MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133618155 · doi:10.1002/hpm.713

Governance in a period of strategic change in U.S. healthcare

2003· article· en· W2133618155 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thomas P. Weil

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Health Planning and Management · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestructuringRevenueIncentiveDivestmentHealth careBusinessCorporate governanceProductivityQuality (philosophy)FinanceEconomic growthEconomicsMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increased enrollment in managed care plans, merger mania and the development of politically and financially powerful integrated delivery systems have significantly complicated the governance of U.S. healthcare organizations. These modifications in fiscal incentives and the corporate restructuring undertaken by American health organizations has resulted in limited fiscal savings or improvements in access to care. As a result, trustees are now faced with divesting their losers, and shuttering facilities and services to reduce fixed costs. Decision-making by trustees will be further thwarted in the future by: their institutions being forced to deliver more care without a proportional increase in revenues; physicians seeking to obtain more ambulatory revenues at a hospital's expense; the inability to adequately finance mental health and long-term care services except among the wealthy; the number of divestitures increasing so that eventually the organizational focus for most IDSs will once again be on regionally oriented hospital systems; and much more difficulty being experienced in attracting sufficiently qualified personnel to deliver high quality health services. Finally, many of these findings relevant to the United States also are being shared by governing boards in Canada, Germany, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.010
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Health Planning and ManagementSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207