MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Why Are Managed Care Plans Less Expensive: Risk Selection, Utilization, or Reimbursement?

2004· article· en· W1975296436 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Risk & Insurance · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Economics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReimbursementActuarial scienceManaged careMedical Expenditure Panel SurveyBusinessSelection (genetic algorithm)Sample (material)Health insuranceHealth careEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article develops a new method of decomposing the cost difference between HMO and non‐HMO plans into observed risk selection, unobserved risk selection, utilization differences, and differences in provider reimbursement rates. We implement this method using a large national sample of employer‐sponsored health insurance enrollees from the Community Tracking Study Household Survey. We find no evidence that HMO plans attract a disproportionate share of low‐risk enrollees; the US$188 difference between HMO and non‐HMO medical expenditures per enrollee can be explained by the relatively low provider reimbursement rates paid by HMO plans. This indicates there may be little need for employers to risk adjust insurance premiums or otherwise restrict employee choice of plan types.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score0.747

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.225 · 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