Policy choice or economic fundamentals: what drives the public–private health expenditure balance in Canada?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The public share of Canadian total health expenditure declined between 1975 and 2005 but categories such as physicians stayed constant while drugs, other institutions, and capital spending saw increases. Regressions find the key determinants of the public share to be: the relative price of health care, per capita income, federal transfers, proportion of population over age 65, provincial dummy variables, political parties, the onset of the Canada Health Act and the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST), and a time trend invoking technological change. Increasing income inequality is not a factor eroding the public share. Moreover, provinces governed by center-left parties are associated with lower public shares in the physician and other health professional categories. The significance of variables like the Canada Health and Social Transfer, the Canada Health Act and provincial differences suggest the increase in the private share of health spending since 1975 is partly the result of policy choices. As the public share has only declined from approximately 76% to 70% over 30 years, it appears the shift towards private care is one of marginal increments. Canadians remain in conflict over their health care system as they appear willing to tolerate only marginal accretions in the overall private share of health spending but accept larger changes across health expenditure categories and provincial systems.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".