The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Teaching resource allocation: and why it matters
Open accessAbstract
Health care rationing—whether to do it, how to do it—is a highly debated topic, especially in light of health care reforms currently being pursued. The unavoidable truth is that society’s resources are limited even in the United States and we can no longer pretend that we can offer every patient every medical treatment. Health systems around the world face the same predicament, and difficult choices have to be made to ensure that money spent on health care is used to best effect.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Third, not all health science students can conceptualize resource allocation or the effect of trade on availability and distribution of vital health resources, which is essential for grasping current health inequities (3, 7).”
From Global Health Trade Summit: an AI-enhanced simulation of international trade and global health for undergraduate public health education (2025) · cites this paper as [7]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Tian, Y. (2020) · International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET) · doi:10.3991/ijet.v15i10.13335 · Cited by 5
Patil, U., Terada, M., & Nelson-Hurwitz, D. C. (2025) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2025.1681199 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Lee, M., & Geelhoed, E. A.
- Affiliations
- The University of Western Australia (AU)
- Venue
- AMA Journal of Ethics
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2011-04-01
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 224-227
- ISSN
- 1937-7010 (ISSN-L)
- 2376-6980
- OpenAlex
- W1758424306
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- The AMA Journal of Ethic (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Ethics in medical practice
- Keywords
- health care rationing, resource allocation, health care ethics, health care reform
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
