MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134558710 · doi:10.1002/hec.2955

PER‐PERIOD CO‐PAYMENTS AND THE DEMAND FOR HEALTH CARE: EVIDENCE FROM SURVEY AND CLAIMS DATA

2013· article· en· W2134558710 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Helmut Farbmacher, Joachim Winter

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Economics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitätsklinikum Köln
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)PaymentIncentiveActuarial scienceHealth careDemographic economicsHealth insurancePeriod (music)PopulationSurvey data collectionEconomicsBusinessPublic economicsMedicineFinanceStatisticsEconomic growthEnvironmental healthGeographyMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When health insurance reforms involve non-linear price schedules tied to payment periods (for example, fees levied by quarter or year), the empirical analysis of its effects has to take the within-period time structure of incentives into account. The analysis is further complicated when demand data are obtained from a survey in which the reporting period does not coincide with the payment period. We illustrate these issues using as an example a health care reform in Germany that imposed a per-quarter fee of €10 for doctor visits and additionally set an out-of-pocket maximum. This co-payment structure results in an effective 'spot' price for a doctor visit that decreases over time within each payment period. Taking this variation into account, we find a substantial reform effect-especially so for young adults. Overall, the number of doctor visits decreased by around 9% in the young population. The probability of visiting a physician in any given quarter decreased by around 4 to 8 percentage points.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.196
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.165 · 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 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

Citations23
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth EconomicsSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207