MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3125290350

Mandatory Universal Drug Plan, Access to Health Care and Health: Evidence from Quebec, Canada

2012· preprint· en· W3125290350 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chao Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2012
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical prescriptionPrescription drugMedicineFamily medicinePublic healthPopulationHealth careEnvironmental healthBusinessActuarial scienceNursingPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study estimates the effects of a mandatory, universal prescription drug insurance program in a public health care system with free physician and hospital services. In 1997 all residents of the province of Quebec, Canada, were required by law to have drug insurance coverage. Under this program, all persons under age 65 who are eligible for a private plan are required to join that plan and the public prescription drug insurance plan covers all Quebecers who are not eligible for a private plan. Using the 1994 to 2003 data of the National Population Health Survey and a difference-in-differences approach, we find that the mandatory program significantly increases drug coverage among the general population. The policy also significantly increases medication use and general practitioner visits but has little effect on specialist visits and hospitalization. Findings from quantile regressions suggest that there is a significant improvement in the health status of less healthy individuals. Analysis by drug insurance status before the reform and presence of chronic condition reveals that the probability of taking any medication and visiting a general practitioner increases more among the previously uninsured and those with a chronic condition, and the universal drug program produces positive health gains among the chronically ill.

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)0.012
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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics→Same topicHealthcare Policy and Management→French-language works237,207→