Most Uninsured Adults Could Schedule Primary Care Appointments Before The ACA, But Average Price Was $160
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) allow millions more Americans to obtain health insurance. However, a sizable number of people remain uninsured because they live in states that have not expanded Medicaid coverage or because they feel that Marketplace coverage is not affordable. Using data from a ten-state telephone survey in which callers posed as patients, we examined prices for primary care visits offered by physician offices to new uninsured patients in 2012-13, prior to ACA insurance expansions. Patients were quoted a mean price of $160. Significantly lower prices for the uninsured were offered by family practice offices compared to general internists, in offices participating in Medicaid managed care plans, and in federally qualified health centers. Prices were also lower for offices in ZIP codes with higher poverty rates. Only 18 percent of uninsured callers were told that they could bring less than the full amount to the visit and arrange to pay the rest later. ACA insurance expansions could greatly decrease out-of-pocket spending for low-income adults seeking primary care. However, benefits of health reform are likely to be greater in states expanding Medicaid eligibility.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".