MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788530848 · doi:10.1007/s11149-018-9351-4

State entry regulation and home health agency quality ratings

2018· article· en· W2788530848 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert L. Ohsfeldt, Pengxiang Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Regulatory Economics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHome healthMedicaidAgency (philosophy)BusinessQuarter (Canadian coin)Quality (philosophy)MedicineEnvironmental healthHealth careGeographyEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a substantial literature assessing the impact of entry restrictions created by state certificate-of-need (CON) programs on hospital and nursing home markets, but comparatively little research has focused on CON for home health agencies (HHAs). We assessed the impact of state CON programs for HHAs, and for potential substitute service providers, on quality ratings for HHAs. HHA quality ratings were obtained from the Home Health Compare database developed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for the last quarter of 2010 through the last quarter of 2013. The HHA-level data were augmented with county-level area characteristics for each HHA in the CMS database. An ordered logit model was used to estimate the association between state CON restrictions and Low, Medium, and High quality categories, adjusted for HHA and area characteristics. The results indicated that HHAs in states with CON for HHAs were less likely to have High quality ratings, and more likely to have Medium quality ratings, compared to agencies in states without CON for home health. Additional research is needed to assess whether the apparent adverse impact of CON on HHA quality is related to diminished competition among HHAs in states with CON.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.086
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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.086
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Regulatory EconomicsSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207