MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168415188 · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.w5.152

Prescription Drug Coverage And Seniors: Findings From A 2003 National Survey

2005· article· en· W2168415188 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Affairs · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrescription drugMedical prescriptionQuarter (Canadian coin)MedicaidPharmacyMedicineFamily medicineMedicare Part DEnvironmental healthGerontologyHealth careNursingEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Beginning in 2006 the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA) will offer pharmacy benefits to forty-two million Medicare beneficiaries nationwide. In a 2003 national survey of Medicare beneficiaries age sixty-five and older, more than one-quarter reported no prescription coverage, and nearly half of low-income seniors in some states lacked coverage. Wide coverage differences among states highlight implementation challenges and the need for tailored enrollment strategies. Evidence of Medicaid's highly effective coverage delineates the importance of assuring this group's continued protection under Part D plans. Reports of complex drug regimens, multiple prescribing physicians and pharmacies, nonadherence, and reimportation demonstrate the challenges of integrating seniors' prescription care. We discuss MMA's potential to improve quality and the need to monitor performance.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.299 · 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