Valutazione dell’impatto delle politiche del prezzo di riferimento sul mercato degli H2-antagonisti nella British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study we assess the implementation and impact of reference-based pricing (RBP) in British Columbia (BC), Canada, and other OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) jurisdictions within an evaluative framework. This was accomplished by conducting a review of prior studies and an analysis of secondary utilization and cost data. Our review of previous work found the introduction of RBP in other OECD jurisdictions was followed by a temporary reduction in pharmaceutical expenditure growth but the rate of growth soon returned to those of previous years. Early results from the BC experience show similar declines in expenditures within reference drug categories, but it remains to be seen if this will continue in the long term. Although early results suggest RBP in BC may be achieving its goals, more work is needed before it can be declared a success. A more balanced evaluation will need to address nonmonetary issues such as impact on the quality of patient care or extent of cost shifting to other areas of the health system. The policy questions raised in this study indicate decision makers should be cautious when thinking of any wider application of referencebased pricing.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".