MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594604022

Paying ‘Til it Hurts: High Medical Spending among the Poor and Elderly in Ten Developed Countries

2016· preprint· en· W2594604022 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Katherine Baird

Bibliographic record

VenueEconstor (Econstor) · 2016
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Washington
KeywordsMedical expensesQuarter (Canadian coin)High income countriesDemographic economicsBusinessHealth spendingEconomicsDeveloping countryEconomic growthHealth careHealth insuranceMedicineGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper measures high medical expenses in ten developed countries, both overall and by income and age, providing some of the best evidence to date on the extent of high medical spending across and within countries. Using comparable household-level data on out-of pocket (OOP) medical expenditures made available through the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS), we measure high spending when it exceeds a threshold share of household income. The results show that the U.S. is far from alone in its failure to protect individuals from large medical expenses. In five of the other nine countries, one-quarter or more of poor households devoted at least 5 percent of household income to OOP expenses. The rate of high spending in the US is similar to Japan's, but below that in Russia, Poland, Israel, and Switzerland. The high levels of exposure to large medical expenses in most countries indicates the need to develop robust measures of excessive spending that capture both future risk as well as past burdens.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.332 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconstor (Econstor)Same topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207