MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289667667 · doi:10.18785/jhe.1801.04

Financial Incentives and Healthcare: A Critique of Michael Sandel

2022· article· en· W4289667667 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Peacock

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Ethics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoercion (linguistics)IncentivePaymentHealth careLanguage changeEconomicsLaw and economicsDiscretionPublic economicsBusinessLawPolitical scienceFinanceMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of financial incentives in healthcare calls for ethical examination. Michael Sandel's influential work represents such examination and is subject to critical analysis in this paper. Sandel focuses on monetary payments to persuade patients to lose weight, give up smoking etc. but also on the much-discussed case of giving drug addicts money in return for their consent to be sterilized. He offers two separate objections to financial incentives, one based on coercion, the other on corruption. I argue that Sandel's corruption objection to commodification is insufficient to ground the objection he has to financial incentives in healthcare. Whatever strength his corruption objection has comes from his coercion objection.

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)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.011
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 head0.671
GPT teacher head0.614
Teacher spread0.057 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health EthicsSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207