MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414564741 · doi:10.58445/rars.3132

Profits Before Patients

2025· article· nl· W4414564741 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jocelyn Alvarez

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagenl
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Services Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careInefficiencyCompromiseLife expectancyRevenuePopulationExpectancy theoryPopulation ageingHealthcare system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The Cost of CommodificationThe United States spends nearly twice as much per capita on healthcare as any other developed nation, yet consistently ranks near the bottom on critical health outcomes, from life expectancy to chronic disease burden.Americans pay more for hospital visits, physician services, and prescription drugs-not because care is more effective, but because the system is engineered to charge more.This contradiction is not incidental; it is systemic.The Iron Triangle of healthcare-cost, quality, and access-illustrates that optimizing one pillar often requires trade-offs with the others.Yet the U.S. manages to compromise all three.In pursuit of profit, it delivers a system that is simultaneously unaffordable, inaccessible, and often underperforming.Unlike nations with universal or public healthcare systems designed to promote population health, the American model is fragmented, opaque, and driven by market logic.Insurance companies, pharmaceutical corporations, hospital networks, and medical device manufacturers all operate within a framework that rewards revenue generation over patient outcomes.This paper argues that the root cause of the nation's healthcare crisis is not inefficiency or lack of innovation-but a profit-centered architecture that treats health as a commodity.In such a system, administrative complexity is rewarded, pricing is unregulated, and the human need for care becomes subordinate to quarterly earnings.To build a just and sustainable healthcare future, we must confront a hard truth: profit and patient care do not-and cannot-share equal priority. Administrative Waste Reflects a Market, Not a MissionA staggering 25% to 31% of U.S. healthcare expenditures are absorbed not by patient care, but by administrative overhead-a rate nearly triple that of nations with single-payer or universal healthcare systems (Himmelstein and Woolhandler).This bloat is not accidental.It is a byproduct of a healthcare economy that values reimbursement more than recovery.Unlike streamlined models in Canada or Taiwan, where billing systems are unified and claims processing is centralized, the American system fractures its administrative labor across thousands of private insurers, each wielding its own rules, coding systems, and paperwork demands.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.021

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.406 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealth Services Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207