Use of the Population Grouping Methodology of the Canadian Institute for Health Information to predict high-cost health system users in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prior research has consistently shown that the heaviest users account for a disproportionate share of health care costs. As such, predicting high-cost users may be a precondition for cost containment. We evaluated the ability of a new health risk predictive modelling tool, which was developed by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), to identify future high-cost cases. METHODS: We ran the CIHI model using administrative health care data for Ontario (fiscal years 2014/15 and 2015/16) to predict the risk, for each individual in the study population, of being a high-cost user 1 year in the future. We also estimated actual costs for the prediction period. We evaluated model performance for selected percentiles of cost based on the discrimination and calibration of the model. RESULTS: A total of 11 684 427 individuals were included in the analysis. Overall, 10% of this population had annual costs exceeding $3050 per person in fiscal year 2016/17, accounting for 71.6% of total expenditures; 5% had costs above $6374 (58.2% of total expenditures); and 1% exceeded $22 995 (30.5% of total expenditures). Model performance increased with higher cost thresholds. The c-statistic was 0.78 (reasonable), 0.81 (strong) and 0.86 (very strong) at the 10%, 5% and 1% cost thresholds, respectively. INTERPRETATION: The CIHI Population Grouping Methodology was designed to predict the average user of health care services, yet performed adequately for predicting high-cost users. Although we recommend the development of a purpose-designed tool to improve model performance, the existing CIHI Population Grouping Methodology may be used - as is or in concert with additional information - for many applications requiring prediction of future high-cost users.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".