MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389042374 · doi:10.1093/rfs/hhad088

Health Care Costs and Corporate Investment

2023· article· en· W4389042374 on OpenAlexaff
Joy Tianjiao Tong

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Financial Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careInvestment (military)BusinessBargaining powerCapital (architecture)Labour economicsEconomicsMonetary economicsActuarial sciencePublic economicsMicroeconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Health care costs for U.S. employers have tripled over the past 20 years. Using firm-specific health expense data, I show that firms negatively adjust capital expenditures and R&D expenses in response to increases in health care costs. The effects are more pronounced for firms that are financially constrained, employ more high-skilled workers, and have less bargaining power relative to insurers. Furthermore, policy uncertainty surrounding health care costs is substantial and discourages capital investment. These findings suggest that an elevated level of health care costs and the associated uncertainty limit a firm’s ability to expand physically or through innovation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Financial StudiesSame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207