MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405450861 · doi:10.1177/17455057241307080

The effect of Medicaid expansion on female gynecologic cancer-related inpatient admissions

2024· article· en· W4405450861 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shiva Salehian, Michael A. Preston, Peter Cunningham, Dipankar Bandyopadhyay, Emmanuel A. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueWomen s Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicaidMedicinePoisson regressionGynecologic cancerQuarter (Canadian coin)DemographyHealth insuranceEmergency medicineCancerFamily medicineObstetricsPopulationOvarian cancerHealth careEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mortality rate of female gynecologic cancer is higher among individuals without affordable health insurance. OBJECTIVES: We determined the impact of Medicaid expansion on the number of female gynecologic-related cancer inpatient admissions in Virginia (VA) relative to North Carolina (NC), the latter of which did not expand Medicaid. DESIGN: This quasi-experimental study was restricted to women between 18 and 64 years old admitted to general, acute, and short-term hospitals with gynecologic cancer. METHODS: We used Poisson fixed-effect event study regression to examine differences in the predicted number of female gynecologic-related cancer admissions in the quarters before and after Medicaid expansion (implemented in January 2019) in VA, compared to the same period in NC. RESULTS: Even though not significant, the predicted number of female gynecologic cancer-related inpatient admissions in VA increased by 4.8%, 4.9%, and 5.5% in the second, third, and fourth quarter of 2019, respectively, compared to the first quarter of 2019. CONCLUSION: Medicaid expansion in VA increased access to health services for Medicaid members, possibly due to initial pent-up demand among uninsured individuals.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designNot applicable
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 venueWomen s HealthSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207