Comparing Childhood Cancer Care Costs in Two Canadian Provinces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer in children presents unique issues for diagnosis, treatment and survivorship care. Phase-specific comparative cost estimates are important for informing healthcare planning. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to compare direct medical costs of childhood cancer by phase of care in British Columbia (BC) and Ontario (ON). METHODS: For cancer patients diagnosed at <15 years of age and propensity-score-matched non-cancer controls, we applied standard costing methodology using population-based healthcare administrative data to estimate and compare phase-based costs by province. RESULTS: Phase-specific cancer-attributable costs were 2%-39% higher for ON than for BC. Leukemia pre-diagnosis costs and annual lymphoma continuing care costs were >50% higher in ON. Phase-specific in-patient hospital costs (the major cost category) represented 63%-82% of ON costs, versus 43%-73% of BC costs. Phase-specific diagnostic tests and procedures accounted for 1.0%-3.4% of ON costs and 2.8%-13.0% of BC costs. CONCLUSION: There are substantial cost differences between these two Canadian provinces, BC and ON, possibly identifying opportunities for healthcare planning improvement.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".