Policy feedback, varieties of federalism, and the politics of health‐care funding in the United States, Mexico, and Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Long before the COVID‐19 pandemic, health‐care spending became a key policy issue across the OECD. Comparing recent institutional trends in public health‐care financing in three federal countries—Canada, the United States, and Mexico—this article explores the political struggles over fiscal federalism in health care related to both vertical and horizontal imbalances that can generate regional tensions and pit subnational governments against one another and, especially, against the national government. Grounded in a historical institutionalist perspective, the article shows how different institutional legacies shape current conflicts over federal health‐care funding in these three highly dissimilar federal countries. Such an analysis stresses the role of policy feedback in social politics and the enduring “varieties of federalism” in North American public health‐care funding. More specifically, the article shows how the distinct nature of policy feedback effects in the United States, Mexico, and Canada helps explain why the two former countries recently witnessed major changes in intergovernmental relations over fiscal federalism for health care while the latter did not. Related Articles Bode, Ingo, and Jorge E. Culebro Moreno. 2018. “Paradoxical Internationalization: Regulatory Reforms in the Mexican Health‐Care System through the Lens of European Experience.” Politics & Policy 46(4): 678–710. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12268 . Lauby, Fanny, and Christopher J. McKinley. 2023. “Factors of Early COVID‐19 Prevention Policy Engagement in France and the United States.” Politics & Policy 51(5): 830–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12556 . Luccisano, Lucy, and Amy Romagnoli. 2007. “Comparing Public Social Provision and Citizenship in the United States, Canada, and Mexico: Are There Implications for a North American Space?” Politics & Policy 35(4): 716–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2007.00082.x .
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it