Global Budgets: An Effective Approach To Control U.S. Health Expenditures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global budgets, as utilized in Canada, Germany, and in most other European countries, could be a possible approach to control increasing U.S. health care expenditures. This paper starts with a discussion of why making modifications of how hospitals and physicians are reimbursed, but still maintaining fee-for-service incentives, is not the long-term solution to the U.S. healthcare cost dilemma. After in the most general terms outlining the key elements of a possible U.S. global budgetary reimbursement methodology, some potential targets for organizational and management-type cost reductions are outlined. Billions of dollars could be saved in the U.S. by implementing a smart card for processing health insurance claims; by shuttering underutilized hospitals and other health facilities; by eliminating almost half of the available high tech equipment; and, other proposed approaches. This paper concludes with a discussion of how global budgets might impact the delivery of health services as it relates to consumers, the providers, the insurers, and to the potential formation of a Federal Health Commission and of state health commissions organized as public utilities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".