MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316024202 · doi:10.1177/171516350413700703

Interprovincial Variation in Access to Publicly Funded Pharmaceuticals

2004· article· en· W2316024202 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kara MacDonald, Ken Potvin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormularyListing (finance)ReimbursementGeographyMedical prescriptionMedicineGovernment (linguistics)PaymentNoticeHealth careFamily medicinePolitical scienceBusinessFinanceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Government-funded drug programs provide prescription medications for many Canadian residents, including senior citizens and social assistance recipients. Pharmaceuticals available for beneficiaries are typically listed in federal, provincial, and territorial formularies. We analyzed six Canadian drug formularies (for the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Quebec) and report the extent of interprovincial variation in Canadians' access to publicly funded pharmaceuticals at the chemical subgroup (CSG) level of the World Health Organization Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (WHO ATC) classification system. Methods: A database profiling provincial formulary listings of CSGs was compiled to enable a cross-sectional analysis of drug benefits at a clinically meaningful level. The comprehensiveness of provincial drug reimbursement plans was evaluated in a quantitative comparison of CSGs. Therapeutic distribution of CSGs within anatomical main groups of the WHO ATC classification system was also investigated. Interprovincial formulary agreement of CSG listings (full, restricted, or not listed) was determined on the basis of kappa coefficients. Results: British Columbia and Nova Scotia provided residents with access to the greatest number of full-listing CSGs, 336 each. Manitoba had the fewest full-listing CSGs, 268. Kappa coefficients, representing agreement in provincial listing decisions, ranged from 0.23 (between British Columbia and Quebec) to 0.45 (between Alberta and Manitoba). All of these coefficients represent a fair-to-poor level of interprovincial agreement in CSG listing status. Conclusion: A large degree of variation is present in Canadian provincial drug formularies, even at the CSG level. This reflects differences in provincial listing decisions and has therapeutic implications for patients, in that there is differential access to entire categories of drug products across provincial drug plans.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.376
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.069 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du CanadaSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207