MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Eradicating Poverty and Unshackling from Illness Expense: The Impact of Targeted Poverty Alleviation Policy on Medical Burden

2024· article· en· W4403581833 on OpenAlexaff
Chao Jin

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Economics Management and Political Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyPropensity score matchingPsychological interventionDifference in differencesChinaReimbursementSafety netBusinessEconomicsEnvironmental healthPublic economicsMedicineHealth careEconomic growthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health poverty alleviation is a crucial aspect of targeted poverty alleviation policy, with easing the medical burden being its primary goal. This study evaluates China's targeted poverty alleviation policy's impact on reducing the medical burden of impoverished households, using data from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Survey (CHARLS) for the years 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2018. Employing Difference-in-Differences (DID) methodology, this paper finds significant reductions in both the out-of-pocket to income ratio and catastrophic medical expenditure among targeted households. The policy's success is attributed to the "income effect", raising household income levels, and the "safety-net effect" increasing the reimbursement ratio for inpatient expenses. These results are valid across several robustness tests including propensity score matching (PSM-DID) and placebo test. The findings have implications for global health policy, suggesting that targeted poverty alleviation interventions can effectively alleviate medical burden and prevent poverty due to health expenses, offering a viable model for other developing countries facing similar challenges.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Economics Management and Political SciencesSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207