The Emerging Pardigm in Developed Health Systems- Germany, France, Israel, the Netherlands, the UK, and the USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The session summarizes key aspects of THE EMERGING PARADIGM IN HEALTH SYSTEMS, a research program supported by the Commonwealth Fund (USA). The program attempts (a) to establish an integrated framework, based on theory and the shared experience of developed systems, to study health system finance, organization and management; and (b) to examine how the basic features of the framework have been or might be played out in the health systems of Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, the UK, and the USA. To achieve the multiple goals of the modern health system - improve health, achieve equity, contain rising aggregate costs of care, increase the efficiency and quality of medical care, and satisfy consumers and providers - the features of Emerging Paradigm balance seemingly conflicting attributes of the private and public. This is achieved by the recognition that competitive need not be private and that public need not be state. Consequently, it is a technocratic rather than an ideological paradigm. In this context and from this perspective, the session is tailored around experience of France, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, the UK, and the USA. The panel will focus on the organization of internal markets and managed competition in these nations. This focus is within the framework of the organization and management of key health system functions: funding & allocation, budget holding & the organization and management of consumption of care (OMCC), provision of care, and stewardship.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.002 |
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".