Provincial Disparities of Growth Hormone Coverage for Young Adult Survivors of Paediatric Brain Tumours across Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Young adult survivors of paediatric brain tumours (PBTs) who have been treated with radiation therapy will likely be severely growth hormone-deficient when retested at the achievement of final height. Growth hormone replacement therapy (GHRT) is administered to treat growth hormone deficiency (GHD). Public drug coverage for GHRT falls under the responsibility of provincial governments across Canada. This study sought to determine the extent of public drug coverage and cost in each Canadian province for GHRT to treat GHD during adulthood for young adult survivors of PBTs. METHODS: Data were collected from provincial government resources and drug formularies from 2012-2013 on the extent of coverage for GHRT based on a clinical case scenario representative of a young adult survivor of a PBT with childhood-onset radiation-induced GHD, the ingredient cost for GHRT and the applicable provincial public drug plan cost-sharing policies. A model was then created to simulate out-of-pocket costs incurred by a young adult male and a young adult female survivor of a PBT for one year of GHRT in each province with applicable cost-sharing arrangements and levels of low annual individual total income that best represent the majority of young adult survivors of PBTs. Out-of-pocket costs were expressed as a percentage of annual income. Comparisons were made between provinces descriptively, and variation among provinces was summarized statistically. RESULTS: Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador provide coverage for GHD during adulthood on a case-by-case basis, while British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island provide no coverage. The percentage of annual income to fund GHRT across the provinces without public coverage ranged from 14.4% to 25.5% for males and 21.5% to 38.3% for females, and with public coverage was 0.0% to 4.1% for males and 0.0% to 5.0% for females. INTERPRETATION: There are considerable out-of-pocket costs and variation in coverage provided by provincial public drug plans to fund GHRT for young adult survivors of PBTs with GHD. The implementation of a national drug formulary could potentially prevent undue financial hardship and remove disparities resulting from variations in provincial drug plans.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".