MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Burden and Consequences of Financial Hardship From Medical Bills Among Nonelderly Adults With Diabetes Mellitus in the United States

2020· article· en· W3005022849 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health Outcomes
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusIntensive care medicineEnvironmental healthGerontologyInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.204 · 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