COVID-19 a health reform catalyst? —Analyzing single-payer options in the U.S.: Considering economic values, recent proposals, and existing models from abroad
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The United States has continued to face severe health coverage and spending challenges that have been attributed to a fragmented multi-payer and fee-for-service delivery system which has become even more exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Legislators and healthcare professionals have tried to answer the challenges faced by the U.S. health system through the introduction of several state and federal proposals for a “Medicare-for-all” like system, which have failed to be adopted likely due to the lack of consideration for free-market economic values. Looking to existing models abroad can provide the U.S. with different ways to understand how to achieve the benefits of single-payer models with universal coverage while maintaining the integrity of free-market values. The health systems in wealthy, industrialized countries are closely referenced in this article because of the variation of methods in which each achieves a single-payer/universal coverage model as well as the contrast in their health outcomes compared to that of the U.S. The biggest considerations for any reform effort to achieve an efficient single-payer system with universal coverage is the maintenance of private health insurers and the degree to which expanded government influence would be accepted. The future state of health care remains uncertain and unstable as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, therefore a window of opportunity exists now for leveraging this uncertainty to achieve reform.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".