Advancing the application of systems thinking in health: why cure crowds out prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This paper presents a system dynamics computer simulation model to illustrate unintended consequences of apparently rational allocations to curative and preventive services. METHODS: A modeled population is subject to only two diseases. Disease A is a curable disease that can be shortened by curative care. Disease B is an instantly fatal but preventable disease. Curative care workers are financed by public spending and private fees to cure disease A. Non-personal, preventive services are delivered by public health workers supported solely by public spending to prevent disease B. Each type of worker tries to tilt the balance of government spending towards their interests. Their influence on the government is proportional to their accumulated revenue. RESULTS: The model demonstrates effects on lost disability-adjusted life years and costs over the course of several epidemics of each disease. Policy interventions are tested including: i) an outside donor rationally donates extra money to each type of disease precisely in proportion to the size of epidemics of each disease; ii) lobbying is eliminated; iii) fees for personal health services are eliminated; iv) the government continually rebalances the funding for prevention by ring-fencing it to protect it from lobbying.The model exhibits a "spend more get less" equilibrium in which higher revenue by the curative sector is used to influence government allocations away from prevention towards cure. Spending more on curing disease A leads paradoxically to a higher overall disease burden of unprevented cases of disease B. This paradoxical behavior of the model can be stopped by eliminating lobbying, eliminating fees for curative services, and ring-fencing public health funding. CONCLUSIONS: We have created an artificial system as a laboratory to gain insights about the trade-offs between curative and preventive health allocations, and the effect of indicative policy interventions. The underlying dynamics of this artificial system resemble features of modern health systems where a self-perpetuating industry has grown up around disease-specific curative programs like HIV/AIDS or malaria. The model shows how the growth of curative care services can crowd both fiscal and policy space for the practice of population level prevention work, requiring dramatic interventions to overcome these trends.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".