MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W214260950

Defining Medical Necessity: Challenges and Implications

2002· article· en· W214260950 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Glenn Griener

Notice bibliographique

RevueDigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · 2002
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
ThématiqueHealthcare Policy and Management
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAmbiguitySet (abstract data type)Health careGovernment (linguistics)Public relationsLaw and economicsMedicinePolitical scienceSociologyLawComputer science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction The concept of necessary services is deeply imbedded in the Canadian medicare system, despite the fact that it seems to defy clear analysis. Coming to grips with this concept seems crucial to the sustainability of the system. Some commentators are concerned that the rapid development of new, and increasingly expensive, therapies will bankrupt any government that attempts to pay for all services deemed to be necessary. Others cite the fact that medications prescribed by physicians are not insured as inescapable evidence that the system needs expansion because it already is already failing to meet its promise of providing necessary therapy to all Canadians. In this brief paper I will take a critical look at the different ways the concept of medical is used, and the work it does. I will focus, in turn, on each of the terms that make up the concept. My aim is not to provide the complete conceptual analysis which has eluded so many others. Instead I hope to illuminate the challenges that must be met if the concept is to continue to be useful in health care planning. I. The Ambiguity of Medical Necessity The term medically necessary suggests how we decide that a treatment is necessary. Determinations of necessity are made by practitioners. This is clearest in the individual case where a doctor judges whether any treatment is necessary for this patient. A system set up in this manner puts great power into the hands of physicians - power over the patient and over the health care system. (1) The patient's access to government-funded services is controlled by her physician. The overall costs of the system are greatly influenced by these judgments. To say that a service is necessary is also symbolically important: it is to say that the service is a necessity of a particularly important sort. An individual's necessity has a particularly strong claim on the public imagination. In the public mind necessity is in a class by itself, separate from any other necessity one might identify. It is a necessity which should not go unmet, even in an era of reduced government involvement is the provision of social services. If the government has an obligation to provide for any of the needs of its citizens, it surely has an obligation to meet needs. Any shift to a less evocative word risks losing this support for public payment. II. The Beguiling Simplicity of Medical Necessity Much of the discussion of necessity focuses on separating what is necessary from what is optional or elective. The analysis tries to distinguish people's genuine needs from their mere desires. Given that the patient has been accurately diagnosed as suffering from a condition (be it a crooked nose, infertility or erectile dysfunction), the question becomes: is it necessary for the condition to be treated? The very point of drawing this distinction is to decide whether treatment should be paid for out of the public purse. If only we can find the boundary between the necessary and the optional, we will have found a natural place to set the limit on what treatments are insured services. While most people are willing to help others meet their genuine needs through a publicly funded system, fewer feel any obligation to help others satisfy all of their desires. However, the move from the diagnosis of a condition needing treatment to an entitlement to insurance coverage for a treatment is often made too quickly. The fact that an individual has a need, even a diagnosed one, does not entail that the provincial health care plan has an obligation to pay for a particular treatment, or for any treatment at all. Sometimes an obvious need exists but, unfortunately, science has no effective treatment to offer. Imagine a patient who suffers from a life-threatening disease for which no proven therapy exists. …

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,028
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,084
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,313

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0280,043
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0070,006
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0180,126
Communication savante0,0200,031
Science ouverte0,0060,016
Intégrité de la recherche0,0180,025
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0090,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,037
Tête enseignante GPT0,200
Écart entre enseignants0,163 · 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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2002
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library)Même sujetHealthcare Policy and ManagementTravaux en français237 207