MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2528850736 · doi:10.55016/ojs/sppp.v9i1.42592

Tax-Assisted Approaches for Helping Canadians Meet Out-of-Pocket Health-Care Costs

2016· article· en· W2528850736 sur OpenAlexafffund
J.C. Herbert Emery

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe School of Public Policy Publications · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
ThématiqueHealthcare Policy and Management
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesHealth Canada
Mots-clésBusinessHealth careNursingPublic economicsMedicineEconomicsEconomic growth

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Canadians are not saving for the inevitable costs of drugs and long-term care which they will have to pay for out of pocket in their old age, and these costs could potentially be financially devastating for them. Later in life, when out-of-pocket health-care costs mount, those who previously enjoyed the security of a workplace insurance plan to cover such expenses will face a grim financial reality. Many aspects of care for older Canadians aren’t covered by this country’s single-payer health-care system. Besides prescription drugs, these include management of chronic conditions by ancillary health professionals, home care, long-term care, and dental and vision care. Statistics show that in 2012, Canadians’ private spending on health care totaled $60 billion, with private health insurance covering $24.5 billion of that amount. Coverage of health-care costs that don’t fall under Medicare’s purview is at present rather piecemeal. The non-refundable federal Medical Expense Tax Credit covers expenses only after the three-per-cent minimum, or first $2,171, of out-of-pocket costs have been paid by the individual. The Disability Tax Credit is available to those with a certified chronic disability, and these individuals are eligible for further support via the Registered Disability Savings Plan. A Caregiver Tax Credit is also available. The federal government has a golden opportunity to provide an incentive for Canadians to set aside money to pay not only for the often catastrophic medical and drug costs that can come with aging, but also to save so they can afford long-term care, or purchase private health insurance. Too many Canadians, unfortunately, believe that the federal government picks up the tab for long-term care. In fact, provincial subsidies are provided on a means-testing basis, thus leaving many better-off Canadians in the lurch when they can no longer live alone and must make the transition to long-term care. Providing more generous tax treatment of current and future out-of-pocket health costs, including insurance premiums, is an obvious way for the federal government to support Canadians to meet their health care needs and improve their well-being. Two existing vehicles can play an essential part of this plan. The government can change the currently non-refundable Medical Expenses Tax Credit and the refundable Medical Expenses Supplement so that out-ofpocket health-care costs are eligible from the first dollar. This would place no added burden on government if the exemption of employer-provided health benefits from employees’ taxable income were removed. Making an altered METC available to Canadians who pay their out-of-pocket costs from a registered health savings vehicle, which could be created within an RRSP to avoid extra administrative burdens, would provide them with an incentive to save. They could then either self-insure for future out-of-pocket health costs, or purchase private health insurance. A grant component could be added for lower-income families to make such savings incentives more widely diffuse. Treating health benefits as taxable income subject to the modified Medical Expenses Tax Credit would address efficiency and equity issues with the existing tax treatments of health-care costs while extending tax assistance for out-of-pocket costs to more of the population. When the onus for decision making about payments and insurance purchases is placed on consumers, cost containment in health care and quality improvement incentives naturally follow.

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)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,115
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,263

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,021
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0120,003
Communication savante0,0070,003
Science ouverte0,0030,006
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0480,006

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 Opus0,182
Tête enseignante GPT0,325
Écart entre enseignants0,144 · 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'étudeSans objet
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

Citations1
Publié2016
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe School of Public Policy PublicationsMême sujetHealthcare Policy and ManagementTravaux en français237 207