MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The impact of Medicaid on children??s healthcare and health

2005· review· en· W1966175767 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Patrick M. Vivier

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Pediatrics · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicaidMedicinePovertyFamily medicineQuarter (Canadian coin)Health carePublic health insurancePublic healthSpecialtyHealth insuranceNursingEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article reviews the impact of the Medicaid program, including the proportion of children in America insured by Medicaid; the extent to which Medicaid-enrolled children have access to care; the use of services and the quality of care received by Medicaid enrollees, including evidence for disease reduction; and family satisfaction with the program. RECENT FINDINGS: More than a quarter of all children in the United States were insured through public programs, primarily Medicaid, in 2002. Public insurance programs are even more critical for low-income children: 69.5% of children in families with incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level are covered by public programs. The reach of Medicaid is extensive, although substantial numbers of eligible children remain uninsured. Although Medicaid-insured children still face access barriers, particularly for certain types of specialty care, parents of children with public insurance report high levels of satisfaction with their experience with well-child care. While the study findings are mixed, several recent studies show very favorable comparisons between the experience of privately insured children and that of publicly insured children. SUMMARY: Medicaid plays a critical role in providing health insurance coverage for children, particularly for very low-income families. Additional efforts are needed to fully enroll all eligible families and to assure full access to high-quality care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.246
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in PediatricsSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207