A scoping review and analysis of a series of country experiences to inform the Chilean health financing reform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Chilean government is committed to reforming the health financing scheme set up in the eighties, characterized by risk and income segmentation. There is a need to move towards a universal, comprehensive, and sustainable health system, the financing component of which is fundamental. To contribute elements of comparative analysis to inform Chile’s reform efforts, we reviewed international health reform experiences carried out in similar settings. We used a scoping review methodology. Six countries were included in the analysis: Canada, Denmark, Slovenia, Spain, Estonia, and France. A profile was prepared for each country describing the financing system, the structures in charge of managing the public health insurance system, and the institution responsible for financing and its attributions regarding health care providers. One-hundred and eighty-eight records were identified to create the country profiles. In this article, we narratively analyze the findings, focusing on a) financing (revenue collection and pooling), b) purchaser-provider relationship and payment mechanisms, c) governance of institutional capacities and policies for reform, and d) voluntary private health insurance. For each of these dimensions, we make focused recommendations that could aid the Chilean ongoing effort for health care reform to move towards universal public insurance with a mixed payment mechanism for public and private providers. We also discuss the type of institutional governance required and the transition from mandatory to complementary private insurance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.033 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".