MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112266075 · doi:10.1093/heapol/czt011

How much do I save if I use my health insurance card when seeking outpatient care? Evidence from a low-income country

2013· article· en· W2112266075 on OpenAlexaff
Ardeshir Sepehri

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Policy and Planning · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessHealth careSelf-insuranceActuarial scienceGroup insuranceIncome protection insuranceHealth insuranceGeneral insuranceInsurance policyEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much of the existing literature on the financial protection of health insurance focuses on the impact of insurance status on total out-of-pocket expenditure on all sorts of care sought, regardless of whether the insured patients use their health insurance cards. Using Vietnam's 2006 Household Living Standard Survey data and an appropriate multivariate regression model, this article assesses the influence of Vietnam's three health insurance schemes on out-of-pocket expenditures with and without controlling for the actual use of the health insurance card when seeking outpatient care. Vietnam's experience suggests that insurance provides some financial protection, provided that insurance benefits are actually accessed. Compared with private fee-paying patients, the use of the insurance card reduces out-of-pocket expenditures, on average, by as much as 50-56%. In contrast, failure to control for the use of the health insurance card reduces the financial protection of insurance to 26-37%. However, the financial protection benefits afforded by Vietnam's insurance schemes are distributed rather inequitably. Insurance reduces out-of-pocket expenditures by as much as 71-75% for contacts at the major state hospitals, as compared with 26-38% for contacts at the community health centres. The overall financial protection provided by insurance is also found to be larger for the higher-income individuals than the middle- and low-income individuals. Efforts to ensure that all enrollees receive equitable and good-quality health services according to the benefits package appear warranted. Improving the quality of care provided by the community health centres-the main access point for medical care for many enrollees with health insurance for the poor coverage-and a more effective referral system may also be a cost-effective way of channelling outpatient service contact to the lower-level health facilities, away from the overcrowded higher-level health facilities.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Policy and PlanningSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207