An Experiment In Payment Reform For Doctors In Rural China Reduced Some Unnecessary Care But Did Not Lower Total Costs
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inefficiency and low quality of health services are common in many developing countries. To mitigate these problems, we conducted an experiment in rural China in which we changed the existing fee-for-service method of paying village doctors to a mixed payment method that included a salary plus a bonus based on performance. The new payment method also removed a feature that previously allowed doctors to purchase medications to prescribe to patients and earn a markup on each prescription. Changing these payment incentives reduced spending at the village level, curbed unnecessary care for healthier patients, and also decreased the prescribing of unnecessary drugs. However, other features of the arrangement encouraged doctors to refer sicker patients to township and county facilities, where costs were higher. As a result, total health care spending was not significantly reduced. The findings underscore that policy makers should design payment methods carefully to both contain costs and improve quality.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
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 it