Health plan expenditures young adults with newly-diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) by care at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers (CCC) vs. other treatment sites (non-CCC).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
7081 Background: Patients diagnosed with HL between 22-39y have worse outcomes than younger patients (≤21y); we previously reported that treatment at a CCC mitigates these disparities [Wolfson, Leukemia 2017]. While there is general consensus that CCC care is expensive, expenditures for managing young adults with HL in CCC vs. non-CCC are not known. Methods: Cancer-related expenditures were examined in HL patients diagnosed between 2001-2014 at age 22-39y and treated at CCC and non-CCC sites using commercial insurance claims data (OptumLabs Data Warehouse). Multivariable generalized linear models with log link modeled average monthly health plan paid expenditures, adjusting for sociodemographics, stage, adverse events, pre-existing comorbidities, and diagnostic era. Results: Of the 1501 HL patients, 33% (n = 489) were treated at a CCC. Patients treated at CCC vs. non-CCC did not differ with respect to race, sex, income, diagnostic era or comorbidities (p≥0.3). Mean duration of enrollment was longer in CCC than non-CCC (25 vs. 23 mos; p < 0.001) patients. During the first year after HL diagnosis, total average monthly expenditures were higher in CCC ($9,111) than non-CCC ($7,834, p = 0.001), including those related to inpatient (CCC: $1,790 vs. non-CCC: $1,011; p = 0.001) and outpatient (CCC: $6,971 vs. non-CCC: $6,487; p = 0.001) expenditures. The higher CCC expenditures were associated with higher monthly rates of inpatient admissions (IRR = 1.3, p = 0.001) and outpatient visits (IRR = 1.1, p = 0.02) at CCC. Rates of chemotherapy-related inpatient admissions were higher (IRR = 2.3, p = 0.001) in CCC than non-CCC patients, while outpatient chemotherapy visit rates were lower (IRR = 0.9, p = 0.001) in CCC. During Years 2-3, total average monthly expenditures were higher in CCC ($19,259) than non-CCC ($4,145, p = 0.002) patients. Outpatient expenditures were higher in CCC ($10,164) vs. non-CCC ($2,901, p = 0.001), with higher monthly outpatient visit rates (IRR = 1.7, p = 0.001) at CCC. Conclusions: Inpatient and outpatient cancer-related expenditures in young adults with HL were higher at CCC than non-CCCs. Higher outpatient expenditures at CCC were associated with only higher monthly visit rates. Higher inpatient expenditures were in the setting of higher admission rates, including those related to chemotherapy. Additional work is necessary to understand whether these higher expenditures at CCC are related to supportive care and/or differences in facility structure and billing practices.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".