Observational studyBMC public health2026
Multi-objective machine learning framework for welfare-optimized health insurance design in infectious disease management (Gastroenteritis).
Observational study in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and validate a multi-objective machine learning framework for welfare-optimized health insurance design in infectious disease management, explicitly modeling trade-offs among patient financial protection, provider efficiency, and insurer sustainability through empirically-derived stakeholder utilities and social welfare functions.
settingThe national health insurance system in Iran, utilizing a total of 378,403 claims of gastroenteritis hospitalizations across public, private, and charitable hospitals in 2023.
designObservational study employing 5 supervised machine learning models to predict stakeholder-specific utilities—patient (health outcomes, out-of-pocket burden, affordability), provider (length-of-stay efficiency, performance quality), and insurer (coverage adequacy, subsidy management, cost containment). Utilities were aggregated using six social welfare functions (Utilitarian, Nash, Atkinson, Rawlsian, Geometric Mean, Convex Combination) with empirically-derived stakeholder weights. Pareto frontier analysis identified welfare-dominant policy configurations across insurance arrangements.
resultsOnly 2.46% of observed policies achieved Pareto efficiency, indicating substantial allocative inefficiency. “Win-Win-Win” configurations (16.9% of efficient policies) dominated 54.1% of all alternatives, demonstrating simultaneous welfare gains across stakeholders without requiring zero-sum trade-offs. The equity-fiscal sustainability correlation (r=-0.509) was nearly twice the magnitude of the equity-efficiency correlation (r=-0.267), identifying fiscal capacity—not operational inefficiency—as the binding constraint on patient-centered insurance design. Nash and Geometric Mean social welfare functions achieved superior aggregate welfare (mean utilities 4.01 and 8.84 respectively) with exceptional stability (SD = 0.15 and 1.02), while provider-insurer aligned policies imposed catastrophic patient burdens (mean utility − 22.39). Patient utility was driven predominantly by out-of-pocket burden (weight = 0.80), with health gains contributing modestly (0.12).
conclusionMulti-stakeholder welfare optimization in health insurance is empirically feasible and does not require inherent efficiency-equity trade-offs. Fiscal constraints, rather than operational limitations, constitute the primary barrier to equitable insurance expansion, necessitating complementary revenue mobilization strategies alongside benefit design reforms to achieve sustainable universal financial protection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.