MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974662705 · doi:10.1525/maq.2005.19.1.047

The Safety Net of the Safety Net: How Federally Qualified Health Centers "Subsidize" Medicaid Managed Care

2005· review· en· W1974662705 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Deborah A. Boehm

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Anthropology Quarterly · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityConcordia University of Edmonton
KeywordsSafety netMedicaidMedicaid managed careSubsidyManaged careWelfare reformBusinessWelfareHealth carePovertyEconomic growthMedicinePolitical scienceEnvironmental healthEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, I examine the impact of neoliberalism and welfare reform on the delivery of Medicaid, specifically how the advent of Medicaid managed care (MMC) has been wrought with contradictions, placing increased burdens on primary safety-net organizations and impacting the many communities they serve. I argue that federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) operate as a primary safety net among safety-net providers, supporting and subsidizing New Mexico's MMC program financially and administratively. By presenting ethnographic data, I will demonstrate how FQHCs pay many of the hidden financial and institutional costs of the shift to managed care. Such findings uncover paradoxes inherent to neoliberal ideologies and privatization, raising questions about the efficacy of a managed care system for Medicaid as well as the future of the health care safety net and access to health care for the diverse populations it serves.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations46
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Anthropology QuarterlySame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207