Health Care Reform: Why Not Best Practices?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The passage of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA” or “Obamacare”) in 2010 promises to bring about significant changes in the way that health care is provided and paid for in the United States of America (USA). Supporters of ACA point to a 2000 WHO study of worldwide health care systems in which the USA ranked 37th as justification for proposed changes, and many of them have expressed a preference for ultimately implementing a single-payer or single-provider system (such as currently exists in Canada or the United Kingdom). Detractors, who generally label the act Obamacare, have expressed concerns about whether the act can achieve its stated objectives, whether it represents a negative step instead of a positive one, and whether the ultimate goal of a single-payer or single-provider system is desirable one or even an achievable one. In the context of the ongoing debate over health care in the USA, this paper reviews the WHO study and subsequent comparative analyses of world health care systems to address the following questions:Does the USA really have the 37th best health care system in the world?Does either a “single-payer” health care system or a “single-provider” health care system offer prospects for significant improvement?What model or models for delivery of health care services represent “best practices” and how can and should they be emulated?
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.073 | 0.184 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".