The Healthcare Cost Burden in Adults with High Risk for Cardiovascular Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We calculated the short- and long-term care resource use and costs in adults with high-risk conditions for cardiovascular disease (HRCVD) as defined by the Canadian Cardiovascular Society dyslipidemia guidelines. METHODS: We linked Alberta health databases to identify patients aged ≥ 18 years with HRCVD between fiscal year (FY) 2012 and FY2016. The first HRCVD event was the index event. Patients were categorized into (1) primary prevention patients and (2) secondary prevention patients at the index event and were followed until death, they moved out of the province, or they were censored at March 2018. We calculated the resource use and costs for each of the 5 years after the index event. RESULTS: The study included 459,739 HRCVD patients (13,947 [3%] were secondary prevention patients). The secondary prevention patients were older (median age 61 years vs. 55 years; p < 0.001), and there were fewer females in this group (30.4% vs. 51.3%; p < 0.001). The total healthcare costs in the first year decreased over time (FY2012: 1.16 billion Canadian dollars (CA$); FY2016: CA$1.05 billion; p < 0.001). An HRCVD patient incurred CA$12,068, CA$5626, and CA$4655 during the first, second, and fifth year, respectively (p for trend < 0.001). During the first year, healthcare costs per secondary prevention patient (CA$36,641) were triple that for a primary prevention patient (CA$11,299; p < 0.001), primarily due to higher hospitalization costs in secondary prevention patients (CA$26,896 vs. CA$6051; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The healthcare costs for HRCVD patients were substantial but decreased over time. The costs were highest in the year following the index event and decreased thereafter. Secondary prevention patients incurred higher costs than the primary prevention patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".