MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101056388 · doi:10.1093/sw/swt002

"The Best Health Care System in the World"?

2013· article· en· W2101056388 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gary D. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Work · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth carePsychologyNursingPolitical scienceMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When President Obama signed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148) (referred to as Affordable Care Act [ACA]) in 2010, advocates for uninsured and health care reform experienced some sense of accomplishment and satisfaction. A battle that started decades before had seemingly come to a close. However, this was indeed only a battle, or maybe even just a small skirmish, and war continues. Many conservative politicians have begun chants for repeal of so-called Obamacare health plan. Republicans continue to maintain that ACA will destroy the health care system in world, a favorite phrase of Speaker of House John Boehner. Does United States have health care system in world? Social workers engage in many discussions, debates, and arguments with friends, family members, and even strangers about health care, need for health care reform, and direction of American health care system. Although social workers are adept in discussing values and moral principles related to health care, discussions on this level can often remain philosophical and likely do little to change minds. As we know but sometimes forget, compelling facts and information must be mixed in with discussion of values and principles in order for advocacy of any type to be successful. As such, social workers need to know and understand key facts and information to better discuss and debate current American health care system and needs for reform. This is purpose of this commentary. Health care and health care systems are typically evaluated along three interrelated dimensions: cost, access, and quality. In our Western culture, cost of goods and their quality are often perceived to be positively related. So according to this principle, we indeed have best health care. The United States spends more on health care than any other country in world. In 2008, U.S. health care costs were $2.3 trillion which works out to $7,681 per capita (Kaiser Family Foundation, n.d.). The U.S. per capita cost is 45 percent greater than our northern neighbor, Canada, and 33 percent greater than Norway, which ranks a distant second in per capita costs (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2011). With high cost, debt is leading reason for personal bankruptcy in United States (Himmelstein, Thorne, Warren, & Woolhandler, 2009). In 2010, 28 percent of Americans surveyed reported that they had not seen a physician when sick in past year because of costs, compared with 4 percent of residents of Netherlands and 5 percent of British (Schoen et al., 2010). Sadly, only 58 percent of Americans surveyed stated they were confident or very confident they would be able to afford care they needed if they became seriously ill. This was lowest percentage among citizens of 11 OECD countries surveyed (Schoen et al., 2010). Speaker Boehner, is this one of your indicators of health care system in world? Because of costs, a significant number of Americans now travel to other countries, such as India and Thailand, to receive care. Turner (2007) cited case of an uninsured, 53-year-old North Carolina man who needed cardiac surgery to replace a mitral valve. A local hospital estimated cost for procedure at $200,000 and demanded a $50,000 deposit. After much investigation, man and his wife traveled to New Delhi and had procedure performed successfully. The couple returned home a month later. Their total cost (including travel and lodging) was $10,000. It is not surprising that insurers, state governments, corporations, and small businesses alike are moving in direction to encourage their enrollees or employees to travel to other countries for care (Einhom, 2008; Turner, 2007). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that estimated number of American medical tourists is between 60,000 and 750,000 (Lee & Balaban, 2010). …

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.027
Scholarly communication0.0150.017
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0140.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.469
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.088 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial WorkSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207