Wait-time guarantees for health services: an analysis of Quebec's reaction to the Chaoulli Supreme Court decision.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Quebec government's response to the Chaoulli Supreme Court decision (1) regarding unreasonable wait times and private health insurance has been to introduce guaranteed wait time limits for certain health care services. This article examines two documents: Guaranteeing Access: Meeting the Challenges of Equity, Efficiency and Quality (the White Paper), (2) and Bill 33, An Act to Amend the Act Respecting Health Services and Social Services and Other Legislative Provisions, passed and assented in December 2006. (3) An analysis of these documents shows that the government is suggesting not one but two separate guarantee mechanisms quite different from one another: a public guarantee on the one hand and a public-private guarantee on the other. The first, the public guarantee, is for all practical purposes already in place, even if not in those terms, for tertiary cardiology and radiation oncology services. Results of the use of this mechanism in the past few years have shown dramatic improvement to access to care. I welcome the expansion of the public guarantee for health care services in Quebec. However, the Quebec proposal also introduces a second type of guarantee, the public-private one, about which I express strong reservations. This guarantee is linked to staunch conservative ideology, as found in Canada and elsewhere, and it is part and parcel of the introduction of private health insurance for medical and hospital services, as well as contracting-out public services to private for-profit enterprises. Its main impact over the medium to long term will be the support of the legalization and expansion of private surgical facilities and, more broadly, the implementation of a parallel system of private medical and hospital care in Quebec. The public interest of Quebecers is poorly served by such an initiative. 1. The Supreme Court of Canada Decision in Chaoulli The Supreme Court of Canada rendered its judgement in the Chaoulli case on June 9, 2005. Few decisions in its recent history have attracted the same level of media attention as this one. The next day, startling headlines appeared in newspapers across Canada. (4) In a controversial and close decision, a 4-3 majority had concluded that, given the unreasonable wait times for access to certain health services, the ban on private insurance for services covered under Quebec's public hospital and health insurance legislation (5) violated section 1 of The Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. (6) The decision became the subject of numerous commentaries, in law journals (7) and other specialized publications (8) as well as in the media. (9) The purpose of this paper is not to comment on the legal decision itself, but rather to offer an analysis of the Quebec government's response to the decision. Its proposals were first contained in its White Paper, Guaranteeing Access, published on February 16, 2006, and in large part confirmed in Bill 33, which was tabled in the National Assembly on the last day of the spring 2006 parliamentary session and became law on December 13, 2006. Quebec's Social Affairs Committee heard from more than 100 organizations and individuals that made written submissions in response to the White Paper. (10) I will from time to time make reference to some of these submissions. (11) It is worth noting that the Supreme Court's decision rests on the existence of unreasonable wait times, which threaten the right to life and to personal security guaranteed in section 1 of the Quebec Charter. (12) Therefore, the government had the opportunity to address wait times directly. It had three possible models at its disposal to ensure the right to health care, notably with respect to the problem of wait lists. Before examining the Quebec response more closely, it is useful to consider these three models briefly. 2. Three Models of Patients Rights Protection Canadians' concerns about the quality and accessibility of health care services are real and demand a response. …
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,016 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».