MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101468617

Does universal comprehensive insurance encourage unnecessary use? Evidence from Manitoba says "no".

2004· article· en· W2101468617 on OpenAlexaffabout
Noralou P. Roos, Evelyn L. Forget, Randy Walld, Leonard MacWilliam

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaManitoba Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusMedicineHealth careCensusPopulationEnvironmental healthGerontologyDemographyEconomic growth
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Many argue that "free" medical care leads to unnecessary use of health resources. Evidence suggests that user fees do discourage physician use, at least by those of low socioeconomic status. In this study, we compare health care utilization and health among socioeconomic groups to determine whether people of low socioeconomic status see physicians more than would be expected given their health status. METHODS: We examined the use of health care services (physicians and hospitals) by residents of Winnipeg, Manitoba, in 1999. The cost of physician services was drawn directly from the claims filed, and the cost of hospital services was estimated using the Case Mix Group and Day Procedure Group methods linked to resource intensity weights and Manitoba hospital costs. We used neighbourhood indicators of socioeconomic status from the 1996 census and measured health status by examining rates of premature mortality, acute myocardial infarction, hip fracture (1995-1999) and diabetes (1999). Using these measures, we compared health status and health care use of residents living in areas with low average household incomes with those living in areas with high average household incomes. All rates were age- and sex-adjusted across the groups. RESULTS: The province spent 44% more providing hospital and physician services to residents of Winnipeg neighbourhoods with the lowest household incomes (820 dollars/person annually v. 596 dollars/person for residents of the neighbourhoods with highest household incomes). However, expenditures were strongly related to health status. The 70% of the population on which the province spends 10% of its health care dollars scored well on all health indicators, and the 10% of the population on which 74% of the dollars are spent scored poorly. In each expenditure group, those with lower socioeconomic status had poorer health. In the highest expenditure group, those with lowest socioeconomic status had 82% higher premature mortality rates (23.0 v. 12.6 per 100,000 population) and 53% higher hip fracture rates (5.5 v. 3.6 per 100,000 population) than those with the highest socioeconomic status. Despite their poorer health, in each expenditure group, residents of the neighbourhoods with the lowest household incomes incurred physician expenditures that were similar to those of residents of wealthier neighbourhoods. INTERPRETATION: Most people use little health care; high-cost users are a small group of very sick people drawn from all neighbourhoods and all income groups. People living in areas with low average household incomes use fewer physician services than might be expected, despite their poor health status.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.149 · 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

Citations32
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207