MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4365801458 · doi:10.46692/9781847427540.003

Market failure and health care

2011· other· en· W4365801458 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarket failureBusinessHealth careEconomicsEconomic growthMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction In the UK, the National Health Service (NHS) has survived beyond its 60th birthday. Should we celebrate? Of course, there are lots of reasons as to why there is an NHS in the UK, as well as Medicare systems in Canada and Australia and similar such schemes in other advanced economies (with the exception of the US). However, this chapter focuses on the economic, as opposed to the moral or political, arguments. Although they stem from the discipline of economics, these arguments are just that – arguments. Nevertheless, while they may be contentious to some, it is fair to say that most health economists would subscribe to them. Health care as a ‘commodity’ As explained in the introductory chapter, to take our line of reasoning forward, it is necessary to suspend belief and think of health care as a ‘commodity’. A commodity is essentially an item that can be exchanged in the marketplace; in other words, it is something for which there is both a demand and a supply, each of which will interact to determine the optimal amount produced. Although this notion is anathema to many, it is vital to the case for significant government intervention in the health care ‘market’, allowing us to strip humanitarian and political arguments from the debate. To illustrate, one could argue that it is more of a fundamental human right to have access to food than health care. But why do we not have a National Food Service? Governments intervene in the food market to maintain production standards, providing income supplements where necessary. Such intervention is nowhere near as pervasive as in health care; the rest is left to the market. Make no mistake, if governments could do this for health care, they would. The fact is that government intervention in health care is a global phenomenon – borrowing data from the table in Chapter One, see the selected examples of proportions of health care spending coming from the public purse in Table 2.1. The story we have to articulate is why this is the case. It is the nature of the commodity we call ‘health care’ that provides the explanation. More particularly, health economists make the case for extensive government intervention on the basis of ‘market failure’.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.019
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.002

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.210 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealthcare Policy and Management→French-language works237,207→