MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160956735

The Misguided War against Medicines 2011

2011· article· en· W2160956735 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brett J. Skinner, Mark C. Rovere

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicPharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsFraser Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth carePublic economicsMedical prescriptionBusinessGovernment (linguistics)PopulationGoods and servicesMonopolyRevenuePrescription drugSubsidyConsumption (sociology)Government spendingGovernment revenueTax revenueEconomicsEconomic growthWelfareFinanceMedicineEnvironmental healthMarket economy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Provincial health spending has grown faster on average than GDP for the last 37 years. Trends show that health spending will consume 50% of total available revenues (including federal transfers) in 6 of 10 provinces by 2017, up from roughly 25% in 1974. Some researchers blame unsustainable growth in government health spending on the cost of prescription drugs, particularly patented medicines. The evidence suggests otherwise. Prescription drugs account for a small percentage (9%) of government health spending; and patented prescription drugs are an even smaller percentage (5.2%). Excluding prescription drugs, all other non-drug categories of health expenditures (hospitals, professionals, etc.) are growing at an unsustainable pace, while accounting for 91% of government spending on health. There is no observable statistical link between the rising share of the health budget spent on drugs and variation in the growth rates in government health spending. Inflation-adjusted, post-market prices for patented drugs in Canada have been declining for 21 years, and introductory prices for patented drugs are at or below international prices.The real cause of unsustainable growth in health spending is that government socializes too much of the private consumption costs of healthcare. Provinces subsidize 100% of the cost of medical goods and services through a redistributive, tax-funded, single-payer, government-run, insurance monopoly. Coverage is universal for hospital and physician services, but extends to drugs for only one-third of the population. Consumers are disconnected from the costs of the healthcare they personally use. As a result, the system lacks the normal economic incentives that would produce a sustainable balance between the demand for and supply of medical goods and services. Instead, governments constrain costs through central budget rationing, which creates intractable shortages because, while private insurance could cover unmet consumer demands for healthcare, governments effectively prohibit private payment for hospital and physician services.

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)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0110.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.008

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicPharmaceutical Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207