Introduction: Seeking the Grail: Financing for Quality, Accessibility, and Sustainability in the Health Care System
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Sustainability, quality, accessibility are front and centre questions in Canadian health care. Is it possible to obtain a balance of all three - a holy grail? Key contextual factors help frame this question. Increasingly, the locus of care is shifting out of the realm of medically necessary hospital and physician services for which universal first-dollar coverage is provided under the current Canadian model. In addition, expensive drugs are being developed, often of questionable benefit or alternatively offering significant benefits to a relatively small number of individuals, and pressure is put upon provincial governments to publicly fund these drugs, thus raising sustainability issues. Yet if the same drugs are not publicly funded, questions are raised about quality and accessibility of the public system. Cultural change, coupled with technological innovation is also a source of pressure. This is evidenced by individuals' unwillingness to wait for care or suffer limitations on access. This paper explores the policy and financing options that are likely to move Canada towards an optimal balance of quality, accessibility, and sustainability. Of the three policy options - spending smarter, creating informed demand, and sustainable funding arrangements, it focuses on the last of these which has been relatively under-studied in the Canadian context. Four models of mixed public and private finance for health care are examined: parallel or duplicate, group-based, co-payment, and sectorally based systems. The debate in Canada has largely been reduced to one of whether or not to allow a duplicate or parallel private health insurance tier and has ignored the wider funding questions to be researched and debated. This paper argues that allowing a parallel or duplicate private tier for physician and hospital services is not likely to help Canadian governments achieve a better balance of sustainability, quality and accessibility. As health care grows as a share of the economy across advanced nations, the ability of a single mode of public finance to keep pace is diminishing and other sources of public finance (apart from taxation revenues) such as social insurance deserve close consideration. Although in our view solutions for Canada probably do not lie in duplicate or private insurance, it is certainly worth exploring with great rigour the benefits and costs from a Canadian perspective of social health insurance and whether and to what extent adopting this mode of financing (in part) could assist Canada with finding the right balance of sustainability, accessibility and quality.
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 | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,013 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,017 | 0,001 |
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 ».