MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292547910 · doi:10.21109/kesmas.v17isp1.6056

Does It Still Show a Deficit? Arguing Post-COVID-19 Health Financing System in Bogor, Indonesia

2022· article· en· W4292547910 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Meita Veruswati, Al Asyary, Rony Darmawansyah Alnur, La Ode Hasnuddin S. Sagala, Guspianto Guspianto, Maria Holly Herawati

Bibliographic record

VenueKesmas National Public Health Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndonesianQuarter (Canadian coin)Government (linguistics)PandemicHealth careNational health insuranceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Descriptive statisticsBusinessMedicineEconomic growthGeographyEconomicsEnvironmental healthDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the Bogor City Government regulated to cover the health financing claim during the Indonesian National Health Insurance (NHI) integration period due to the lower amount of health care claim per episode in regional hospitals compared to ones that NHI paid. This study aimed to address post-COVID-19 health financing at two hospitals in Bogor City, West Java Province, Indonesia. Descriptive analysis using the aggregate statistical summaries was taken to explore the medical care episodes of the data series at two hospitals for the last two years. Of the 890 checked medical records data, the deficit occurred in 197 (22.1%) medical care episodes, while five (0.6%) exceeded the hospitals' tariffs. The remaining 688 (77.3%) medical care episodes had suits with the Indonesian Case Based Groups. Almost a quarter of medical care episodes in aggregate experienced a deficit in the two years before the pandemic. This study is the first to provide new insight into the discussion on medical care financing in a developing country's post-pandemic era in a newly-implemented NHI system.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKesmas National Public Health JournalSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207