MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997823125 · doi:10.1111/1475-6773.13250

Evaluating the role of Section 1115 waivers on Medicaid coverage and utilization of opioid agonist therapy among substance use treatment admissions

2019· article· en· W2997823125 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kayla N. Tormohlen, Noa Krawczyk, Kenneth A. Feder, Kira E. Riehm, Rosa M. Crum, Ramin Mojtabai

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Services Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institute of Mental HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian HIV Trials Network, Canadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicaidWaiverMedicineSubstance abuse treatmentOpioidEmergency medicineSubstance abuseFamily medicinePsychiatryInternal medicineHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of Section 1115 waivers on Medicaid coverage and opioid agonist therapy (OAT) utilization among substance use treatment admissions. DATA SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set-Admissions (TEDS-A) (2001-2012). STUDY DESIGN: We examined effects of 1115 waiver implementation on proportions of substance use treatment admissions with Medicaid and receiving OAT, using random intercept linear regression. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: 1115 waiver implementation was associated with an average of a 6 percentage point increase in proportion of all admissions with Medicaid, and 4 percentage point increase among opioid outpatient admissions. Implementation was not associated with change in proportion of opioid outpatient admissions receiving OAT. CONCLUSIONS: 1115 waivers influence Medicaid coverage among substance use treatment admissions. The findings improve our understanding of how state policies impact substance use treatment utilization.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.293 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Services ResearchSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207