Participation of the Lay Public in Decision-Making for Benefit Coverage of National Health Insurance in South Korea
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
-Although South Korea successfully established national health insurance (NHI) in 1977, and has maintained universal coverage since 1989, it has long been criticized for insufficient benefit coverage. Korea has been under public pressure to increase its NHI benefit coverage, while also facing controversies over the appropriateness of items that were newly added to the benefit package. Pressured by the controversies and difficulties regarding national policy decisions on the benefits package, the Korea National Health Insurance Services eventually decided to establish a lay citizen's council, named the Citizen Committee for Participation, to help incorporate social value judgments in benefit coverage priority setting in 2012. The experience of the citizen council in Korea shows that unlike common myth, people may be willing to increase their premium contribution to expand benefits once a deliberative, democratic decision-making process exists. The general public does not necessarily demand ever-increasing benefits; rather they wish to keep benefits at a reasonable level once they understand the nature of public funding, financial sustainability, and cost effectiveness. If these experiences are common among all people in the world, not only in the unique context of Korea, this public participation approach to deliberative democracy may help reduce policy failure in other cultural settings.
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 | 0.031 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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