MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796164139 · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0959

Most Primary Care Physicians Provide Appointments, But Affordability Remains A Barrier For The Uninsured

2018· article· en· W2796164139 on OpenAlexaff
Brendan Saloner, Katherine Hempstead, Karin V. Rhodes, Daniel Polsky, Clare Pan, Genevieve M. Kenney

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Affairs · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Economics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaymentPrimary carePatient Protection and Affordable Care ActAuditHealth insuranceBusinessFamily medicineMedicineHealth careCashFinanceAccountingEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The US uninsurance rate has nearly been cut in half under the Affordable Care Act, and access to care has improved for the newly insured, but less is known about how the remaining uninsured have fared. In 2012-13 and again in 2016 we conducted an experiment in which trained auditors called primary care offices, including federally qualified health centers, in ten states. The auditors portrayed uninsured patients seeking appointments and information on the cost of care and payment arrangements. In both time periods, about 80 percent of uninsured callers received appointments, provided they could pay the full cash amount. However, fewer than one in seven callers in both time periods received appointments for which they could make a payment arrangement to bring less than the full amount to the visit. Visit prices in both time periods averaged about $160. Trends were largely similar across states, despite their varying changes in the uninsurance rate. Federally qualified health centers provided the highest rates of primary care appointment availability and discounts for uninsured low-income patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.280
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth AffairsSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207