Cost, Quality and Access: An Analysis of Health Care in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparing international health care systems assists in identifying effective reforms to address three constant problems within health care around the globe: cost, quality and access. Until recently, the United States health care scheme has been administered through private enterprise while Canada and the United Kingdom have implemented national forms of health care. In order to determine which system more effectively deals issues related to cost, quality, and access, statistical information was gathered to compare each system based on cost, quality and access. Such statistics include but are not limited to waiting times for specialized care, financial expenditures for each country per person, life expectancy rates, infant mortality rates, obesity levels, and immunization rates. The findings conclude that the United States performs poorly when compared to Canada and the United Kingdom. However, recently enacted health care legislation will implement public health care reforms in the United States which are similar to those of the U.K. and Canada. As a result of this legislation, the United States may be able to more effectively control health care costs, increase access and consequently improve the quality of its health care system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".