MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2061433951 · doi:10.1258/jrsm.2009.09k026

Free drugs for all?

2009· editorial· en· W2061433951 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2009
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueHealth Services Management and Policy
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésComputer scienceData scienceWorld Wide WebMedicineInformation retrieval

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The majority of NHS patients in England get free prescriptions because they are over 60, pregnant, poor or are children. The ‘unlucky’ 15 or so percent who pay for their drugs contribute £500 million to the government's coffers. This is a small but significant amount in relation to current NHS spend of £105 billion. Recently, the Welsh, the Irish and the Scots have moved to offering their populations ‘free’ prescriptions. To do this in England begs the question how would you replace the half billion of revenue that is lost? Given the sad state of the economy and the necessity to raise taxes and reduce public expenditure once the election is passed, it is not obvious how this funding gap could be removed. The major cost in the NHS is labour so one way of raising the money lost if prescriptions are free, would be to reduce the wages of doctors, nurses and other staff. There are indications that the pay round in 2010–2011 (after the election, of course!) will offer NHS staff zero pay deals, thereby breaching some three-year pay agreements signed in affluent early 2008. Curbing NHS staff pay and their numbers seems unavoidable if hospitals and primary care are to make ends meet after the 2010 election. There will be little left over for funding free prescriptions. Some suggest that all should pay £1 for prescriptions regardless of their circumstances. This increases the relative burden of the poor and elderly who are the main recipients of scrips from their GPs and hospital doctors. The proposal would ease the burden on the relatively rich who currently pay in excess of £7. This is a policy that may appeal to the Conservatives who are generally supported by the more affluent, but not to Labour who tend to garner the votes of the poor and elderly. The principle question that has to be dealt with by those wishing to emulate the Scots or make all pay £1 regardless of their ability to pay is opportunity cost. If you shift the burden from one group, you have to burden some other group. To put it crudely, who do you want to screw?! Your answer reflects your ideological position in relation to ‘equity’. There is no scientific answer to these choices. However, these choices also have implications for clinicians. A favourite argument of doctors is to argue that there is a lot of waste in drug prescribing. Who is responsible for this waste? Patients may not have their scrips made up. Patients may have their scrips made up and either not take them at all or take them irregularly. However the potential for waste is the clinicians themselves either prescribing inefficiently or, heaven forefend, using a prescription as a means of terminating a consultation and getting the patient out of the door! If clinicians are the source of waste in prescribing, why tax the patient with charges? The policy focus should be on inappropriate prescribing and using financial and non-financial incentives to curb this inefficiency of doctors. So what to do with prescription charges? Canadian economists concluded as follows about what they call user charges: ‘In the present structure of health care delivery, most proposals for “patient participation in health care financing” reduce to misguided or cynical efforts to tax the ill and/or drive up the total cost of health care while shifting some of the burden out of government budgets.’1 Ideally most economists would like to abolish user charges and focus on improving clinical prescribing. Creating price barriers to healthcare may reduce the utilization of care by patients with observable and treatable health needs. However, in the real world of acute economic recession and the oncoming squeeze on public expenditure, the continued use of prescription charges in England are a necessary evil. Making proposals to equalize charges is just a nice political ‘wheeze’ to shift the funding burden from the more to the less affluent!

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.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesIntégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,153
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0020,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,037
Tête enseignante GPT0,437
Écart entre enseignants0,400 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle