Origin, impacts, and potential solutions to the fragmentation of the Mexican health system: a consultation with key actors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One of the central debates in health policy is related to the fragmentation of health systems. Fragmentation is perceived as a major obstacle to UHC. This article presents the results of a consultation with a group of actors of the Mexican policy arena on the origins and impacts of the fragmentation of the Mexican health system. METHODS: We used a consultation to nine key actors to collect thoughts on the fragmentation of the Mexican health system. The group included national and local decision makers with experience in health care issues and researchers with background in health systems and/or public policies. The sessions were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Participants defined the term 'fragmentation' as the separation of the various groups of the population based on characteristics which define their access to health care services. This is a core characteristic of health systems in Latin America (LA). In general, those affiliated to social security institutions have a higher per capita expenditure than those without social security, which translates into differential health benefits. According to the actors in this consultation, fragmentation is the main structural problem of the Mexican health system. Actors agreed that the best way to end fragmentation is through the creation of a universal health system. Defragmentation plans should include a research component to document the impacts of fragmentation, and design and test the instruments needed for the integration process. CONCLUSIONS: First, health system fragmentation in Mexico has created problems of equity since different population groups have unequal access to public resources and different health benefits. Second, Mexico needs to move beyond the fragmentation of its health system and guarantee, through its financial integration, access to the same package of health services to all its citizens. Third, defragmentation plans should include a research component to document the impacts of fragmentation, and design and test the instruments needed for the integration process. Fourth, defragmentation of health systems is not an easy task because there are vested interests that oppose its implementation. Political strategies to meet the resistance of these groups are an essential component of any defragmentation plan.
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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".