Capitation and Primary Care in Canada: Financial Incentives and the Evolution of Health Service Organizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alternative approaches to the funding, organization, and delivery of primary care have been the subject of ongoing discussion and debate in many industrialized nations for many years. One common recommendation has been to use capitation, as opposed to fee-for-service, as the payment method for physicians. In this study the authors use data from interviews with physicians and Ministry of Health officials to trace the evolution of Ontario's Health Service Organization (HSO) program, the only program of capitation-funded physician care in Canada. The program has developed in three phases: formation in the early 1970s, expansion in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, and restructuring in the 1990s. The analysis focuses on the perceptions and actions of policymakers and physicians who became involved with the program at different points in its evolution, and identifies how they perceived and responded to the financial incentives that were introduced to promote the program. This case study allows an examination of the shifting objectives, communications, perceptions, and responses of policymakers and stakeholders in changing contexts over a period of more than 20 years. The long history of the HSO program provides the opportunity to examine the factors that can cause financial incentives to go awry. The authors suggest how this case study offers lessons for financial incentive policymaking.
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) | 0.000 | 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".