MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147591375

Medical Savings Accounts in publicly funded health care systems: enthusiasm versus evidence.

2002· article· en· W2147591375 on OpenAlexaffabout
S. E. D. Shortt

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnthusiasmAppealConsumption (sociology)Health careBusinessPublic economicsChinaActuarial scienceSavings accountInequalityEconomic growthEconomicsFinancePolitical sciencePsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) have been suggested as a possible solution to Canada's health care funding woes. This approach is intended to reduce demand for health services by making individuals financially responsible for their pattern of consumption. MSAs may have appeal in the private insurance industry. A review of the scant literature on the experience in the public systems of Singapore and China, where such plans have been implemented, and on a simulation using United States Medicare data, suggests that the approach alone has not controlled costs and may increase inequalities in publicly funded systems. The conclusion is that current knowledge of MSAs is too limited to recommend their incorporation into the Canadian health care 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.102 · 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

Citations27
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207