The cost of potentially inappropriate medications for older adults in Canada: A comparative cross‐sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) are medications whereby the harms may outweigh the benefits for a given individual. Although overprescribed to older adults, their direct costs on the healthcare system are poorly described. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of the cost of PIMs for Canadians aged 65 and older, using adapted criteria from the American Geriatrics Society. We examined prescription claims information from the National Prescription Drug Utilization Information System in 2021 and compared these with 2013. The overall levels of inflation-adjusted total annual expenditure on PIMs, average cost per quarterly exposure, and average quarterly exposures to PIMs were calculated in CAD$. RESULTS: Exposure to most categories of PIMs decreased, aside from gabapentinoids, proton pump inhibitors, and antipsychotics, all of which increased. Canadians spent $1 billion on PIMs in 2021, a 33.6% reduction compared with 2013 ($1.5 billion). In 2021, the largest annual expenditures were on proton pump inhibitors ($211 million) and gabapentinoids ($126 million). The quarterly amount spent on PIMs per person exposed decreased from $95 to $57. In terms of mean cost per person, opioids and antipsychotics were highest ($138 and $118 per exposure). Some cost savings may have occurred secondary to an observed decline of 16.4% in the quarterly rate of exposure to PIMs (from 7301 per 10,000 in 2013 to 6106 per 10,000 in 2021). CONCLUSIONS: While expenditures on PIMs have declined in Canada, the overall cost remains high. Prescribing of some seriously harmful classes of PIMs has increased and so directed, scalable interventions are needed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".