MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389610072 · doi:10.1097/mao.0000000000004063

An Investigation of the Impact of Expanding High-Deductible Health Plans on Patient Decision for Cochlear Implant Surgery and Postoperative Outcomes

2023· article· en· W4389610072 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert E. Africa, B. Quinlan, Brian J. McKinnon

Bibliographic record

VenueOtology & Neurotology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDeductibleQuarter (Canadian coin)Health careHealth insuranceFamily medicineActuarial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

HYPOTHESIS: After the expansion of high deductibles, patients will delay cochlear implant (CI) surgery to the end of the year, and the risk of postoperative known risks will increase. BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act was associated with increased enrollment in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs), which resulted in rising health insurance deductibles. Health insurance plans can cover a patient's cost of healthcare once the deductible is met. Patients have been shown to be economic rational decision makers and make decisions based on cost rather than health. They wait for their deductible to be met, typically at the end of the year, then proceed to have costly care. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of rising health insurance deductibles on the rate and postoperative outcomes of cochlear implantation and to assess changes by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. METHODS: TriNetX was used to accumulate summary data on patients who obtained a CI between 2005 and 2022 at the beginning (quarter 1) and the end of the year (quarter 4) from the electronic medical records of 75 healthcare organizations. The trends in average rate of cochlear implantation and resultant postoperative known risks or complications were statistically evaluated. RESULTS: After expansion of HDHPs, the rate of cochlear implantation between quarter 4 (19 cases per year) and quarter 1 (17 cases/year) was similar (p = 0.18). For all patient groups, the case volume significantly increased. Between quarter 4 and quarter 1, postoperative tinnitus was more common in the beginning of the year (risk ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: The number of patients receiving CIs significantly increased despite the expansion of HDHPs. Tinnitus was a rare postoperative known risk in the beginning of the year. Patients are less likely concerned about cost of CI surgery because of the impact of hearing loss on quality of life.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOtology & NeurotologySame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207