective cohort studyOrthoticsPhysical therapyMedicare AdvantageHealth careSelection biasSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background There are few studies of the economic value of orthotic and prosthetic services. A prior cohort study of orthotic and prosthetic Medicare beneficiaries based on Medicare Parts A and B claims from 2007–2010 concluded that patients who received timely orthotic or prosthetic care had comparable or lower total health care costs than a comparison group of untreated patients. This follow-up study reports on a parallel analysis based on Medicare claims from 2011–2014 and includes Part D in addition to Parts A and B services and expenditures. Its purpose is to validate earlier findings on the extent to which Medicare patients who received select orthotic and prosthetic services had less health care utilization, lower Medicare payments, and potentially fewer negative outcomes compared to matched patients not receiving these services. Methods This is a retrospective cohort analysis of 78,707 matched pairs of Medicare beneficiaries with clinical need for orthotic and prosthetic services (N = 157,414) using 2011–2014 Medicare claims data. It uses propensity score matching techniques to control for observable selection bias. Economically, a cost-consequence evaluation over a four-year time horizon was performed. Results Patients who received lower extremity orthotics had 18-month episode costs that were $1,939 lower than comparable patients who did not receive orthotic treatment ($22,734 vs $24,673). Patients who received spinal orthotic treatment had 18-month episode costs that were $2,094 lower than comparable non-treated patients ($23,560 vs $25,655). Study group beneficiaries receiving both types of orthotics had significantly lower Part D spending than those not receiving treatment (p<0.05). Patients who received lower extremity prostheses had comparable 15-month episode payments to matched beneficiaries not receiving prostheses ($68,877 vs $68,893) despite the relatively high cost of the prosthesis. Conclusions These results were consistent with those found in the prior study and suggest that orthotic and prosthetic services provide value to the Medicare program and to the patient.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJPO Journal of Prosthetics and OrthoticsSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207