MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of Free Medicine Distribution on Health Care Costs in Canada Over 3 Years

2023· article· en· W4378348022 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nav Persaud, Michael Bedard, Andrew Boozary, Richard H. Glazier, Tara Gomes, Stephen W. Hwang, Peter Jüni, Michael R. Law, Muhammad Mamdani, Braden Manns, Danielle Martin, Steven G. Morgan, Paul Oh, Andrew D. Pinto, Baiju R. Shah, Frank Sullivan, Norman Umali, Kevin E. Thorpe, Karen Tu, Fangyun Wu, Andreas Laupacis, Nada Abdel-Malek, Zoë von Aesch, Mouafak Al Hadi, Kelly E. Anderson, Gordon Arbess, C. Barnes, Peter Barreca, Seema Bhandarkar, Gary Bloch, Tali Bogler, Ashna Bowry, Donnavan Boyd, M Bradford, Anne Browne, Paul Das, MaryBeth DeRocher, Katie Dorman, Kathleen Doukas, Esther Ernst, Allison Farber, Hannah Feiner, Amy Freedmon, Kari Fulton, Chantal Gaudreau, Abbas Ghavam-Rassoul, Rajesh Girdhari, Irv Gora, Kimberley Gordon, Laurie Green, Samantha Green, Charlie Guiang, Curtis Handford, Maryna Harelnikiva, Candice Holmes, Sue Hranilovic, Karl Igar, Gwen Jansz, Emma Jeavons, Nick Jeeves, Frances Kilbertus, Flo Kim, Tara Kiran, Holly Knowles, Bruce Kwok, Sheila Lakhoo, Margarita Lam-Antoniades, Renata Leong, Fok‐Han Leung, Aïsha Lofters, Jennifer E. McCabe, Lora McDougall, Joanne Mellan, Sharon Mintz, Matthew Naccarato, Maya Nader, Kevin O’Connor, James S. Owen, Judith Peranson, Cristina Pop, Adam Pyle, Julia Rackal, Noor Ramji, Nasreen Ramji, Danyaal Raza, Maurianne Reade, Jane Ridley, Jean Robinson, Katherine Rouleau, Caroline Ruderman, Vanna Schiralli, Lee Schofield, M. Nasir Shamas, Susan Shepherd, Rami Shoucri, Lenka Šnajdrová, Andrew W. Stadnyk, Ann Stewart, Bill Sullivan, Karen Swirsky, Joshua Tepper, Suzanne D. Turner, Barbara Vari, Priya Vasa, Karim H. Vellani, Tao Wang, William Watson, Thea Weisdorf, Karen Weiman, Sheila Wijayasinghe, Jean Wilson, Patricia Windrim

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Health Forum · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedication Adherence and Compliance
Canadian institutionsNorth York General HospitalToronto Rehabilitation InstituteWomen's College HospitalUniversity Health NetworkLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaVector InstituteUniversity of CalgaryInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of British ColumbiaNOSM UniversityPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsMedicineHealth carePsychological interventionAmbulatory careTotal costRandomized controlled trialFamily medicineEnvironmental healthDemographyNursingSurgeryBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Few interventions are proven to reduce total health care costs, and addressing cost-related nonadherence has the potential to do so. Objective: To determine the effect of eliminating out-of-pocket medication fees on total health care costs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized clinical trial using a prespecified outcome took place across 9 primary care sites in Ontario, Canada (6 in Toronto and 3 in rural areas), where health care services are generally publicly funded. Adult patients (≥18 years old) reporting cost-related nonadherence to medicines in the past 12 months were recruited between June 1, 2016, and April 28, 2017, and followed up until April 28, 2020. Data analysis was completed in 2021. Interventions: Access to a comprehensive list of 128 medicines commonly prescribed in ambulatory care with no out-of-pocket costs for 3 years vs usual medicine access. Main Outcome and Measures: Total publicly funded health care costs over 3 years, including costs of hospitalizations. Health care costs were determined using administrative data from Ontario's single-payer health care system, and all costs are reported in Canadian dollars with adjustments for inflation. Results: A total of 747 participants from 9 primary care sites were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 51 [14] years; 421 [56.4%] female). Free medicine distribution was associated with a lower median total health care spending over 3 years of $1641 (95% CI, $454-$2792; P = .006). Mean total spending was $4465 (95% CI, -$944 to $9874) lower over the 3-year period. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, eliminating out-of-pocket medication expenses for patients with cost-related nonadherence in primary care was associated with lower health care spending over 3 years. These findings suggest that eliminating out-of-pocket medication costs for patients could reduce overall costs of health care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02744963.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Health ForumSame topicMedication Adherence and ComplianceFrench-language works237,207