Burden and Consequences of Financial Hardship From Medical Bills Among Nonelderly Adults With Diabetes Mellitus in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The trend of increasing total and out-of-pocket expenditure among patients with diabetes mellitus represents a risk of financial hardship for Americans and a threat to medical and nonmedical needs. We aimed to describe the national scope and associated tradeoffs of financial hardship from medical bills among nonelderly individuals with diabetes mellitus. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used the National Health Interview Survey data from 2013 to 2017, including adults ≤64 years old with a self-reported diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. Among 164 696 surveyed individuals, 8967 adults ≤64 years old reported having diabetes mellitus, representing 13.1 million individuals annually across the United States. The mean age was 51.6 years (SD 10.3), and 49.1% were female. A total of 41.1% were part of families that reported having financial hardship from medical bills, with 15.6% reporting an inability to pay medical bills at all. In multivariate analyses, individuals who lacked insurance, were non-Hispanic black, had low income, or had high-comorbidity burden were at higher odds of being in families with financial hardship from medical bills. When comparing the graded categories of financial hardship, there was a stepwise increase in the prevalence of high financial distress, food insecurity, cost-related nonadherence, and foregone/delayed medical care, reaching 70.5%, 49.4%, 49.5%, and 74% among those unable to pay bills, respectively. Compared with those without diabetes mellitus, individuals with diabetes mellitus had higher odds of financial hardship from medical bills (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.27 [95% CI, 1.18-1.36]) or any of its consequences, including high financial distress (aOR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.05-1.24]), food insecurity (aOR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.16-1.40]), cost-related medication nonadherence (aOR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.30-1.57]), and foregone/delayed medical care (aOR, 1.30 [95% CI, 1.20-1.40]). CONCLUSIONS: Nonelderly patients with diabetes mellitus have a high prevalence of financial hardship from medical bills, with deleterious consequences.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".