MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2177012687 · doi:10.3138/cpp.2014-072

CHIP-ing Away at Health Disparities: Has State-Provided Health Insurance Reduced Race- and Nativity-Based Differences in Health Care Utilization among US Children?

2015· article· en· W2177012687 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Deborah Roempke Graefe, Stephanie Howe Hasanali, Gordon F. De Jong, Chris Galvan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationPublic health insuranceHealth careEthnic groupHealth equityHealth insuranceDiversity (politics)Race (biology)Demographic economicsBusinessState (computer science)Environmental healthPolitical scienceEconomic growthMedicineSociologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although recent legal permanent residents and undocumented immigrants are generally barred from accessing public health insurance, some US states cover immigrant children through the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). In this study, we examine the contextual effect of US state health insurance eligibility policy, particularly with respect to immigrant children, on race/ethnic and nativity-based disparities in children’s routine health care. Utilizing our original data on state CHIP eligibility policies and child-level data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, we find that a significant portion of between-state variation in children’s routine health care results from diversity in CHIP eligibility rules for poor and foreign-born children. Immigrant-specific disparities are reduced when states do not require five years of residency for CHIP participation.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.184 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207