MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390202515

The Equity Effect of Universal Health Care.

2023· article· en· W4390202515 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anja Rüdiger

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)Health equityHealth carePolitical scienceUniversal coverageHealth policyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For well over a century, the politics of universal health care have shaped the development of modern welfare states and their ability to manage economic inequality.Whether governments adopt universal health care in response to workers' struggles, capitalist labor demand, or other factors, universal health care tends to advance economic redistribution.1 This equity effect of universal health care is often overlooked, including in the human rights field. 2 Although right to health standards are clear on states' obligation to finance health care equitably, along with providing universal access to quality health facilities, goods, and services, the distributional impact of a universal system has received less consideration.3 I propose that right to health advocates embrace universal health care as a redistributive project that can help advance not only the right to health but also economic equality.Both are deeply intertwined.The United States presents a prime example.It is one of the most unequal wealthy countries, where resources are concentrated in the hands of a few while millions struggle to access basic economic and social rights.The top 10% of US households own approximately 70% of the total wealth, and the typical white family is about ten times wealthier than the typical Black family.4 Life expectancy and health outcomes are below average, compared to other OECD countries, yet health expenditure is the highest.5 Despite spending twice as much per capita on health as Canada or France, the pre-COVID-19 mortality rate from treatable causes was over a third higher in the United States than in Canada and twice as high as in France.6 While poor and unequal health outcomes point to health system failures, economic and social structures are key underlying factors.The pandemic brought this into sharp focus: COVID-19 mortality has been positively associated with country-level income inequality.7 The United States has among the highest COVID-19 mortality rate in the world, disproportionately affecting Black, Indigenous, and low-income populations.8 Economic and social inequalities drive much of this unconscionable toll on human lives.A large body of research confirms that societies with greater income inequality have poorer health outcomes.9 But if economic inequality is at the root of poor health outcomes, does the health care system matter?It does.Inequalities are maintained and reproduced by the systems and institutions that organize

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.001

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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