Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In July 2004, Canada’s premiers called on the federal government to establish a comprehensive national drug program (pharmacare). Some stakeholder groups welcomed the proposal, while others were more cautious. CSHP responded with a brief to the provincial, territorial, and federal ministers of health, supporting a national approach to pharmacare as a fundamental component of overall health care reform. At the First Ministers’ meeting in September 2004, the federal government rejected the premiers’ proposal for a national pharmacare program. However, the premiers walked away with a “10-year plan to strengthen health care”, which includes a national pharmaceuticals strategy. Do hospital pharmacists need to be concerned about pharmacare? At the very least, as citizens and taxpayers, we should all care about a proposed program with estimated annual costs of $7 billion to $12 billion. But, as pharmacists, we should be even more concerned about whether our patients can access the medications they need when they need them. We all know that gaps exist in the current system and that all too often patients suffer the consequences. Many Canadians have either insufficient or no coverage for outpatient prescriptions. It is also common to see a lack of alignment between hospital or regional formularies and those of provincial programs, so patients often end up with unnecessary and confusing changes in drug therapy as they move from home to hospital and back home again. Clearly there is room for considerable improvement in how we approach access to medications. The debate on pharmacare should not be limited to the provision of medications in a community setting. A comprehensive, properly designed strategy must provide the right medication in every care setting — in hospital, at home, and in long-term care facilities — and must take into account the transitions among these settings. Inadequate funding for medications is currently seen in all these sectors. Even in hospitals, where drug costs are covered by our public system, balancing fiscal realities with the need to provide top-quality drugs to patients can make for difficult decisions. Improving access to medications is only part of the equation. It is well known that the money currently expended on drugs is not always well spent. Value is reduced by inappropriate drug choices, poor prescribing practices, wastage, and poor compliance. Therefore, in addition to access, an effective pharmacare strategy must address overall drug therapy management. Many other considerations need to be contemplated. Should Canada’s pharmacare program be administered by the federal government, or simply funded at that level and administered by the provinces and territories, as is the case for most other aspects of health care? Should our program be funded exclusively by the public purse or through cost-sharing and partnerships with the private sector? How will outcomes and effectiveness be monitored and evaluated? These and other policy issues must be resolved before a national pharmacare program can become a reality. The discussions on pharmacare will undoubtedly continue. The expertise of hospital pharmacists in effective drug use management and in improving patient outcomes can be of considerable assistance in efforts to establish an effective pharmacare strategy. As the national voice for hospital pharmacy, CSHP will continue to participate in these discussions, to show that pharmacists do care about pharmacare.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,019 | 0,098 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,013 | 0,019 |
| Communication savante | 0,017 | 0,030 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,047 | 0,052 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,036 | 0,013 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».