Public perceptions on national health insurance: moving towards universal health coverage in South Africa.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since 1994, considerable progress has been made in transforming the South African health care system, implementing programmes that improve the health of the population, and improving access to health care services. However, amid escalating health care costs disparities continue to exist between the public and private health sectors. The implementation of a national or social health insurance remains elusive despite three government-appointed committees on the matter. METHOD AND OBJECTIVE: This paper reports on the findings of a national probability household sample of the South African population, drawn as part of the 2005 HIV/AIDS national survey, to gauge public opinion on universal health care coverage. The perceptions of South Africans were assessed on selected health care affordability and financing issues. RESULTS: The majority support efforts to contain medicine costs and one-third are of the opinion that the country can provide everyone with all the needed health care and medical services. A large percentage of participants thought it more important to provide improved health care coverage even if it meant raising taxes, while a small percentage said it is better to hold down taxes despite lack of access to health care for some South Africans. Almost a quarter of participants were unable to comment on questions posed to them, indicating the need for improved public education and communication. CONCLUSION: The study provides important insights into public opinion on key policy issues. However, greater public awareness is needed to ensure an informed debate, while the design of a universal national health insurance scheme must take into account both the current context and public opinion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".