ASSESSING ALTERNATIVE FINANCING METHODS FOR THE CANADIAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN VIEW OF POPULATION AGING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cost of the Canadian health care system is approximately 10% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Survey-evidence suggests that Canadians do not wish to have additional funds spent on health care but believe that the system should be able to deliver better quality care. Due to low fertility rates and increasing life expectancy, the Canadian population is aging. Over the next 25 years, the dependency ratio will increase, primarily due to the aging of the “baby boom generation” 2. This will place twofold cost pressures on governments responsible for maintaining the health care system: 1) As a consequence of increased life expectancy, on average, Canadians will have a longer period of health care consumption. Although age-specific cost may not increase, with an aging population aggregate annual health care expenditures are expected to increase. 2) The dependency ratio is a proxy for the ability of the population to support itself. The increasing dependency rate may result in a slowdown in GDP growth, given constant technology. In Section I, this paper attempts to quantify these factors. A single measure combining cost and quality is developed to demonstrate the magnitude of the challenge. In Section II, this paper examines a number of different approaches to health care financing including user fees and alternative compensation methods for physicians. The paper highlights documented information from Canada and international experience on the implementation issues involved. The paper evaluates the desirability of implementing these approaches in Canada.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".