MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140732319 · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.w4.561

Re-Naming And Re-Gaming: Medicare's Doomed Attempt To Reform Reimbursement For Injectable Drugs

2004· article· en· W2140732319 on OpenAlexaff
J.D. Kleinke

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Affairs · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicPharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsHealth Care Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReimbursementModernization theoryGovernment (linguistics)Medical prescriptionDrugPrescription drugPublic economicsMedicineActuarial scienceBusinessPublic administrationLawPharmacologyEconomicsPolitical scienceHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hastily crafted provisions in the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003, intended to reform the government's flawed method for reimbursing providers who administer injectable drugs, will exacerbate existing economic and clinical problems instead of resolving them. The new provisions recast Medicare's traditional drug reimbursement system; increase temptations for physicians to overuse injectable drugs; and promise to aggravate the economic problems Congress attempted to fix with the new law. Medicare can resolve these problems by reimbursing providers for injectable drugs based on their actual acquisition cost rather than on estimates embedded in a complex drug reimbursement system.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth AffairsSame topicPharmaceutical Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207