Health check guidelines and billing for family physicians caring for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the degree to which Canadian consensus guideline recommendations for annual comprehensive preventive care assessments of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) are being taken up by Nova Scotia family physicians since the introduction of incentive billing codes; and to discuss the importance of complete physical examinations for this patient population, extra time needed in clinic encounters, and challenges for practitioners providing care. DESIGN: Analysis of family physicians' billing of codes 03.04C and 03.03E from April 2012 to December 2016. SETTING: Nova Scotia. PARTICIPANTS: Family physicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of billings through fee-for-service and alternative payment plans, and number of providers who used these fee codes. RESULTS: Analysis yielded 3 key results. Use of incentivized billing codes for adult IDD visits and complete examinations in Nova Scotia has steadily increased for patients since the introduction of the modified codes. There is measurable uptake of the IDD adult visit code in total numbers and numbers of providers billing the code. There is poor uptake of the complete examination code. CONCLUSION: Enhanced billing codes will provide Nova Scotia family physicians with an incentive to employ the newly revised 2018 Canadian consensus guidelines in the care of adults with IDDs. With continued discussion and promotion of annual physical examinations for patients with IDD, more patients and caregivers might make this proactive care item a priority.
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 | 0.005 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".