Three Policy Issues in Deciding the Cost of Nursing Home Care: Provincial Differences and How They Influence Elderly Couples' Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nursing home care is subsidized in all Canadian provinces, but residents must personally contribute to the cost. This paper explores policy issues that have led to differences in costs of nursing home care among provinces, and how policy and cost differences influence the experiences of married couples when one spouse requires nursing home care. The paper is based on a multiple-case study of three Canadian provinces, each of which had a different system for determining personal contributions to the cost of care. Cross-case analysis of payment systems showed that provinces addressed three main policy issues in determining the cost of care: (a) what costs should be the responsibility of nursing home residents, (b) how subsidies should be determined and (c) how community-dwelling spouses of nursing home residents should be assured of an adequate income. In provinces with policies that resulted in higher care costs to couples and lower amounts of income and assets available to the community-dwelling spouses, study participants described reduced discretionary spending, increased financial concerns and perceptions of system unfairness. This paper discusses the implications of these three policy issues and recent related changes to provincial policies.
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 | 0.000 | 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".