Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The rising cost of healthcare along with the aging demographic requires the attention of policy makers. The United States’ nursing home industry is costly to older adults, requiring many to resort to government funded Medicare to offset these costs. This study aims to understand determinants of nursing home prices in the state of California. Variables included in the analysis are selected based on previous literature on the costs of nursing homes in the US. Methods: The data were analyzed using a multi-variable regression analysis. The analysis sample included 1,121 nursing homes across California, using facility level and governmental data that is publically available for the years of 2016-2017. Data collected included financial indicators (net income), ownership (for-profit, non-profit) represented as a dummy variable, occupancy rates, reimbursement rates (Medicare & Medicaid), staffing, quality and competition variables such as nursing homes per county. Results: The regression analysis indicated that ownership type (for-profit), competition and occupancy rates have a negative significant effect on nursing home prices. Whereas, reimbursement rates of both Medicare and Medicaid, home income and staffing levels have a positive significant effect, driving further nursing home prices. Conclusion: The study aimed to understand the relevant variables that influence nursing home prices in the state of Califronia. The regression analysis yielded significant results for various factors including reimbursement rates, occupancy rates and the number of nursing homes per county. However, a notable limitation to the study is the inability to generalize these factors to the rest of the US due to state specific health policies. Determinants such as reimbursement rates and nursing homes per county vary by governmental decisions, therefore, a comprehensive policy tool could be designed to alter nursing home costs through state health policies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".