Decedents accounted for 13% of annual health care spending at age 65 and over, but only 2.8% was spent on those who, according to our machine learning model, had a greater than 50% chance of dying. Although the daily medical expenditure per life of a survivor was ten times higher than that of a non-survivor, compared to a minority of survivors, the daily expenditure per life per living person was only 2.5 times higher. A major strength of this study is the availability of information to the general public, with rich health care and socio-demographic predictor data and accounting for 97% of all healthcare costs.12, and including social care and support. As health care costs in Denmark are paid by tax, the difference will not be the insurance drawings and prices. The data used at the individual level, however, can be underestimated to some extent: Hospital costs and DRG prices are approximate and may not match the actual cost of care, and individual cost estimates for nursing home and home care are also affected. the amount of simulation and simulation. The study only considers expected deaths at baseline, which may be a low indicator of health care costs, and other measures such as life-adjusted years could be taken into account.
The distribution of predicted deaths is similar to the expected2 for American Medicare enrollees. The inclusion of more personality variables did not materially change the prediction, as our AUC is similar to that of the Medicare study—results that compare favorably with the findings of other studies.6,7,13,14,15,16, especially considering the long forecast period of our study. The low number of deaths predicted may be due to random variation in mortality, an increase in adverse health events after the start of follow-up, or due to limitations of the available data. But even if we can point to health signs that were not in the survey there are signs10,17,18 so that this does not increase the prediction of death too much.
The amount of treatment costs depends on the expected mortality rate as the Einav et al.2. Costs related to care, in contrast, only increase mortality and increase significantly with increasing mortality, while the cost of treatment among those who die decreases to an expected mortality of about 30%. This is not surprising-predicted death is an indicator of frailty and therefore the need for community care, and the need for care can change slightly due to events that affect health during follow-up. It is interesting that we see a decrease in the predicted mortality in the payments related to treatment per day alive for those who died. This has not been observed in the American population and may reflect the different medical cultures in Denmark and the US, but different predictors may also be part of the explanation – costs related to treatment decrease with age in Denmark.11and if the predicted mortality reflects more age and weakness in our system than the American data, that may explain the difference.
For the same reasons as mentioned above, there is little difference between the costs related to the daily care of the deceased and the survivors. Health care costs are higher than those for survivors, although the difference is smaller for most deaths. This trend can be explained by the passage of time—when a person dies, their health is the weakest since they took over, and it is likely that the person who died unexpectedly will be very ill. An event that requires treatment, where death from a predictable cause may be a direct continuation of behavior already established by the time of entry. Also, a person with an imminent death may be eligible for treatment, being very frail. But to the extent that the difference between survivors and those who died in the same mortality rate is not due to curveball phenomena, it can be seen as the “true” cost of dying.
Therefore, almost all medical expenses are incurred when there is a reasonable hope that the patient can live, so the concept of “cost of death” is confused with weakness: We spend more on the weak, and the weak are more. die – but not certain to do so, at least within a reasonable time. This great weakness, predicted that the one-year death rate was 39% of health care costs in the last year of life in Denmark, a comparison consistent with that of American Medicare subscribers.2. The idea of the possibility of reducing health care costs at the end of life is attractive, and it seems possible to find groups that can benefit from changes in health care. However, our results, along with those of our sample paper, add to the list of reasons why it would be foolish to reduce health care costs by reducing the cost of death. The amount of money that occurs at the end of life is lower than previously reported1deaths are few in expensive people3The increase in demand will increase health care costs in the elderly as will mortality.19and the high cost of dying appears to be driven more by disease prevalence than by last-ditch lifesaving efforts.1,11,20. Our study design does not address the question of individual treatment effects—whether a particular drug improves quality of life for some people—and perhaps better methods than ours can identify groups of people with higher mortality, but it seems unlikely that subgroups the small ones should be big enough. that cost reductions may be necessary at the level of the national budget.
