Trends in U.S. Health Care Spending on Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, 1996-2016
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are rising in prevalence and are associated with high health care costs. We estimated trends in U.S. health care spending in patients with IBD between 1996 and 2016. METHODS: We used data on national health care spending developed by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluations for the Disease Expenditure Project. We estimated corresponding U.S. age-specific prevalence of IBD from the Global Burden of Diseases Study. From these 2 sources, we estimated prevalence-adjusted, temporal trends in U.S. health care spending in patients with IBD, stratified by age groups (<20 years, 20-44 years, 45-64 years, ≥65 years) and by type of care (ambulatory, inpatient, emergency department [ED], pharmaceutical prescriptions, and nursing care), using joinpoint regression, expressed as an annual percentage change (APC) with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Overall, annual U.S. health care spending on IBD increased from $6.4 billion (95% confidence interval, 5.7-7.4) in 1996 to $25.4 billion (95% confidence interval, 22.4-28.7) in 2016, corresponding to a per patient increase in annual spending from $5714 to $14,033. Substantial increases in per patient spending on IBD were observed in patients aged ≥45 years. Between 2011 and 2016, inpatient and ED care accounted for 55.8% of total spending and pharmaceuticals accounted for 19.9%, with variation across age groups (inpatient/ED vs pharmaceuticals: ages ≥65 years, 57.6% vs 11.2%; ages 45-64 years, 49.5% vs 26.9%; ages 20-44 years, 59.2% vs 23.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Even after adjusting for rising prevalence, U.S. health care spending on IBD continues to progressively increase, primarily in middle-aged and older adults, with unplanned health care utilization accounting for the majority of costs.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".