The effect of reference pricing of nitrates on targeted and non-targeted beneficiaries' expenditures on angina medications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Drug plans commonly use reference pricing (RP) to control programme costs. The literature explores RP on seniors, however, less is known about how RP affects other beneficiaries, including those not targeted. The RP of nitrates in British Columbia (BC) targeted senior and welfare beneficiaries, while long-term care recipients were exempted. Research design. Using OLS regression, the pre-RP trend was extrapolated in to the post-RP period to estimate the impact of RP on the average Pharmacare daily expenditure on angina therapy. Data. Claims submitted to Pharmacare, the BC government drug plan, from January 1990-December 2001. Conclusion. RP reduced Pharmacare daily expenditures on angina medications without shifting the costs to beneficiaries. The spill-over effect, the habit of prescribing low cost medications to beneficiaries not targeted, led to substantial decreases in Pharmacare daily expenditures on angina medications of 50%. The effects of RP on beneficiaries' health status require further study.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".