MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2991952383

The Crown's Right of Recovery Act

2010· article· en· W2991952383 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jacob Shelley

Notice bibliographique

RevueHealth law review · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCanadian Policy and Governance
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLegislationContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)Health careLawBusinessPolitical scienceHistory
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction The government of Alberta recently passed the Crown's Right of Recovery Act (1) (the Act), which will enable the Province to recover the costs of health services from automobile accidents, convicted persons, and, perhaps most significantly, tobacco manufacturers. Alberta's legislation received Royal Assent in November of 2009. It is the second last province to enact legislation that enables the provincial government to litigate against tobacco manufacturers in order to recoup health care costs. (2) Over the last several decades, tobacco litigation has had a steadfast presence in the courts, both in Canada and internationally. Health care cost recovery is the latest and, arguably, most successful, trend in tobacco litigation. The Act has already garnered some attention, but not for its attempt to recover costs from tobacco manufacturers. (3) There has been little discussion concerning the power the Act confers upon the province of Alberta to sue tobacco companies. This may be a reflection of the fact that suing tobacco companies to recover health care costs, and the controversy that comes with such litigation, is old news. Alberta's legislation was preceded over a decade earlier by legislation in British Columbia. (4) It may also reflect the growing recognition in society that tobacco use is associated with increased health care costs, even for non-smokers. The following article intends to situate the Act within the context of tobacco litigation, particularly as it pertains to the state's right of recovery. It will begin with a brief examination of the Act before situating it within the broader context of right of recovery legislation and litigation. This will include a discussion of the origin and development of right of recovery statutes, the challenges and critiques that right of recovery statutes face, and of some of the possible outcomes and issues associated with litigation. The Crown's Right of Recovery Act In many respects, the Crown's Right of Recovery Act is identical to its predecessor in British Columbia, the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. (5) The Supreme Court of Canada's ruling that British Columbia's legislation is constitutional (6) is undoubtedly the reason why Alberta and the majority of provinces have adopted legislation that is virtually identical. In light of the similarities, and the fact that British Columbia's legislation has been subject to considerable attention in the courts and in the literature, it is unnecessary to thoroughly review Alberta's legislation. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to highlight some its key provisions. The Act extends to the province of Alberta a direct and distinct action against a manufacturer to recover the Crown's cost of health services caused or contributed to by a tobacco-related wrong (s. 42(1)). The cost of health services is defined as the sum of the total expenditure by the province for health services provided for insured persons as well as the estimated expenditures that could be reasonably expected will be provided to insured persons that have resulted from tobacco-related disease or the risk of tobacco-related disease (s. 41(1)(a)). The term 'health services', in turn, is broadly defined and includes, among other things, in- and out-patient services, services as defined in Alberta Health Care insurance Act, and public health services. The parties that the province can seek recovery from are considered manufacturers. Under the Act, manufacturers include any person who manufactures or has manufactured a tobacco (s. 41(1)(i). This definition includes, among others, persons who cause the manufacturing of tobacco products (s. 41(1)(i)(i)), derive at least 10% of revenues from the manufacture or promotion of tobacco products (s. 41(1)(i)(ii)), or engage in or cause others to engage in the promotion of a tobacco product (s. 41(1)(i)(iii)). The legislation does not specifically address what is meant by disease. …

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)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,011
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: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,966
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,447

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,011
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0100,010
Communication savante0,0120,002
Science ouverte0,0030,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0160,009
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0230,006

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 Opus0,026
Tête enseignante GPT0,368
Écart entre enseignants0,342 · 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
GenreAutre

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

En bref

Citations0
Publié2010
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHealth law reviewMême sujetCanadian Policy and GovernanceTravaux en français237 207