Trends in out-of-pocket health care expenditures in Canada, by household income, 1997 to 2009.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canadian households are spending an increasing share of their household income on health care not covered by public plans. This study investigates trends in out-of-pocket expenditures for health care services and products by household income quintile from 1997 to 2009. DATA AND METHODS: Biennial estimates from the Survey of Household Spending between 1997 and 2009 were used to examine changes in out-of-pocket health care expenditures, by household income quintile. The statistical significance of these changes was assessed using linear and logistic regression. RESULTS: In 2009, the percentage of after-tax household income spent on health care among low-income households (5.7%) was nearly twice that of high-income households (2.6%). Approximately 40% of households in the two lowest income quintiles spent more than 5% of their total after-tax income on health care services and products, compared with 14% of households in the highest income quintile. The increase in spending between 1997 and 2009 was greatest for households in the lowest income quintile (63%). INTERPRETATION: Out-of-pocket health care expenditures have increased for households in all income quintiles, but the relative increase was greatest among households in lower income quintiles.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".