MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116814309 · doi:10.1215/03616878-2822610

Unforeseen Consequences: Medicaid and the Funding of Nonprofit Service Organizations

2014· article· en· W2116814309 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Scott W. Allard, Steven Rathgeb Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Politics Policy and Law · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNonprofit Sector and Volunteering
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsMedicaidBusinessPovertyService (business)Quarter (Canadian coin)Social workPublic relationsPublic administrationHealth careEconomic growthPolitical scienceMarketingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medicaid reimbursements have become a key source of funding for nonprofit social service organizations operating outside the medical care sector, as well as an important tool for states seeking resources to fund social service programs within a devolving safety net. Drawing on unique survey data of more than one thousand nonprofit social service agencies in seven urban and rural communities, this article examines Medicaid funding of nonprofit social service organizations that target programs at working-age, nondisabled adults. We find that about one-quarter of nonprofit service organizations--mostly providers offering substance abuse and mental health treatment in conjunction with other services--report receiving Medicaid reimbursements, although very few are overly reliant on these funds. We also find Medicaid-funded social service nonprofits to be less accessible to residents of high-poverty neighborhoods or areas with concentrations of black or Hispanic residents than to residents of more affluent and white communities. We should expect that the role of Medicaid within the nonprofit social service sector will shift in the next few years, however, as states grapple with persistent budgetary pressures, rising Medicaid costs, and decisions to participate in the Medicaid expansion provisions contained within the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations16
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health Politics Policy and LawSame topicNonprofit Sector and VolunteeringFrench-language works237,207