A retrospective health policy analysis of the development and implementation of the voluntary health insurance system in Lebanon: Learning from failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public policymaking is complex and suffers from limited uptake of research evidence, particularly in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR). In-depth case studies examining health policymaking in the EMR are lacking. This retrospective policy analysis aims at generating insights about how policies are being made, identifying factors influencing policymaking and assessing to what extent evidence is used in this process by using the Lebanese Voluntary Health Insurance policy as a case study. The study examined the policymaking process through a policy tracing technique that covered a period of 12 years. The study employed a qualitative research design using a case study approach and was conducted in two phases over the course of two years. Data was collected using multiple sources including: 1) a comprehensive and chronological media review; 2) twenty-two key informant interviews with policymakers, stakeholders, and journalists; and 3) a document review of legislations, minutes of meetings, actuarial studies, and official documents. Data was analyzed and validated using thematic analysis. Findings showed that the voluntary health insurance policy was a political decision taken by the government to tackle an urgent political problem. Evidence was not used to guide policy development and implementation and policy implementers and other stakeholders were not involved in policy development. Factors influencing policymaking were political interests, sectarianism, urgency, and values of policymakers. Barriers to the use of evidence were lack of policy-relevant research evidence, political context, personal interests, and resource constraints. Findings suggest that policymakers should be made more aware of the important role of evidence in informing public policymaking and the need for building capacity to develop, implement and evaluate policies. Study findings are likely to matter in light of the changes that are unfolding in some Arab countries and the looming opportunities for policy reforms.
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 | 0.019 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".