MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Long-term care spending and hospital use among the older population in England

2021· article· en· W4239630095 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rowena Crawford, George Stoye, Ben Zaranko

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Economics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilInternational Foundation for ScienceHealth Foundation
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Public spendingLong-term carePopulationEmergency departmentTerm (time)MedicineHospital careHealth spendingDemographyDemographic economicsHealth careEconomicsEnvironmental healthEconomic growthGeographyNursingPolitical scienceHealth services

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the impact of changes in public long-term care spending on the use of public hospitals among the older population in England. Mean per-person long-term care spending fell by 31% between 2009/10 and 2017/18, but cuts varied considerably geographically. We instrument public long-term care spending with predicted spending based on historical national funding shares and national spending trends. We find that reductions in public long-term care spending led to substantial increases in the number of emergency department (ED) visits made by patients aged 65 and above, explaining between a quarter and a half of the growth in ED use among this population over this period, and to an increase in the share of patients revisiting the ED within seven days. However, there was no impact on wider use of inpatient or outpatient services (which are more expensive to provide), and consequently little impact on overall hospital 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health EconomicsSame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207