Does Concurrent Introduction of Small Cost-sharing and Gatekeeping Arrangements Reduce Health Care Spending?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On July 1, 2007, South Korea’s Medical Aid program for financially needy families introduced a major reform to dampen spending growth. The reform was comprised of two elements, which were simultaneously implemented: small patient copayments for outpatient services, and a financial incentive for patients to designate a primary health care provider (a gatekeeping arrangement). We test whether this reform led to reductions in health spending. Using 32-quarter region-level panel data for the entire South Korean Medical Aid beneficiaries from 2003 to 2010, we calculate difference-in-differences estimates of per-enrollee health care costs separately for outpatient visit, hospitalization and medication. We also test mechanisms through which the reform could influence health care spending. We find that the Medical Aid reform led to approximately 15.6% reductions in spending per quarter during the 3 1/2-year follow-up period, primarily due to a reduction in outpatient visits. There is no evidence that the reform led to reductions in hospitalization and medication costs. We conclude that even a small copayment, in combination with a gatekeeping arrangement, could lead to substantial reductions in outpatient spending in a government-funded health care assistance program.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".