MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151527082 · doi:10.1111/rssa.12161

Healthcare Facility Choice and User Fee Abolition: Regression Discontinuity in a Multinomial Choice Setting

2016· article· en· W2151527082 on OpenAlexafffund
Steven F. Koch, Jeffrey S. Racine

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCenter for High Performance Computing
KeywordsMultinomial logistic regressionRegression discontinuity designMultinomial distributionHealth careRegressionDiscontinuity (linguistics)EconometricsComputer scienceEconomicsStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary We apply parametric and non-parametric regression discontinuity methodology within a multinomial choice setting to examine the effect of public healthcare user fee abolition on health facility choice by using data from South Africa. The non-parametric model is found to outperform the parametric model both in and out of sample, while also delivering more plausible estimates of the effect of user fee abolition (i.e. the ‘treatment effect’). In the parametric framework, treatment effects were relatively constant—around 10%—and that increase was drawn equally from home care and private care. In contrast, in the non-parametric framework treatment effects were largest for large (and poor) families located further from health facilities—approximately 5%. More plausibly, the positive treatment effect was drawn primarily from home care, suggesting that the policy favoured children living in poorer conditions, as those children received at least some minimum level of professional healthcare after the policy was implemented.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.487
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society)Same topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207