MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121491264

Old, Frail, and Uninsured: Accounting for Puzzles in the U.S. Long-Term Care Insurance Market

2017· article· en· W3121491264 on OpenAlexaff
R. Anton Braun, Karen Kopecky, Tatyana Koreshkova

Bibliographic record

VenueEconstor (Econstor) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLong-term care insuranceMedicaidMargin (machine learning)Actuarial scienceBusinessSupply sideTerm (time)Nursing homesLong-term careHealth insuranceEconomicsHealth careMedicineNursingMicroeconomicsEconomic growth
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Half of U.S. 50-year-olds will experience a nursing home (NH) stay before they die, and a sizeable fraction will incur out-of-pocket expenses in excess of $200,000. Given the extent of NH risk, it is surprising that only about 10 percent of individuals over age 62 have private long-term care insurance (LTCI). This market also has a number of other puzzling features. Many applicants are denied coverage by insurers. Coverage of those who have insurance is incomplete. Insurance premia are high relative to an actuarily fair benchmark. Using a model that features agents with private information about their NH entry risk and an insurer who optimally chooses menus of LTCI contracts subject to participation and incentive compatibility constraints, this paper shows that these puzzles can be attributed to adverse selection, overhead costs on the insurer, and Medicaid. The model also accounts for the lack of correlation between NH entry and LTCI ownership. This final property is novel because our setup has only one dimension of private information.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
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 score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.342 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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