MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392594397 · doi:10.1111/1475-6773.14295

Cross‐country comparisons in health price growth over time

2024· article· en· W4392594397 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Irene Papanicolas, Jonathan Cylus, Luca Lorenzoni

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Services Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInnovative Research Group Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of ChinaWorld Health Organization
KeywordsPrice indexPublic healthEconomicsIndex (typography)Health careInternational comparisonsConsumer price index (South Africa)Public economicsDemographic economicsEconomic growthMonetary economicsMacroeconomicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine how the United States compares in terms of health price growth relative to four other countries - Australia, Canada, France, and the Netherlands. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Secondary data on health expenditure were extracted from international and national agencies spanning the years 2000-2020. STUDY DESIGN: International price indices specific to health were constructed using available international expenditure data and compared to existing health-specific national and general international price indices. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Health expenditure data were extracted from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) database. We obtained a time series of health price indices from the national agencies in each of the study countries. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We find meaningful variation across countries in the rate at which health prices grow relative to general prices. The United States had the highest cumulative health price growth compared to general price growth over the years 2000-2020 at 14%, followed by Canada and the Netherlands. Unlike the other study countries, health prices in France grew consistently in line with general prices. Price growth for health care paid for by public funds and households grew at different rates across countries, where price growth was higher for public payers. US households faced the greatest mean annual price growth. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of price index has major implications for comparative analysis. Despite their widespread use internationally, general price indices likely underestimate the contribution of price growth to overall health expenditure growth. We find that in addition to its reputation for having high health price levels compared to other high-income countries, the United States also faces health price growth for goods and services paid for by government and households in excess of general price growth. Furthermore, US households are exposed to greater health price growth than households in comparator countries.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.589
Teacher spread0.493 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Services ResearchSame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207