MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983801622 · doi:10.3821/145.5.cpj209b

Reimbursement model for pharmacy services takes effect in Alberta

2012· article· en· W1983801622 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kathie Lynas

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReimbursementPharmacyBusinessFamily medicineMedicineEconomicsHealth careEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After a lengthy period of negotiations with the province's pharmacists, the Alberta government has implemented a reimbursement model for 7 pharmacy services. The new framework took effect July 1, 2012. On that date, the province also brought in reductions to generic pricing to 35% of the equivalent brand price. Both changes reflect “an important transition in the funding model for community pharmacy,” said the president of the Alberta Pharmacists' Association (RxA) in a letter to Alberta pharmacists. “Although we expect the transition to be difficult, RxA has used these changes as an opportunity to build a bright future for the profession that supports the role of the pharmacist in providing care to Albertans.” Pharmacists in Alberta have had an expanded scope of practice for most of the services since 2007. Under the new model, they are to be reimbursed for such services as renewing and adapting prescriptions, prescribing in an emergency, administration of drugs by injection, creation of comprehensive care plans and medication management. The province is also providing a remote access grant for pharmacies, committing to spend $15.9 million over the next 3 years to help support pharmacies in remote communities.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.786

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.001
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du CanadaSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207