Die Einführung der Praxisgebühr und ihre Wirkung auf die Zahl der Arztkontakte und die Kontaktfrequenz: eine empirische Analyse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of the Statutory Health Insurance Modernization Act a co-payment of €10 per quarter for the first contact at a physician's or a dentist's office has been introduced with effect of 1stJanuary 2004. Apart from contributing to the financial consolidation of the Statutory Health Insurance the co-payment aimed at changing the patients' behaviour towards more selfresponsibility. This article shows that physician contacts declined in the year 2004 compared to 2003. However the share of those patients who at least had one physician contact in both years remained stable. Two Logit-models point out that necessary physician contacts still take place e.g. in case of disabled persons and persons with poor health. In addition no discrimination of persons of low social status could be observed. The results are also approved by other studies. Therefore it seems plausible, that the introduction of this co-payment has contributed to a reduction of unnecessary and redundant physicians visits.
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 | 0.022 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".