MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605355900 · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1241

Women In The United States Experience High Rates Of Coverage ‘Churn’ In Months Before And After Childbirth

2017· article· en· W2605355900 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jamie R. Daw, Laura A. Hatfield, Katherine Swartz, Benjamin D. Sommers

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Affairs · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsChildbirthMedicaidPovertyMedicineHealth insurancePregnancyAffect (linguistics)Poverty levelBusinessDemographyEnvironmental healthHealth careEconomic growthPopulationPsychologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Insurance transitions-sometimes referred to as "churn"-before and after childbirth can adversely affect the continuity and quality of care. Yet little is known about coverage patterns and changes for women giving birth in the United States. Using nationally representative survey data for the period 2005-13, we found high rates of insurance transitions before and after delivery. Half of women who were uninsured nine months before delivery had acquired Medicaid or CHIP coverage by the month of delivery, but 55 percent of women with that coverage at delivery experienced a coverage gap in the ensuing six months. Risk factors associated with insurance loss after delivery include not speaking English at home, being unmarried, having Medicaid or CHIP coverage at delivery, living in the South, and having a family income of 100-185 percent of the poverty level. To minimize the adverse effects of coverage disruptions, states should consider policies that promote the continuity of coverage for childbearing women, particularly those with pregnancy-related Medicaid eligibility.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations186
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth AffairsSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207