Patient or Consumer: Implications for the Canadian Health Care System
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Rationale: Patient comes from the Latin word 'patientem' meaning suffer. It is defined as a person having or showing patience, a person receiving (or registered to receive) medical treatment. Consumer comes from the Latin word 'consumere' which means to take completely. In economics a consumer uses a good to satisfy his wants. What are the implications of the use of these two terms in the dynamic health care market in Canada? Objective: The objective of this paper is to examine the literature on this topic and address the implications of framing health care users as either 'patient' or 'consumer' on the health care landscape in Canada. Methodology: The literature on the implications of using the terms patient or consumer was searched in Medline. The references of appropriate articles were also searched. The Romanow, Mazankowski, and Kirby Reports commissioned by governments in Canada were also examined to identify the relevant context for the publicly funded Canadian health care system. Finally, the use of the terms patient and consumer in the literature on the debate over private and public health care in Canada was examined. Results: The literature indicates consumer can mean autonomous decision-maker or purchaser. The first meaning has implications in health care. Can the autonomy of a patient be different than the autonomy of a consumer? Do consumers have different than patients? The players in the health care market can also have different incentives from those in other markets. The framing of patient versus consumer also has implications for the role of physicians. Physicians are not simply sellers of healthcare; they have professional and ethical obligations that providers in other markets do not have. A producer's goal is to maximize profit and has no ethical obligation to act with consumers' best interests in mind. This framing also has implications at a policy level in health care. The Romanow, Mazankowski, and Kirby Reports are all attempts at addressing this shift in the context of the Canadian health care system. The Kirby Report directly addresses the issue of patient/consumer rights in health care. It indicates that the current prohibition on private financing and supplementary private insurance may be contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In 2005, an unprecedented case that made this claim was decided upon by the Supreme Court of Canada. The case dealt with patients' inability to receive timely care and giving patients more options; a case of instilling more consumer 'rights' in the market for health care services. Conclusion: Over the past four decades there has been a gradual shift from consistently referring to those who are under the care of medical professionals as patients to sometimes referring to them as consumers of health care. With this change has come a recognition of the incentives implied by these terms and their effects on the actions of individuals and the health care market. Concurrently and perhaps not coincidentally, some have called for more private involvement in the health care market in Canada.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,016 | 0,056 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,013 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,031 | 0,039 |
| Communication savante | 0,023 | 0,011 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,018 | 0,010 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,018 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».