The time has come to fix the Non-Insured Health Benefits (NIHB) program
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In April 2015, the Auditor General of Canada released a report looking at the deplorable delivery of health care services in remote First Nations communities. The poor state of health care delivery to First Nations people in Canada should come as no surprise to pharmacists or any other health provider, regardless of the community setting. For many years, pharmacists and provincial pharmacy associations have raised concerns and issues with the operation of the Non-Insured Health Benefits (NIHB) program, the federal program that delivers health care to Canada’s First Nations people. These problems have included inadequate communication of policy changes, lack of standardized scope of practice and compensation models, lack of clarity regarding patient coverage benefits, inadequate travel arrangements and many others. Too many pharmacists have said that they are often put in the position of having to explain NIHB policy details or changes that should rightfully be communicated by NIHB themselves. Pharmacists have not been alone in raising concerns with NIHB. Many other health providers have raised similar and additional concerns as those expressed by pharmacists, and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) has been particularly vocal in raising its concerns with the program. This is why in 2014, the federal Minister of Health and the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations announced a full-scale review of the NIHB program. The purpose of this review, which is expected to last until 2017, is to conduct a thorough examination of NIHB operations and policies with the expectation of significant program reform. In spring 2015, the working group tasked with conducting this review (comprising representatives from AFN and the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch of Health Canada) issued a Critical Path document identifying the major sectors and issues that the review will address; pharmacy has been identified as one of the key sectors slated for specific examination starting in December 2015. In 2014, the Canadian Pharmacists Association (CPhA) brought together and has since led a coalition of 8 national health provider organizations looking to be engaged in the NIHB review. As a result of this leadership, the review has agreed that the perspective of health provider groups needs to be considered as part of this review process. CPhA has also engaged with provincial pharmacy associations to better understand their specific concerns and issues with NIHB from a pharmacy perspective and has communicated those concerns to the AFN. Regarding next steps, the health provider organizations, including CPhA, have agreed to consult individually with their own members to get thoughts and feedback on measures that could be taken to improve NIHB policy and operation. This feedback is expected to be collected over the summer and early fall of 2015 and will help inform the process moving forward, including the examination of pharmacy-specific issues. The challenges facing NIHB and delivery of health care to First Nations people in Canada are daunting, and therefore this process will take time. But with health outcomes that are significantly lower than the average Canadian, First Nations people in Canada should be a priority population when it comes to improving the delivery of health care in Canada. The voices of pharmacists and other health providers as part of this review will provide an invaluable contribution, as will their ongoing efforts to deliver improved day-to-day care. CPhA looks forward to continuing to lead health providers in adding their voices to this process. ■
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 | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,011 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 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 ».