Provision of Dermatologic Care in a Universal Health Care System: A 17-Year Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limited data is available on the burden of dermatologic disease including disease distribution and providers of care. Research is needed to facilitate health care planning and improve patient care. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the demographics and economics of the provision of dermatologic care in a universal health care system from fiscal year 2000 to 2016. METHODS: A retrospective population-based analysis was performed on physician billing claims for dermatologic conditions from April 1, 2000 to March 31, 2017. Data came from the province of Ontario's universal health care plan claims records accessed through IntelliHealth. RESULTS: Dermatologic claims made up 3.6% of all physician claims, with a 20% increase seen over time. The cost of dermatologic claims increased by 70% between fiscal 2000 and 2016, with the average cost per claim increasing by 41%. However, the cost of dermatologic claims as a percentage of all health care claims experienced a decline from 3.5% in fiscal 2000 to 2.8% in fiscal 2016. Over the study period, family physicians submitted 56% to 62% of dermatologic claims, dermatologists 24% to 29%, pediatricians 3% to 4%, and internists 1%. Overall, internists billed the highest average cost per dermatologic claim ranging from $39 in 2000 to $60 in 2016, followed by pediatricians at $33 to $58, dermatologists at $28 to $39, and family physicians at $23 to $30. CONCLUSIONS: The demographic and economic burden of dermatologic disease is changing over time, with implications for health care planning, advancing medical education, and patient care.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".