MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3123960789

Is the Canadian System Right for the United States

2014· article· en· W3123960789 on OpenAlexaffabout
Colleen M. Flood

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessPrivate insurancePaymentHealth careActuarial sciencePublic economicsHealth insuranceFinanceEconomicsEconomic growth
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While political realities make it quite unlikely the United States will move to a single-payer system, there may nevertheless be lessons to be drawn from Canada’s experience as well as from the experience of other nations. Canadian Medicare is presented as both a savior and a foe to American patients. On the one hand, it is a symbol to progressive American scholars of accessible health care without the command-and-control features of, for example, the UK system. On the other, its effective bans on supplementary PHI for queue jumping and top-ups leave too little room for embedded private insurance companies. The most likely model would see a significant role for private health insurance in providing the core plan to which there is universal access.This paper argues that whatever the path forward for the United States, there will be a need to attend to the interplay between private health insurance (supplementary and complementary) and the established “basic” or core plan — whether single payer, social health insurance, regulated universal private health insurance, or some variant thereof — with a view to balancing access, equity, and cost. If the basic or core plan is bare bones, the role for complementary/ supplementary private insurance will be proportionately large, particularly if co-payments are high. If rationing is too severe within the core or basic plan, this will generate demand for private alternatives to avoid queues. If private insurers are harnessed to provide the core or basic plan and are also allowed to tie this product to offerings of supplemental or complementary private health insurance, then regulation will likely be required to ensure that the tied products are not used to effectively circumvent requirements that private insurers not select on risk in the basic or core plan. The dynamics within a particular system are very context specific, which, it must be conceded, limits our ability to reliably transplant lessons from one country to another Hence, the enormous challenge facing U.S. lawmakers as they attempt to design and implement foundational changes.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0250.009
Scholarly communication0.0160.005
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0550.007

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicCanadian Policy and Governance→French-language works237,207→