Uniform pricing and subsidy coordination mechanism in a two‐tier healthcare system under a co‐payment policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recently, the lengthy waiting time in public hospitals (called the public system) under the free healthcare policy has become a serious problem. To address this issue, motivated by the Japanese healthcare system, this paper investigates a two‐tier co‐payment healthcare system under a uniform pricing and subsidy coordination mechanism. In such a setting, the public system and the private system (i.e., the private hospitals) compete for market share with different objectives, whereas the government uniformly sets the service price and the subsidy rate to maximize social welfare under a total budget constraint. Compared with two free healthcare policy cases implemented in the Canadian and Australian healthcare systems respectively in terms of social welfare, the results show that when the market demand (or the patient service quality sensitivity) is sufficiently high (sufficiently low), the uniform pricing and subsidy coordination mechanism is better and worse otherwise; and when the patient's waiting sensitivity (or the total government budget) is in an appropriate middle range (sufficiently low or high), the mechanism can outperform than the free policy cases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".