Post-acute health care costs following SARS-CoV-2 infection: A retrospective cohort study of among 531,182 matched adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Post-acute health care costs following SARS-CoV-2 infection are not known. Beginning 56 days following SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, we compared person-specific total and component health care costs across their distribution for the following year (test-positive versus test-negative, matched people; January 1, 2020-March 31, 2021). For 531,182 individuals, mean person-specific total health care costs were $513.83 (95% CI $387.37-$638.40) higher for test-positive females and $459.10 (95% CI $304.60-$615.32) higher for test-positive males, or >10% increase in mean per-capita costs, driven by hospitalization, long-term care, and complex continuing care costs. At the 99 th percentile of each subgroup, person-specific health care costs were $12,533.00 (95% CI $9,008.50-$16,473.00) higher for test-positive females and $14,604.00 (95% CI $9,565.50-$19,506.50) for test-positive males, driven by hospitalization, specialist (males), and homecare costs (females). Cancer costs were lower. Six-month and 1-year costs differences were similar. These findings can inform planning for post-acute SARS-CoV-2 health care 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".