The Impact of Prescription Medication Cost Coverage on Oral Medication Use for Hypertension and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No previous study, to the best of our knowledge, has examined both the time trend and impact of not having insurance or prescription medication cost coverage (PMCC) on the usage of type 2 diabetes and hypertension oral medications in Ontario and New Brunswick, Canada. METHODS: We used data from the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) from 2007 to 2014 to examine the time trend and impact of PMCC. A multivariable-adjusted logistic regression model was fitted. RESULTS: The pseudo-cohort included 23,215 individuals representing a population of approximately 8.7 million people. Overall, 20.0% of respondents reported absence of PMCC. This proportion increased slightly from 19.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 95% CI [17.5, 22.5]) to 20.7% (95% CI [16.9, 23.1]). Adjusted odds ratios (OR) showed that uninsured individuals were 23% less likely to use their medications (OR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.657, 0.911]). CONCLUSION: There was a slight decline in PMCC over time and this decline was associated with reduced use of medications for type 2 diabetes and hypertension.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".