Medicaid policy data for evaluating eligibility and programmatic changes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) provide health insurance coverage to more than 90 million Americans as of early 2023. There is substantial variation in eligibility criteria, application procedures, premiums, and other programmatic characteristics across states and over time. Analyzing changes in Medicaid policies is important for state and federal agencies and other stakeholders, but such analysis requires data on historical programmatic characteristics that are often not available in a form ready for quantitative analysis. Our objective is to fill this gap by synthesizing existing qualitative policy data to create a new data resource that facilitates Medicaid policy research. DATA DESCRIPTION: Our source data were the 50-state surveys of Medicaid and CHIP eligibility, enrollment, and cost-sharing policies, and budgets conducted near annually by KFF since 2000, which we coded through 2020. These reports are a rich source of point-in-time information but not operationalized for quantitative analysis. Through a review of the measures captured in the KFF surveys, we developed five Medicaid policy domains with 122 measures in total, each coded by state-quarter-1) eligibility (28 measures), 2) enrollment and renewal processes (39 measures), 3) premiums (16 measures), 4) cost-sharing (26 measures), and 5) managed care (13 measures).
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 | 0.024 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".