MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088820584 · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.w4.396

Doughnut Holes And Price Controls

2004· article· en· W2088820584 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gerard F. Anderson, Dennis G. Shea, Peter S. Hussey, Salomeh Keyhani, Laurie Zephyrin

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Affairs · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicPharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicare Part DDrug pricesPrescription drugBusinessPharmaceutical industryCost sharingDrug industryPublic economicsDrug pricingMedical prescriptionActuarial scienceEconomicsMedicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2003 citizens of Canada, the United Kingdom, and France paid an average of 34-59 percent of what Americans paid for a similar market basket of pharmaceuticals. If the Medicare program were to pay comparable prices for pharmaceuticals, it would be possible to eliminate the "doughnut hole" in its prescription drug benefit and keep Medicare drug spending within the overall limits established by Congress. This provides Congress with a clear choice: reduce the level of cost sharing and improve beneficiaries' access to pharmaceuticals, or allow the pharmaceutical industry to use the higher prices to fund research and development and to engage in other activities.

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 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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.725
Threshold uncertainty score0.784

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.300
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations30
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth AffairsSame topicPharmaceutical Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207