MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2101056388 · doi:10.1093/sw/swt002

"The Best Health Care System in the World"?

2013· article· en· W2101056388 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gary D. Miller

Notice bibliographique

RevueSocial Work · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHealth carePsychologyNursingPolitical scienceMedicineLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

When President Obama signed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148) (referred to as Affordable Care Act [ACA]) in 2010, advocates for uninsured and health care reform experienced some sense of accomplishment and satisfaction. A battle that started decades before had seemingly come to a close. However, this was indeed only a battle, or maybe even just a small skirmish, and war continues. Many conservative politicians have begun chants for repeal of so-called Obamacare health plan. Republicans continue to maintain that ACA will destroy the health care system in world, a favorite phrase of Speaker of House John Boehner. Does United States have health care system in world? Social workers engage in many discussions, debates, and arguments with friends, family members, and even strangers about health care, need for health care reform, and direction of American health care system. Although social workers are adept in discussing values and moral principles related to health care, discussions on this level can often remain philosophical and likely do little to change minds. As we know but sometimes forget, compelling facts and information must be mixed in with discussion of values and principles in order for advocacy of any type to be successful. As such, social workers need to know and understand key facts and information to better discuss and debate current American health care system and needs for reform. This is purpose of this commentary. Health care and health care systems are typically evaluated along three interrelated dimensions: cost, access, and quality. In our Western culture, cost of goods and their quality are often perceived to be positively related. So according to this principle, we indeed have best health care. The United States spends more on health care than any other country in world. In 2008, U.S. health care costs were $2.3 trillion which works out to $7,681 per capita (Kaiser Family Foundation, n.d.). The U.S. per capita cost is 45 percent greater than our northern neighbor, Canada, and 33 percent greater than Norway, which ranks a distant second in per capita costs (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2011). With high cost, debt is leading reason for personal bankruptcy in United States (Himmelstein, Thorne, Warren, & Woolhandler, 2009). In 2010, 28 percent of Americans surveyed reported that they had not seen a physician when sick in past year because of costs, compared with 4 percent of residents of Netherlands and 5 percent of British (Schoen et al., 2010). Sadly, only 58 percent of Americans surveyed stated they were confident or very confident they would be able to afford care they needed if they became seriously ill. This was lowest percentage among citizens of 11 OECD countries surveyed (Schoen et al., 2010). Speaker Boehner, is this one of your indicators of health care system in world? Because of costs, a significant number of Americans now travel to other countries, such as India and Thailand, to receive care. Turner (2007) cited case of an uninsured, 53-year-old North Carolina man who needed cardiac surgery to replace a mitral valve. A local hospital estimated cost for procedure at $200,000 and demanded a $50,000 deposit. After much investigation, man and his wife traveled to New Delhi and had procedure performed successfully. The couple returned home a month later. Their total cost (including travel and lodging) was $10,000. It is not surprising that insurers, state governments, corporations, and small businesses alike are moving in direction to encourage their enrollees or employees to travel to other countries for care (Einhom, 2008; Turner, 2007). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that estimated number of American medical tourists is between 60,000 and 750,000 (Lee & Balaban, 2010). …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,985
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,112

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,015
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0130,027
Communication savante0,0150,017
Science ouverte0,0020,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0140,020
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,469
Tête enseignante GPT0,557
Écart entre enseignants0,088 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations7
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSocial WorkMême sujetHealthcare cost, quality, practicesTravaux en français237 207