The Effect of De-insuring Routine Eye Exams in Ontario on Optometric Glaucoma Diagnostic Billing Codes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the effect of the 2004 delisting of routine eye exams (REEs) for Ontarians aged 20-64 on new optometric glaucoma diagnostic billings. Methods: Ontario’s administrative data on new optometric glaucoma billings from 1997-2019 was analyzed using interrupted time series analysis. Results: In the policy-affected 20-64 group, the number of individuals with a new optometric glaucoma billing at REEs (termed major exams in Ontario) per 10,000 population significantly decreased post- versus pre-delisting: -10.4 (p<.0001) for those age 20-39 and -38.8 (p<.0001) for those age 40-64. This corresponds to 3,835 (p<.0001) and 15,500 (p<.0001) fewer individuals receiving a new optometric glaucoma billing in 2005 versus 2004. In policy-unaffected seniors, the rate of glaucoma billings post- versus pre-delisting remained stable (+0.1 per 10,000, p>0.05). Conclusions: Delisting REEs was associated with a significant decline in new optometric glaucoma billings at REEs in affected Ontarians (age 20-64), with no impact in unaffected seniors.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".