The Impact of Reimbursement Systems on Occupational Therapy Practice in Canada and the United States of America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different funding and cost-control mechanisms in Canada and the United States of America (USA) have a powerful influence on occupational therapy practice in each country. Canada's public health insurance system emphasizes access to health care services based on medical need. Costs are controlled at the provincial government level by limiting the capacity of facilities and personnel. Occupational therapists in publicly-funded settings have considerable professional autonomy to use occupational therapy theoretical models and to be client-centred. The measurement of outcomes is not always required and the interventions of individual occupational therapists are infrequently scrutinized. The USA has no universal, publicly-funded, comprehensive health insurance. Health care policies are driven by financial priorities and cost control occurs at the service delivery level. Insurance companies define the scope of occupational therapy practice by identifying what services they will pay for and they scrutinize occupational therapy interventions. The emphasis on effectiveness and efficiency leads to critical examination of interventions by therapists. Canadian occupational therapists can learn much from their colleagues in the USA in this area.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".