The Impact of Private Insurance Access on Nonurgent Inflammatory Bowel Disease-Related Emergency Department Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-related Emergency Department (ED) visits are a costly component to current healthcare expenditures. Patients who are discharged directly from the ED for nonurgent issues (aka “treat and release” ED visits) present an opportunity for quality improvement. Purpose To determine the impact of private insurance on IBD-related treat and release ED visits. The secondary outcome was cost per IBD-related ED visit. Methodology A retrospective cohort study was performed on the 2006 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS). Comparisons were made between patients with access to private insurance vs those without. Multivariable survey-weighted logistic and linear regression models with clustering by hospital were created for the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Results In total, 19,324 patient encounters were included in the stratified analytic sample. Of these, 9272 (47.98%) patients reported private insurance as their primary payment method. An additional 10,052 (52.02%) patients reported an alternative payment form. The private insurance group was statistically younger, less likely to reside in an urban setting and had more representation within the highest income quartile. The OR of a treat and release ED visit was 1.47 (95% confidence interval 1.34–1.62) for no private insurance compared to private insurance. On average, the cost per ED visit of patients without private insurance was $214.80 ± 48.48, P < 0.001 less than those with private insurance. Conclusions Lack of private insurance is an important predictor of IBD-related treat and release ED visits.
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 | 0.001 | 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; 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".