MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096763140 · doi:10.2190/ec30-kp22-ra84-ral4

Health Care Access in Three Nations: Canada, Insured America, and Uninsured America

2006· article· en· W2096763140 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Steve Morgan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Health Services · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careHealth insuranceAmerican Community SurveyMedicineHealth equityUncompensated CareHealth policyBusinessEconomic growthMedicaidEnvironmental healthPopulationCensusEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This analysis provides new statistics for one of the oldest and fiercest debates in American health policy: whose residents have better access to health care, the United States' or Canada's? Data from the 2002-2003 Joint Canada U.S. Survey of Health show that, despite major differences in their health systems, most Canadians and Americans get the care they need. However, one group of Americans is much more likely to report serious access barriers--the uninsured. About one-third of currently or recently uninsured Americans, aged 18 to 64, said they could not get needed health care (over three times the rate of insured Americans or Canadians). Compared with Canadians and insured Americans, the uninsured are less likely to use hospital or physician services, and those who do are less satisfied with the care they receive. They are also less likely to purchase prescribed medications, due to cost. From a consumer perspective, the most salient feature of the Canadian system is its universality. In contrast, insured Americans under age 65 are at risk of losing their insurance and facing substantial access barriers.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.589
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations21
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Health ServicesSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207